Transport research and boarding speed

z00mz00m wrote:

Small feature request to make transport research more interesting and impactful.

Please cut the time it takes units to embark/disembark for higher transport levels.

Also please consider the embark/disembark time for provinces that change possession.

Meaning, if a unit takes 3 hours to board, and the province changes hands, the boarding time should increase.

Similarly in the other direction, if the disembarking player gains control of the province.

Right now, the timer only considers ownership at the time the operation starts.

Also do you mean the higher level transport ships or higher level units? clarification needed.

I'm specifically talking about higher level transports:

z00mz00m wrote:

Small feature request to make transport research more interesting and impactful.

Please cut the time it takes units to embark/disembark for higher transport levels.

There should be more of a difference to transport capabilities as they advance.

This is a way to represent bigger transports, better ramps, cranes, floating docks, and other transport technology.

Well if you don't want the net (dis-)embarking time to drop, this means it should be increased at lower transport levels. Actually I think 4.5 hours is bad enough as it is...

I like the idea of having embark/disembark times reduced for higher levels of research. However, my preference would be to introduce Marines as a new unit with one of that unit's unique abilities being reduced embark/disembark times.

Heh, gotta get your roots into the game, eh?

Yeah, I'm not unbiased.

I admit, they would probably only be used by noobs for actual combat in amphibious landings. Most island hoping is done by simply bombarding any defenders with warships and using otherwise useless units to take the province after.

I'd like to think they would be an interesting addition, but I could be wrong.

CoW loves the Marines.

Every unit is amphibious, and the different types of units are just different kinds of hardware the Marines bring with them into battle.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Well if you don't want the net (dis-)embarking time to drop, this means it should be increased at lower transport levels. Actually I think 4.5 hours is bad enough as it is...

Ports do help (friendly) embarkment/disembarkment and that is ok, the rest of us people wants to sleep at night after a quick patrol of the coast.

Gen. Smit wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Well if you don't want the net (dis-)embarking time to drop, this means it should be increased at lower transport levels. Actually I think 4.5 hours is bad enough as it is...

Yeah this can be devastating, you also cant see the disembarkment, which is utter BS because citizens will say something if an enemy is invading.

Ports do help (friendly) embarkment/disembarkment and that is ok, the rest of us people wants to sleep at night after a quick patrol of the coast.

I've had a few situations where troops were disembarking on the coast with a 4.5 hour time...at the same time another group was disembarking at a local port. Same 4.5 hour time. Really?

You were either disembarking in an enemy province (that's the 4.5 hours) in which case the port doesn't work, OR you gave the order when it wasn't. Even after a long march/sail, the 4.5h doesn't change to 3h (or even less with a port) if you conquer the prov in between. Just re-draw the move to prevent this.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

You were either disembarking in an enemy province (that's the 4.5 hours) in which case the port doesn't work, OR you gave the order when it wasn't. Even after a long march/sail, the 4.5h doesn't change to 3h (or even less with a port) if you conquer the prov in between. Just re-draw the move to prevent this.

You can also abuse it of course, and specifically NOT issue new orders to a unit when you know it uses a beneficial time.

This is why when backstabbing you should draw your attack lines before declaring war, so you get the benefit of right of way

K.Rokossovski wrote:

You can also abuse it of course, and specifically NOT issue new orders to a unit when you know it uses a beneficial time.

I think the whole boarding process needs only a few tweaks. Marines kinda already exist as lv2 commandos, and I think it's fair to decrease their boarding time.

Carrying over to a different thread naval landings and island hopping needs a total rework, right now the current strategy is a couple of battleships or even a crusier and you decimate an entire coastline and wipe out islands if you're sweaty on micro. I propose that naval to land bombardment needs a serious nerf (reduction in range or damage reduction) or a serious counter, as in a designated coastal defense that could be a seperate build or integrated into fortifications that targets particularly large slow ships eg battleships but would have a harder time hitting smaller nimbler vessels eg destroyers and transport ships (meaning these vessels would take far less damage) making the need for current in game ordnance on the coast still relevant.

That touches on a separate but related problem. Taking small island nations is OP. This gives a huge advantage to countries in the SW portion of the Pacific ocean. It's a steady supply of easy resources and morale boosts for days. I can't think of a good reason for this. Most islands shouldn't have a city and shouldn't be worth any points, much less have a capital on them.

Once you take away the OP easy money aspect of island hopping, it becomes a non issue. They won't be worth taking. No point in making them harder to take.

When it comes to real cities like London or Tokyo, those should be defended by a navy, an air force, or by land based artillery. The city owner has many options at his disposal. If he chooses not to defend his coast, well then that is his choice to make. No reason to change game mechanics to accommodate carelessness.

I'm referring to HWW not the pacific maps, in these game modes islands are mainly non cities, but that's besides the point I am referring to game mechanics not exclusive to islands, eg coast of france. And the city defender doesn't have much at his disposal when he can get out classed by a simple 5 crusier and battleship stack that's impervious to arial bombardment assuming their navy is destroyed. Once they have no navy it's pretty much gg as literally all arty is outclassed by navy, (railroad guns do limited damage + require a huge investment), players should be encouraged to find landings and weak points when taking on the coast not just lazily disembark troops wherever once you've patrolled the coast for 2hrs.

Coastal defenses that are powerful enough to stop capital ships were extremely rare, because they were prohibitively expensive. In game terms, this would be like max level bunkers/fortifications, RRG's, and AA batteries all along the coast, with fully developed infrastructure to mimic good communication channels and resupply/reinforcement corridors. You are free to build that, if you want. It will cost you quite a bit, but it's a bit quicker than building a navy, because there's less research involved.

But, I really don't want to see more types of structures, especially defensive ones. Noobs and AI countries already waste all their resources building that junk. It doesn't stop anyone because you just go around them, and they don't know how to build stacks effective in attack OR defense. More structures would just make the game slower, and less challenging at the same time. Get rid of propaganda and defensive structures, if you want to help even out the game and make it more fun. Every penny NOT wasted on structures could go into units, produce more action, and make wins more challenging.