The amphibious warfare aspect is greatly undermined in the game , with countries having more or less same amphibious capabilities.
In my view , a country that researches certain related technologies should be able to have a higher capability of performing an amphibious assault than a country not researching in this field.
Units:
Naval Infantry - Infantry tree- An infantry unit that is less vulnerable on the seas having more hp on it , its main asset is its shorter embarking/disembarking time compared to regular infantry
Assault Craft - Naval tree- A unit to be grouped with infantry , increases hp and defence stats of infantry while embarking and shortens the embarking time. The craft is however vulnerable to attacks by any naval vessels and air strikes. Assault craft carry limited number of infantry per craft
Coastal Defences- A structure that can be built on coastal provinces. Composed of bunkers, coastal artllery , pillboxes , this structure automatically opens fire on embarking troops , higher level = more damage output.
Not sure if i forgot something,in the end it really hurts to know that amphibious aspect is pretty much same as S1914
Please log in to post a reply.
Oh I've been playing for about 5 or 6 days now. Doesn't mean that I don't have a lifetime of working in strategy game design, or that I lack the skills to quickly identify well intentioned but mediocre ideas that can't be implemented effectively.
Didn't notice this. That is not why I want them. The stuff I want most are not new tanks, I want SP units, mainly the SPAA and SPA. Let me run through them.Aurave wrote:
Think about game design and the macro implications of changes to the game instead of units you want to see just because you like the WW2 era and all the different types of units involved
I want the SPAA for very a simple reason. I would hate to run into someone who plays the same way as me. I often build massive groups of tac bombers and can get around 100 kills with them from lvl 3 and up by the time they have levelled up. This is because so few people AA that you can wipe armies in a couple runs. The reason for no AA is because it is so slow. The SPAA would quickly solve this if you have something that can keep up with your fastest tanks.
I want the SPA for another very simple reason. When I attack a large country on a wide front, I like to have three army groups pushing forward. Usually it consists of tanks in the middle with support units(AA, arty, AT, inf) on the sides with a tank or two for support. The flanks general mop up rather than blitzing since they will bombard a province until all within are dead and then take it. With the SPA, this could get done a Hell of a lot faster since rather than, say, 5 hours to get to each province, it would only take half that time.
Thanks for the info, it was good to know. Good luck in your first game.
Remind me, what's an SPA unit? The SPG tank?Butter Ball Bill wrote:
I want SP units, mainly the SPAA and SPA. Let me run through them.Aurave wrote:
Think about game design and the macro implications of changes to the game instead of units you want to see just because you like the WW2 era and all the different types of units involved
A SPA is self propelled artillery while the SPG is more or less any type of SP unit but is mainly given to assault guns like the Stug series.
EDIT: An assault gun would be used for attacking fortified positions with infantry support.
Ah I see. Thanks Bill.
My pleasure.
Btw congrats on getting master. I hope Pablo can catch upButter Ball Bill wrote:
My pleasure.
Thanks! I would love to see Pablo try. He just got onto my rank and then I go up one. He is 6k points or so from becoming a master.
Haha I wish him luck thenButter Ball Bill wrote:
Thanks! I would love to see Pablo try. He just got onto my rank and then I go up one. He is 6k points or so from becoming a master.
Let's do a quick thought experiment here. Take the combat values of AC, LT. Now, get rid of the unit icon representation you have in your head for each of those groups of combat values. Now imagine the armored car was called a light tank with the appropriate graphics. And the current light tank was called a cruiser tank. The medium tank will continue being a medium tank.Butter Ball Bill wrote:
If you wish. To put it simply, they are medium tanks that are as fast as light tanks but cannot take as many hits. More fire power that can come up faster, but can not be there if MT are. Essentially for warring African and Russian plains where speed and firepower in large groups is key to quickly push on ahead.Aurave wrote:
Pray tell exactly how the difference between a medium tank and a cruiser tank IN GAMEAnyway, there is also something else important that needs to be brought in. What level are you, what is your ranking and how long have you been playing?
There you go, you have your cruiser tank.
For the most part didn't cruiser tanks very roughly evolve from light tanks into basically medium tanks during the war anyway? Their armament was pretty lacking for awhile. You can argue for strict historical accuracy and pedantically point out that this size gun was different from that gun etc, things of that nature, but again I think this translates into unit bloat in practice.
You're still wrong. Then you miss the AC, and the cruiser has better AT capabilities than the LT.
Butter Ball Bill wrote:
You're still wrong. Then you miss the AC, and the cruiser has better AT capabilities than the LT.
Isn't that one of the characteristics the cruiser has to fulfill relative to a LT? Because it does have better AT capabilities than the LT. At level 1 it would have 1.5 vs armour compared to 0.5 vs armour that the light tank has. You forgot to keep the thought experiment in mind, or I didn't make it very clear.
Yes the ac would be missing, but does it matter? I guess it all depends on what you value more as a unit name to place on collection of numbers.
The point I'm trying to make is what these units represent are ultimately irrelevant to the meta game and strategies employed to control land on the game board and win. Of course, players want to be immersed so these units are given names and graphics in a setting we can identify with and rationalize or this game wouldn't be hard to enjoy. Making somewhat accurate representations in game of real life units is required but its has to be balanced with with game play in mind. Having multiple units that largely fulfill the same tactical role with only the most marginally different of stats is unit bloat. There's not much else to say really. It's not about being right or wrong. You either see the point I'm trying to make and agree with me, focusing your unit addition wish list requests with that in mind or you simply disagree.
I disagree. I am pretty sure that a cruiser tank would be useful.
This should be implemented.
Sounds good.
Yes, this would change the game.Quasi-duck wrote:
Sounds good.
Please log in to post a reply.
