What is the Longbow Liberator's role? Thread - Red Alert 3 Paradox mod for C&C: Red Alert 3

Beyond just the fact that it targets everything, what is the niche it fills in the Allied army?

The Longbow seems to be an oddball unit that does not seem to follow its faction's theme- which can be a good thing, and was present in the Tankbuster and Terror Drone in normal RA3, bit I'm not sure I see the niche that the Longbow needs to fill.

If the goal is to make a reload dependent surgical unit, the Vindicator seems tailor made for that role.

Admittedly the Allies have some lack of airborne anti-Infantry, but Multicopters loaded with Snipers could go so far as to completely invalidate using Infantry against the Allies, so that niche seems filled.

The anti-air capability seems just random, other than wanting it to be effective against all targets- it leaves me wondering how effective air superiority craft, which in theory should be a hard counter for it, will fair against it.

The only role left is an all-countering generalist, which doesn't seem a very positive role considering how frustrating Soviet players just spamming Twinblades and MiGs on a strong economy can be: and this unit could do it all without support, with only the weakness of having to reload.

As cool as the Longbow Liberator is, I don't see the point in it targeting everything- or at least in it being able to target everything at once.

If the Century levels bases, the Liberator levels armies. Becuase it can't target fighters, you need air superiority to use it effectively, but if you have it, the Liberator can be used to raid and wreck enemy attacks before they reach your base. Like a real-life apache.

Will this thing have medium-ish armor among helicopters then?

Unfortunately with it's missiles, I send them at buildings aswell, and they are frighteningly effective. Perhaps damage against buildings should be nerfed if they are to be played as you described?

Are Hawkers intended to counter Longbow Liberators?

I don't actually think so, Galgus. The Hawker is more of an ambush plane - it's not meant to specifically counter anything, but to capitalize on the situation at hand and rely on ambushing to avoid being blown out of the sky by aerial superiority fighters.

The Hawker is the closest thing that the Confederates have to a reliable air superiority fighter- but the Hawker's ability to stand without its ambush fire-rate boost probably depends on upgrades: in my opinion a fully upgraded Hawker would easily defeat a Longbow Liberator- but its more questionable without upgrades.

The ambush secondary really only seems to help against enemy air superiority when there are few enough enemies that it can wipe them all out- especially since the Hawker runs out of ammo in the process and does not fire immediately upon ambush.

That said, I think I read that Confederate aircraft are less affected by the upgrades either way than their vehicles, which may explain why the combat vehicles as a whole seem useless compared to the aircraft as a whole.

(Albeit the Bulldog may be overly strong at the moment and the Lee needs an anti-ground range reduction badly to stop diamond countering Infantry. The M-100 seems useful and balanced atm.)

The M-100 is relatively balanced, but it would be nice if it actually shot without being ordered to do so. Liberators shouldn't be able to shoot hawkers under normal circumstances and since it is tier 3 the hawker should have some upgrades. I highly doubt that a longbow-hawker fight would end up with a longbow winning so there shouldn't be a problem with balance.

Shooting stars fair better against longbows than Hawkers.

Edited by: go123452

go123452 wrote: Shooting stars fair better against longbows than Hawkers.

I agree. I NEVER build the Hawker thinking to use it as a fighter. Heck, I'd sooner use a Heroic Duster Bomber.

Protroid wrote:

go123452 wrote: Shooting stars fair better against longbows than Hawkers.

I agree. I NEVER build the Hawker thinking to use it as a fighter. Heck, I'd sooner use a Heroic Duster Bomber.

same. it's rather sad, really. it just wants to help!

go123452 wrote: Shooting stars fair better against longbows than Hawkers.

I find the things as helpful to have around, but not really reliable.

I feel much safer using Hawkers with them as support than relying entirely on them: they can be useful in a pinch.

The longbow liberator should have a massive nerf against buildings, but a massive buff against defenses, you need to take out defenses to take out armies. It could also have the role of prepraing the enemy to be century'd.

To me, the confederates seem to have very annoying aircraft, but have to use a ground force to clear the skies before using them to their fullest potential.

I think a point of it is that it is less effective against defenses.

To me the only saving grace of a Confederate combat vehicle build atm is the M-100.

Beagles seem to do either sub-Tengu or Tengu level anti-armor damage.

I like fully upgraded Rangers(oh my god) and fully upgraded Mastiffs. failing that(most likely) speed + firepower upgraded Rangers & Mastiffs can take care of everything but Longbow Liberators.

the Beagle does very well for a $700 tank. it's even less expensive than the Tengu!

Edited by: Nukeknockout

Do the upgrades actually affect them?

I did an extensive test with the Beagle and found no difference with any of the upgrades, while comparing it to a fellow tester's unupgraded Beagle.

I feel a psychological effect may be in play.

Pshaw, Galgus, you're doing it wrong. That's the Allied way of doing things!

Forget this whole "hypothesize, test, form conclusions" thing. Go with your gut! FEEL that the Beagle gets better!

....but in all seriousness, this is still about the Liberator, I believe. Although....

How does the Allied Liberator compare to the Confed Liberator?

True, I was off-topic: but its not as if there are none who reject the Allies out of a logical opinion.

(Well, and I am a former Allied commander.)

I think the two things are different beasts- Mk 1 is currently famous for (quickly) killing things out of their retaliation range while the Mk 2 is more up-close and personal.

(It felt a bit wrong using the Mk 1 on a turncoat Confederate navy being "protected" by Frigates- which never got a shot off.)

Edited by: Galgus

Mk1 is famous for being more OP then the M100 never was.

End of story.

It will probably get better with dogfighting changes, albeit I generally think that high range units like it are dangerous to balance due to firing beyond retaliation range.

The MK1 should be a weaker, stealthier liberator, not aerial artillery.

I don't really see how it would be stealthier other than its missiles being dodge-able.

I guess the closer it would get the more accurate it would be- interesting trade-off.

Does the liberator get PAWI'd?

The MK1 at least does.

(I wonder if a unit quote could be the pun "Number one pilot!" or something like that.)

Edited by: Galgus

Nope. The Liberator doesn't get PAWIed. It PAWIs itself.

Edited by: go123452