Bunkers

I think we should view the problem from another angle. Instead of increasing fortifications' effect against rockets, we should decrease rockets' efficiency. Rockets were not really efficient during WW2. They only killed 3,000 people in London, and even though hundreds were launched, many went off target. I think the best idea is giving rockets a 50% chance of hitting the target city. The other 50% would be the rockets that went off target. They should hit the outskirts of the city, therefore not causing so much damage.

Yeah that's another possible approach Pablo.

invisibleman wrote:

No if both people are really active then the rocket user is more likely to win, or if the rocket user comes on less but at the right time he can win. As I mentioned sometimes the enemy blasting rockets are the last one you can go after or they are on the other side of the map. A person can build up a decent amount of rockets before 30 days. So you also are admitting the only way to stop a rocket user is by preventing them from making them in the first place. That would prove the point for needing a bunker/shelter. Yes you can rush rush rush but not always. Water crossing can be an issue to in that. The way the games can go if have active enemies, 30 days isn't all that late any more. If you are beating people in a week to two weeks, your enemies must be really inactive or suiciding their own troops. To tell me the best under ground shelter that was used in ww2 was one that can fail by jumping on it, is ridiculous. Germany had huge concrete shelters plenty far underground. Also there was secret/not so secret American underground shelters. I find it hard to believe that United Kingdom didn't have any to protect their highest up in the command. Against something like a weaker rocket yes, not against ATOM Bombs no but how many ATOM Bombs were used in ww2? 2 and that was towards the end of the war. Not all games are going to be against people that are not active at all.

Because Rockets are a single use weapon and need numbers to defeat actual troops they are good for softening up enemy troops but not to destroy them. Rockets also have no defense so if the enemy attacks your rockets they will destroy them. I'd also like to mention that while they focus on rockets im getting Heavy Tanks and Mechanized Inf.

I also get rockets but i dont focus on getting them first to me rockets are used to weaken a countries industry. If the enemy has a lot of planes hit their airfield same with rockets. If ima attack a person with lots of rockets. Do you really think ima let them use them? Ill bombard or bomb all their airfields in a surprised attack. Now how effective are Rockets if you can't use them?

P.s.

I disagree with having these bunkers on roads and beaches. If they require you to man them with actual troops then maybe. But implementing these bunkers into the game will make everyone bunker down and not invade other nations then what does this game become whoever has the most rockets or nukes?

It just makes the game to much like S1914. Where the person with the most Arty wins or Railguns.

The only thing i seems good is slowing down troops but not hurting them. Forts are already in the game which makes deters attackers already why would we need more defensive buildings other for people who want to Turtle?

I agree with Emp. rockets are a new weapon in WW2 and no one was ready for it, like I said before you need to be fast, it's going to be an arms race, if you don't want to face rockets for whatever reason just defeat your enemy immediately.

Emperor Lelouch wrote:

invisibleman wrote:

No if both people are really active then the rocket user is more likely to win, or if the rocket user comes on less but at the right time he can win. As I mentioned sometimes the enemy blasting rockets are the last one you can go after or they are on the other side of the map. A person can build up a decent amount of rockets before 30 days. So you also are admitting the only way to stop a rocket user is by preventing them from making them in the first place. That would prove the point for needing a bunker/shelter. Yes you can rush rush rush but not always. Water crossing can be an issue to in that. The way the games can go if have active enemies, 30 days isn't all that late any more. If you are beating people in a week to two weeks, your enemies must be really inactive or suiciding their own troops. To tell me the best under ground shelter that was used in ww2 was one that can fail by jumping on it, is ridiculous. Germany had huge concrete shelters plenty far underground. Also there was secret/not so secret American underground shelters. I find it hard to believe that United Kingdom didn't have any to protect their highest up in the command. Against something like a weaker rocket yes, not against ATOM Bombs no but how many ATOM Bombs were used in ww2? 2 and that was towards the end of the war. Not all games are going to be against people that are not active at all.

Rockets are not a good at attacking Troops. The only rockets im afraid of are Atom bombs or nukes. Regular rockets are supposed to be used against cities or defenses. Trust me if your bent on trying to get lvl 4 Rockets as your main weapon against your enemies. Show them to me. Because rockets do not track troops movements once fired they stay to that spot. So you can dodge rockets easily. Also the resources and time spent on researching rockets gives people like me the upper hand.

Because Rockets are a single use weapon and need numbers to defeat actual troops they are good for softening up enemy troops but not to destroy them. Rockets also have no defense so if the enemy attacks your rockets they will destroy them. I'd also like to mention that while they focus on rockets im getting Heavy Tanks and Mechanized Inf.

I also get rockets but i dont focus on getting them first to me rockets are used to weaken a countries industry. If the enemy has a lot of planes hit their airfield same with rockets. If ima attack a person with lots of rockets. Do you really think ima let them use them? Ill bombard or bomb all their airfields in a surprised attack. Now how effective are Rockets if you can't use them?

P.s.

I disagree with having these bunkers on roads and beaches. If they require you to man them with actual troops then maybe. But implementing these bunkers into the game will make everyone bunker down and not invade other nations then what does this game become whoever has the most rockets or nukes?

It just makes the game to much like S1914. Where the person with the most Arty wins or Railguns.

The only thing i seems good is slowing down troops but not hurting them. Forts are already in the game which makes deters attackers already why would we need more defensive buildings other for people who want to Turtle?

Also not every game will be so quick and fast if you have mostly active enemies. Plus it takes hours if not days to move at times. Also sometimes people attack AI before they go hitting enemies. Maps are big and sometimes it takes awhile to get clear across a map. As I mentioned already before in previous post some countries are further away developing/building rockets. If anything having not so strong of rockets would get people to attack instead of sitting building them, as suggested one should do?

...ok...last suggestion to counter rockets...try to cripple him using spies, to delay him while you ready to attack him...last option.

I have never had problems with rockets. I have never heard of people(except you) having trouble with rockets. We only fear an AI launching 200+ at the end of the game that destroys everything, which never happens. We don't care about troops, we can just build more. The only time I have EVER lost troops is when I attacked an AI once and left my troops in a city where the AI launched more or less all of its rockets at it. I lost 5 units(a mix of tanks and inf.) and I did not care, it made things easier. If someone has problems with rockets, they should rethink their strategy.

Remember they fix a bug that the rocket tracks down its target? Well they fix it, and yes rethink your strategy, rockets is more of a intimidation tool, I can give a lot of advice, but it's better to experiment yourself, after all what do you have to lose?

To be honest if you lose your army to someone who spams rockets then you deserve to lose. Your over reacting to rockets ive never seen rockets effectively take out a persons army ever. Cause they are not good . It says in the description they are not good at attack armies only causing damage to cities or infrastructure.

Rockets no longer have a in-built guideance system. I.E, will not track your troops when fired and hit them if they have changed position.

People who are mobile will be fine. Rockets are not a massive big deal so far.

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

I have never had problems with rockets. I have never heard of people(except you) having trouble with rockets.

Best bunkers in WW2 have by far been the ones built in the mountainsides, and rarely in a real war are there giant stacks of troops in a single city.... they're spread out over a wide area of corn fields, forests, hill, and therefore won't really be near city bunkers.

Best sea invasion defense is a stack of units on the beach, classic 1914 move. I can see where you can create a beach defense that delays landing by 30 minute increments. lvl 1-3... 30,60,90 minutes

The best sea defense is stick a BB with 4 destroyers or a cruiser with two destroyers where enemy troops could land. Subs work well too but only on higher levels.

I've also lost several units to rockets... so they can indeed be a pain...

Not that i think they need to be changed. But just because some of you didn't encounter issues,

doesn't mean there isn't one or others never encountered them.

They only thin i wanted changed was that the AI doesnt only build rockets, but thats done.

"The behavior of the AI has been improved: AI now builds more diverse units instead of mainly missiles, and AI has less problems when attacking."