A question:
- Say I have my stack of AA and MTs, and a stack of LTs attacks it. Who will take damage first? The AAs or the MT?
4 Jul 2016, 12:29
The past is a foreign country.
Diversity of effective units
Hello all,
Love that the game has various units and muliple approaches to tactics. There is only one problem - more then 50% of those units rarely or never see play. I am looking at you rocket fighter and strat bomber in particular, but also tank destroyers and (advanced) infantry units rarely see play. Which I find a shame, because diversity keeps the game fresh.
Some suggestions on my part towards the devs - because I know you guys do tweaking. The sub got the deserved nerf bat for example.
Nerfs
1: the tac bombers.
The tac bomber situation is getting a bit silly. They are basically the arties of S1914 now. Yes, they can be countered, but only moderately if tac bombers are the main focus of a players strategy along with 1 certain other unit. Options to think about:
- Have them 'take' damage first when in a stack, or a higher % of damage distribution, say 75% of all damage done to an airplane stack goes to tacs and/or
- weaker defense against all other units or
- slightly lower attack values (say 0,5 value per level) or
- make them more expensive to either research, build, upkeep or all 3
2: Next up, the light tank
While the LT is fine on its own, its the combination with the tac bombers that makes it so deadly. The disadvantage in cities is pointless if a city is leveled by the tacs
Suggestions I have few of - because I dont think there is something wrong with the unit. Perhaps reduce speed somewhat (so ACs get more useful as well) or reduce HP by 5 points. What to nerf (or not) depends on whether you will hit the tac bomber with the nerf bat.
3: Rockets.
Need they be discussed? Keep them strategic - increase infra damage considerably, but decrease unit damage to 'nearly useless against units'. They basically are a better strategic bomber - one use or not
Buffs:
1: Strategic bombers
More damage against units - I am willing to bet no infantry garrison likes 3000 kg bombs on their barracks. Say 0,5 point per level? Maybe 0,8?
2: Mech infantry
Simple solution to make them interesting - make them infantry class. Late game units, they should be able to shine against MTs and HTs
3: Motorized infantry
Just a tiiiiiny buff compared to regular infantry in stats. Say 2,5 HP and 0,25 damage per level.
4: Tank destroyers
Buff attack value (defense value is fine) so its at least as strong as a medium tank. Reduce values against infantry and planes - making it the specialist unit it ought to be - punishing opponents who choose a solo tank strategy
5: Rocket fighter
Last but not least. I havent built a single one of those, ever. And I am not alone in this Im willing to bet. Buff their stats a LOT (say 18/1
and/or increase range (yes, not very historical, I know) and/or have multiple levels and/or make them able to shoot down lvl2+ rockets.
Edit
6: How could I forget the railgun?
Simple solution, give them a big AA buff - as it can be imagined they would have several AA units on top of the train that carries the gun. Say 2 AA points. Multiple levels also a solution?
end Edit
I dont know if this is read or passed along by/to the devs, but look at it as my non-monetary way to contribute to an excellent game, of which there isnt a single multiplayer wargame that has its equal. If there is, I havent found it.
The other units are fine, such as fighters, arties (vast improvement over S1914!, they have the role they should have) and ATs. Naval is pretty balanced now as well in my view.
The reason I wrote this Game of Thrones sized rant, is that I believe with changes like this players will see a more diverse battlefield, instead of only building 4-5 types of units (being figs/tacs, LTs and here and there some arties or infs). Maybe you can actually win with an infantry strategy for a change!
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
86 Replies
4 Jul 2016, 12:36
Either could take more or less in any given round but on average over many battles the AA will take more total HP damage because LT have better attack against infantry class.
4 Jul 2016, 14:48
Except you're wrong. lvl 3 Tacs have 6.0 damage against infantry units. AA is infantry, not armor.DxC wrote:
I guess it depends on the definition of plenty. Take lvl3 TAC vs lvl3 AA, for example.miech wrote:
I brought plenty of AAunit pwr HP build upkeep
TAC 2.5 30 30 60f 100o
AA 6.0 10 12 40f
Assuming not in mountains, on average you would need 5 AA per 4 TAC to break even.
4 Jul 2016, 15:29 (edited)
Opps, my bad. I guess I looked at the strat. Here are the correct numbers:
edit: on this second iteration I seem to have failed again. I'm editing the original here so I don't have to make another big post.
unit atk HP time upkeep
TAC 6 25 30 60f 100o
AA 6 10 12 40f
25HP / 6 = 4.16 AA
10HP / 6 = 1.66 TAC
build time for 1.66 TAC = 50 hrs
build time for 4.16 AA = 50 hrs
upkeep for 1.66 TAC = 100 food, 166 oil
upkeep for 4.16 AA = 208 food
build costs for 1.66 TAC g:2916 i:1666 o:2083 $:11666
build costs for 4.16 AA g:2083 i:2083 $:7291
4 Jul 2016, 18:40
miech wrote:
@DxC: Naturally the player doesnt become 'less good'. Unless they are a rare breed and cant do anything without their precious tacs.Its the units I criticise, not the will to win. Most people have a winning mentality in small or large amounts when playing games, so its quite natural people flock to the best tactic - I aim towards a situation that there isnt 1 tactic(al) to rule them all.
Yesterday, I encountered yet another example - I brought plenty of AA, upgraded as well, utterly useless. I wonder if I actually killed a tac or 2.
It didnt help that once I destroyed an airfield where those gazillion tacs came from, the tacs got a new 'base'. Bye bye 20-25 units. Im starting to wish back the situation 'before', where airplanes were locked at an airbase. Unrealistic? Yes. Gameplaywise? Perhaps to be favored.
Even though the new banned Czar mentioned some things here and there - I refuse to believe that Bytro keeps introducing new units for the heck of it. Why bother spending manhours, which cost a company money making a product that is useless? I like to think more positive and that those units are being introduced for people to actually use - and enrichen the experience of the game.
Well, I agree with both of you. Firstly, tac bombers do have their weakness, however they have very little checks compared to other units, like AT guns, they have great strengths, but lots of weaknesses. Where as Tac bombers are also lethal, but they have less "checks" compared to other unitsDxC wrote:
I guess it depends on the definition of plenty. Take lvl3 TAC vs lvl3 AA, for example.miech wrote:
I brought plenty of AAunit pwr HP build upkeep
TAC 2.5 30 30 60f 100o
AA 6.0 10 12 40f
Assuming not in mountains, on average you would need 5 AA per 4 TAC to break even. If in mountains multiply the AA numbers by 1.33, for example 5 -> 6.66.
30HP / 6 = 5 AA
10HP / 2.5 = 4 TAC
build time for 4 TAC = 120 hrs
build time for 5 AA = 60 hrs
upkeep for 4 TAC = 240 food, 400 oil
upkeep for 5 AA = 200 food
The numbers tell me that it shouldn't be hard to defend the TAC attack.
However, besides that I agree with miech, I think more units are needed. And I agree with critising units, like Id like to see Battleships, Battle cruisers, Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates
any
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
4 Jul 2016, 18:42
Why did you mention 3 units we already have?oceanhawk wrote:
Battleships, Battle cruisers, Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates
4 Jul 2016, 18:52
wanted to show that there are others, that needed to be added and the class...Quasi-duck wrote:
Why did you mention 3 units we already have?oceanhawk wrote:
Battleships, Battle cruisers, Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
4 Jul 2016, 19:08
Well, the CC (official usage designation for battlecruisers by the USN) are basically BB but with less armour. The frigates, well, basically they are small DD.oceanhawk wrote:
wanted to show that there are others, that needed to be added and the class...
4 Jul 2016, 19:20
Yea, we know..Quasi-duck wrote:
Well, the CC (official usage designation for battlecruisers by the USN) are basically BB but with less armour. The frigates, well, basically they are small DD.oceanhawk wrote:
wanted to show that there are others, that needed to be added and the class...
still, Id like to see CC and make cruisers more effective
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
4 Jul 2016, 20:35
still wrong - Tacs only have 25 HP - not 30 
4 Jul 2016, 20:59
and the build costs for 5 AAA seems to be incomplete?wildL SPQR wrote:
still wrong - Tacs only have 25 HP - not 30
5 Jul 2016, 01:30
Gah!wildL SPQR wrote:
still wrong - Tacs only have 25 HP - not 30
lol. well I think we all get the idea. Anyway, that would make the ratio TAC:1.66 AA:4.16. Although it is regretful that I used the wrong numbers for TAC, my main intention was to address miech's statement that he "brought plenty of AA". It is pretty straight forward to do a few calculations to get a better handle on what you might need and whether or not it's feasible.5 Jul 2016, 01:45
Well, I'm just a big pile of error it seems. For 4.16 AA build costs should be: g:2083 i:2083 $:7291WayneBo wrote:
and the build costs for 5 AAA seems to be incomplete?wildL SPQR wrote:
still wrong - Tacs only have 25 HP - not 30
5 Jul 2016, 06:00
.,
5 Jul 2016, 10:13
And you are very right on the pure numbers level.DxC wrote:
Gah!wildL SPQR wrote:
still wrong - Tacs only have 25 HP - not 30
We keep 'forgetting' a few other advantages of tacs, advantages you just cant numbercrunch your way out, as they are 'soft'.
- huge range, thus flexible
- multiple attacks per hour are possible, even in attack mode
- removed from danger if needed, fast
- forcing the non-tac player to a stale way of playing (big stacks, or die), while remaining flexible itself.
And as long as 'everyone' uses them in large amounts, while the AA counterstrategy is flaky at best (pun intended, flak, get it?:X ) no one can convince me that they are not absurdly overpowered. If they werent, I would see them less right? Its a simple cause-effect analyses I give here. Heck, if I had to choose between the ridiculously powerful arties in S1914, I almost rather have that scenerio.
Almost
5 Jul 2016, 10:22
Again, they have other checks, like weak when refueling, can only operate from runwaysmiech wrote:
And you are very right on the pure numbers level.DxC wrote:
Gah!wildL SPQR wrote:
still wrong - Tacs only have 25 HP - not 30We keep 'forgetting' a few other advantages of tacs, advantages you just cant numbercrunch your way out, as they are 'soft'.
- huge range, thus flexible
- multiple attacks per hour are possible, even in attack mode
- removed from danger if needed, fast
- forcing the non-tac player to a stale way of playing (big stacks, or die), while remaining flexible itself.
And as long as 'everyone' uses them in large amounts, while the AA counterstrategy is flaky at best (pun intended, flak, get it?:X ) no one can convince me that they are not absurdly overpowered. If they werent, I would see them less right? Its a simple cause-effect analyses I give here. Heck, if I had to choose between the ridiculously powerful arties in S1914, I almost rather have that scenerio.
Almost
Their only OP is their huge AA, all bombers AA have too much. Their AA need to be weakend
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
-Friedrich von Haye
5 Jul 2016, 10:37
I agree that TAC are overpowered, and exactly for the reasons you mentioned, speed, range, hit rate. In a hypothetical 1 on 1 game with no AI you could neutralize those factors with an AA vs TAC arms race where the AA would win due to efficacy per time and resources. However, in the "real world", the TAC can quickly conquer AI and average players and gain an early resource advantage. I've always agreed that TAC are overpowered, I have just remained a bit agnostic and advocating for the devil with regard to tweaking them. One reason for this is that part of what makes this game a lot of fun early on is discovering the power of the TACs, and even as it is now a high percentage of players, even many that have played for a long time, are yet to utilize them effectively. I agree that many of the units are not worth researching or are more or less equivalent to other units (this point doesn't really bother me), but there is something satisfying knowing that a game has some useful strategy tricks that one can converge upon. Still, I imagine there is a lot of room for play improvement with some version of a TAC strategy. I would like to see the best TAC users battle it out in a game. On the other hand, I do hear you and I would be good with whatever tweaks may come. I guess my perspective isn't so much personal, but more how the popularity of the game might be affected.
5 Jul 2016, 12:25
Thanks both.
It appears no others are weighing in their detailed opinion on the subject anymore. I just hope the devs bother to take notice of this, and even check it against what people actually build, or what kills the most units on average - Im positive they have a way of finding out from a IT/coding perspective.
5 Jul 2016, 12:56
The TB are totally OP. In one of my matches a portion of some of my provinces were attacked by a 22,000 strong force of LT, AA, and AT. They died so fast, I'm still not sure whether I killed them all or they left. I just know there has been neither sight nor sound of them for quite a while.
2 Aug 2016, 16:02
Not being the sharpest tool in the shed I would appreciate some sort of explanation of how AA is Infantry and not Armor...especially considering it is in the Armor tech treewildL SPQR wrote:
Except you're wrong. lvl 3 Tacs have 6.0 damage against infantry units. AA is infantry, not armor.DxC wrote:
I guess it depends on the definition of plenty. Take lvl3 TAC vs lvl3 AA, for example.unit pwr HP build upkeepmiech wrote:
I brought plenty of AATAC 2.5 30 30 60f 100o
AA 6.0 10 12 40f
Assuming not in mountains, on average you would need 5 AA per 4 TAC to break even.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
