I would like developer to divide armor classes for ships.

To be fair I think the health of the unit fits that well enough, no need to add a whole armor class and such.

Carking the 6th wrote:

To be fair I think the health of the unit fits that well enough, no need to add a whole armor class and such.

At least personally, I feel that current battleships are too strong against aircraft and too weak against ships.

I thought the biggest focus points were armor class and HP.

A lot could be said about naval combat. It was far more whoever could guess where someone else’s ships are at and then send planes to blow them up than it was great sea battles between huge fleets at point blank ranges. Ship to ship combat was people lobbing shells and always missing until they got lucky and one hit the other hard enough. In fact battleship focused Japan lost many naval battles against carrier focused America for that reason, as the US had more carriers and could guess where Japan’s stuff was quite easily. Thing is, this is not battleship, so simulating this in game is kinda difficult. Battleships are pretty weak against air and die to naval and attack bombers though, so I see no issue there. Them being too weak against ships is also strange as they are very powerful game wise. The health does not need to be reduced and replaced with a new armor class, as the health simulates that armor well enough.

pod_than wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

To be fair I think the health of the unit fits that well enough, no need to add a whole armor class and such.

Is that so…At least personally, I feel that current battleships are too strong against aircraft and too weak against ships.

I thought the biggest focus points were armor class and HP.

Vanrendo wrote:

pod_than wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

To be fair I think the health of the unit fits that well enough, no need to add a whole armor class and such.

Is that so…At least personally, I feel that current battleships are too strong against aircraft and too weak against ships.I thought the biggest focus points were armor class and HP.

Battleships are strong against aircraft if they have cruisers with them, against UK AI my battleship stacks survived with lvl1 cruisers against lvl1 naval bombers but the two battleships that had no AA defense perished,flip I even lost two lvl1 battleships against Algeria AI lvl2 rocket artillery and zilophone, I stationed it too close to the coast.

In other words, ①protection ( armor class ) against torpedoes launched by aircraft, and ②survivality ( HP ) to torpedoes fired by aircraft.

And ③protection and ④survivality to shells fired by ships, howitzers, etc.

Of these, battleships

①×

②△

③◯

④◯

My intention was to think that this evaluation was appropriate.

Elaborate on what would be changed then. Maybe you have a point. Thing is that we have to take into account if this all easy to code and implement in all Bytro games. From what I’ve heard from Freezy they’ve been trying to focus on that to make updates more efficient by having them across all games. Writing new code especially seems to be a taboo.

Carking the 6th wrote:

Elaborate on what would be changed then. Maybe you have a point. Thing is that we have to take into account if this all easy to code and implement in all Bytro games. From what I’ve heard from Freezy they’ve been trying to focus on that to make updates more efficient by having them across all games. Writing new code especially seems to be a taboo.

Probably, changes that involve the process of System Design rather than coding are basically taboo.

There may be some truth in that statement. It’s just that Freezy said that so that’s what I assumed. I don’t really know how game design works so I would not know to be fully honest with you.

Carking the 6th wrote:

There may be some truth in that statement. It’s just that Freezy said that so that’s what I assumed. I don’t really know how game design works so I would not know to be fully honest with you.

This is because coders barely know how to write code, but their knowledge of computer science and mathematical philosophy etc. is insufficient.

Without advice from administrators, coders end up writing spaghetti code that never completes the system, or even if they do manage to complete it, they end up impairing the scalability of the system or creating redundant code.

I totally understand everything you just said and am not an idiot who requires layman’s terms .

Anyway, depending on the level, a battleship fleet usually have over 1,000 HP when fully stacked.

On the other hand, even when fully stacked, an air wing of Naval Bombers only has around 200 to 300 damage against ships.

Moreover, this is when there is no penalty due to HP reduction.

Therefore, to destroy one battleship fleet, anyone need 4-5 of her Naval Bomber air groups with full HP.

That’s not bad odds. It would only take a few hours to wipe them out, and it’s effective enough that it works out. Unrealistic? Probably. Bombers usually one or two shot battleships and that was basically it. But from a game standpoint, it gives enough time that it would take around 2 hours to wipe out the stack, which I feel is a decent enough time.

Carking the 6th wrote:

That’s not bad odds. It would only take a few hours to wipe them out, and it’s effective enough that it works out. Unrealistic? Probably. Bombers usually one or two shot battleships and that was basically it. But from a game standpoint, it gives enough time that it would take around 2 hours to wipe out the stack, which I feel is a decent enough time.

Even 7 dive bombers called Stuka overwhelming ships in the battles of the Mediterranean.

Although military ships side was forced to take heroic or even sacrificial operations to protect transport ships...

Look at it game wise. Yes, irl planes and carriers dominated warfare, no if and or buts about it. But game wise? Would it really be feasible to implement that and make a unit practically useless? Gotta have balanced and uses in order to make every unit in the game usable.

Carking the 6th wrote:

Look at it game wise. Yes, irl planes and carriers dominated warfare, no if and or buts about it. But game wise? Would it really be feasible to implement that and make a unit practically useless? Gotta have balanced and uses in order to make every unit in the game usable.

Is it useless just only because it makes it impossible to intercept aircrafts effectively?

Tactical bombers used to have a high ability to cause injury against heavily armored units such as medium tanks also.

In ver1.5, that advantage has been lost, so is it already “useless”?

Here’s the thing: Battleships are already weak against planes. Adding more of a debuff is not needed as naval bombers are rather cheap and do great damage.

Carking the 6th wrote:

Here’s the thing: Battleships are already weak against planes. Adding more of a debuff is not needed as naval bombers are rather cheap and do great damage.

pod_than wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Here’s the thing: Battleships are already weak against planes. Adding more of a debuff is not needed as naval bombers are rather cheap and do great damage.

I don't continue because if I continue to talk about it, the discussion will likely remain to fail to reach an agreement on, but I think that Battleships are strong rather than are not weak against planes yet.

It’s a plane. Do you really expect it to be as strong as a ship? Not to mention that the bombers are waayyyyy cheaper and faster made. They are made to blow up ships, not be hardy vehicles. It would make no sense to give them as much health as ship or vice versa. In reality you’ll usually have a 2-1 or more ratio and it gets a lot easier.

Carking the 6th wrote:

It’s a plane. Do you really expect it to be as strong as a ship? Not to mention that the bombers are waayyyyy cheaper and faster made. They are made to blow up ships, not be hardy vehicles. It would make no sense to give them as much health as ship or vice versa. In reality you’ll usually have a 2-1 or more ratio and it gets a lot easier.