True. Love the crazy Russians with their horses. But cavalry would be weaker than militia....
Yeah the Submarine Aircraft Carriers were kool but only Japan really used em soooo
I had some good ideas if you guys are looking for some new content.
1. The Sniper: This would be a ranged unit with a range of 50. It would only have one hit point, though, since snipers are not very well armored. On average (Without any boosts or nerfs to its damage by the doctrine or terrain) it would deal 11 damage to unarmored units. 9 with a damage reduction by doctrine, 12 with a buff. It would do 7.8 to light armor, 6.5 with reduction, 8.6 with a buff. And to heavy armor, it would deal 4.6, with 3.2 on nerf and 5.6 on buff. 7.8 to ships, 6.5 on nerf, 8.6 on buff. To buildings, it would only deal 2.5 damage 1.4 on nerf, 3.5 on buff. And finally, to airplanes, it would deal 1.5, 1 on nerf, 2 on buff. It would be boosted by 50% on hill territory and 25% on forest territory. If you are looking for a way to pick off infantry from a distance, the sniper is the way to do it.
2. The HammerShot. HammerShot is a type of long range artillery used in late WW1, sort of like a predecessor to the Railroad Guns. This would be a stationary unit, so it would obviously be stronger than most units. Like the name suggests, this thing would hammer its opponents with a range of 120. In terms of damage, (un-boosted or nerfed) it would deal a whopping 20 to heavy armor, 18 nerfed, 21 buffed. 18 to light armor, 16 nerfed, 20 buffed. 15 to unarmored, 14 nerfed, 17 buffed. Its the same as light armor for ships. And to buildings, it would deal 20 damage, 19 nerfed, 23 buffed. This unit would have 45 HP un-boosted, 40 nerfed, and 52 boosted. Since they are stationary, they do not get any terrain boosts.
Again, these are just concepts, but it would make me soooo happy if I saw one or both of these units added to the game.
Emmett S. 10yo
Please log in to post a reply.
True. Love the crazy Russians with their horses. But cavalry would be weaker than militia....
Yeah the Submarine Aircraft Carriers were kool but only Japan really used em soooo
Make threadChimere wrote:
Paratroopers had no close equivalent so it was a good move to add them.If there is one thing missing that played a significant role (more than battlecruisers) : cruiser/BB mounted seaplanes for recon (0 combat value for game purpose).
Pan-Asian could even put them on subs
![]()
Also I would love to see cavalry as they were a LOT of cavalry division in this war, way more than Β« militia Β».
What about the Amphibious Tank? It was widely used, like on D-Day, I'm thinking like a weaker medium tank that can go on water without embarking or disembarking.
- Voting on next event out of 3 options
- Fighter Bomber: good on light armor, carrier based
- Remove Tac bomber from carriers. reduce light armor damage
- Province trade limit increase from 1 to 3 per day. no total province trade cap.
- Better models for Pan-Asian and Comintern.
- Diplomacy group chat possibly?
- More loading screens
- Fixed manpower, an interceptor squadron should only cost 12-20 manpower.
- Reduce cruiser damage vs aircraft, making carriers more important. Cruisers in ww2 were cheaper battlships and not used primarily for anti-air until after ww2. Should be the same as battleships and carriers for anti-air.
- Transport disembark speed reduced when attacking a province from enemy beach
- Smoothed borders
- army grouping and tabs on top left to select these groups
- seasons:
spring: decreased visibility, troop morale boost, unarmored/light armor buff
summer: unit speed increased, increased visibility, increased resources, heavy armor/aircraft buff
fall: production time decreased, construction time decreased, unarmored/light armor buff
winter: unit speed decreased, comintern buff, axis nerf, decreased resources, heavy armor/aircraft nerf
What about the amphbious tank?
scrappy 90 per cent of those were great
just make disembark for all units when attacking by water faster that way it accounts for amphibious infantry too.WoofWoofWoofy wrote:
What about the amphbious tank?
which are badGrandEmpire wrote:
scrappy 90 per cent of those were great
Hold up
Maybe a flametrooper unit, it would deal increasing damage every attack, and if it lost, the opposing unit would continue to take damage for a little while.
pLEASE go to General Discussions and help me
no, not realistic at all.WoofWoofWoofy wrote:
Maybe a flametrooper unit, it would deal increasing damage every attack, and if it lost, the opposing unit would continue to take damage for a little while.
Yea I'd like to see a DD tank cross the atlantic.WoofWoofWoofy wrote:
What about the Amphibious Tank? It was widely used, like on D-Day, I'm thinking like a weaker medium tank that can go on water without embarking or disembarking.
I think the solution would be to make it embark or disembark in only 15 minutes rather than not a all.whowh wrote:
Yea I'd like to see a DD tank cross the atlantic.WoofWoofWoofy wrote:
What about the Amphibious Tank? It was widely used, like on D-Day, I'm thinking like a weaker medium tank that can go on water without embarking or disembarking.
but TBF amphibious tanks were used to cross rivers, not seas ; they were not used for hostile landing either - so not needed.
It would be very funny if just on April fools day they added in Churchill crocodiles (flamethrower tanks)Chimere wrote:
I think the solution would be to make it embark or disembark in only 15 minutes rather than not a all.whowh wrote:
Yea I'd like to see a DD tank cross the atlantic.WoofWoofWoofy wrote:
What about the Amphibious Tank? It was widely used, like on D-Day, I'm thinking like a weaker medium tank that can go on water without embarking or disembarking.but TBF amphibious tanks were used to cross rivers, not seas ; they were not used for hostile landing either - so not needed.
flame throwers would not be affected by fortifications
Boi they are anti fortification units. Read:jefin b wrote:
flame throwers would not be affected by fortifications
I don't think this is a great ideawhowh wrote:
Boi they are anti fortification units. Read:jefin b wrote:
flame throwers would not be affected by fortifications
Just saying as something fun just on april fools day.
Maybe would be funwhowh wrote:
Just saying as something fun just on april fools day.
Please log in to post a reply.