Unbalanced game

That tends to only work if the other player has absolutely no anti-armour and fights all their battles outside the cities.

This game punishes you for relying on one unit and not diversifying your armies. You didn't actually have any suggestions on how to improve this state of affairs?

It was with lvl5 fort for me with 5-6 anti tanks +10-12 infs+ 1-2 med tank ,vs 12 light tanks +8 inf on plain . Even with plain bonus the light tanks should die pretty easily vs anti tanks , but they dont.I got lost the battle with enemy still having 3/4rd of his army survived....

Anti-tanks are way too weak , why they have only 10 hp while light tanks have 20? It absolutely makes no sense. Anti tanks are to counter tanks they arent good in anything else so why they are not good in their intended role? Eighter they should cost way less and or tanks should cost much more.

Level 1 Anti-tank has a 7.0 rating of defensive damage to armor. A level 1 Light tank does 2.5 offensive damage to infantry. Either you have your numbers incorrect or you were low level troops vs higher level troops or there is something else you are missing (tac bombers/rocket batteries) It is impossible for level 5 fortified anti tanks and infantry alone to have lost that battle, not even including the medium tanks.

Proof of such is a level 1 light tank vs level 1 infantry in a fortified province in a city is a huge loss of the light tank. (just experience that today) The game is quite balanced in fact. It appears you have something incorrect in your description of army compositions. IE you have level 1 anti tanks and infantry vs his level 4 light tanks and infantry. That being the case it could be possible that you lost that engagement, but I still would surprise me given the fortress bonus of level 5.

Mate, like @Kalantigos said, if you don't use most units, and only use one, you'll get beaten easily. I am a vet player, and, as most other vets can point out, there are many useless units. But that all depends on your strategy. Naval bombers may be useful to some and useless to others. I, for one, don't use artillery, but I always have counter-measures up my sleeve in case my enemy does. So using light tanks only is not the answer, Get some ATs and turn them into 'matches'.

Pablo22510 wrote:

there are many useless units

I tend to use blitzkrieg and pincer attacks, fatally destroying the army's capability to attack with bombers and the ability to produce more units. I also tend to cut the country in half, destroying the player's morale.

Even so, that doesn't make the game unbalanced; all players have access to light tanks.

purplepizza117 wrote:

I.E. regular artillery, battleships, cruisers, rocket interceptors, nuclear navies, and naval bombers. I think that these are essentially useless for most strategies, submarines do the same thing as battleships

Undermin3d wrote:

purplepizza117 wrote:

I.E. regular artillery, battleships, cruisers, rocket interceptors, nuclear navies, and naval bombers. I think that these are essentially useless for most strategies, submarines do the same thing as battleships

I don't think I have missed a very large important part of the game here, but where do you get that submarines do the same thing as battleships? I use battleships to bombard fortified seaside provinces. Submarines cannot do this and submarines also do next to nothing damage wise to other naval ships as well as destroyers way over power them. So to me what purpose do submarines have? I use a few to get some intel about troops and movements along sea provinces but otherwise I don't care to use them at all.

The light tank actually has a high strategic value in RL , as well. Infantry with anti tank arms and guns can make short work of them its true , however where the tanks are backed by good field spotting and communication , and support from other units to take out the anti tank elements , infantry and at batteries really dont have much of a chance , as the high mobility of the mechanized units can deliver force to unprotected flanks faster than anti tank artillery can be repositioned.

So if your infantry is antiquated (lacks more effective small arms like the panzerfaust or bazooka) , I would expect even a fortified position to fall under the right circumstances.

That said , in the game in this situation, it does sound like the anti tank units should have gotten a bit more of a buff in that situation given level 5 fortifications. Having all things equal , without bombers or supporting siege artilery , I would expect far higher losses on the attacking side.

Do not look at the numbers are not accurate or is there a hack. I attack with 15 tactical bomber lvl1 2 anti -tank and 2 artilery lvl1 , I made only 10hp damage and have 15 tactical bombers who deal it soft attac 3hp . 15 * 3 = 45 . So it is true that light tank can win several anti tanks

Sorry I havent checked forum lately.

So Pablo22510 I never said I only had 1 type of units . I dont get where did you get this.

Imho anti-tanks are way too weak , they have only 10 hp costs 1000 mp(this is huge for a lame support unit) slow as hell , and have 7 armor def at lvl1 and in everything else they are crap. Compare this vs light tanks , they are very fast , get bonus on flat +50% and have 20 hp , and only 625 mp ,they even cost the same goods/money :O and it defeats anti-tanks on flat terrain while attacking. On top of this the light tank stats increases drastically with each lvl up at lvl3 from 2.5 to 4.0 soft dmg , while anti tanks only get to 9.0 hard def at lvl3 and nothing else only a slight speed which helps them keep up with infantry. Comeon it could hardly do it job at lvl1 but it falls short vs higher lvl tanks even not on open field. They are good only for 1 thing , def cities vs armored and thats all. I've never seen anybody researching them cause they are crap.

Anti-tanks need a huge boost , like lower costs ,much faster research times, and better stats increase with lvl up. This unit should be counter tanks on rugged terrain pretty easily in a defensive position. They are crap against anything else so why they shouldnt be able to do their role well?

Bystander is totally right , light tanks without support should be easy pickings vs anti-tanks in lvl5 fort with infantry support.

Some other things i think are unbalanced:

Naval-bombers , they are just not realy effective vs battleships.

Lets see at lvl3 dd 30hp 4 aa , cl 50 hp 8.5 aa , bb 75hp 6 aa vs lvl3 navbomber 25 hp 7,5 ship attack.

DD needs 6,25 shots to kill 1 plane , cl ~3 ,bb ~4,2 . Plane needs 4 bomb to kill dd , 6,66 to kill a cl , 10 to kill a bb. From the look of it ,bb have too much aa def ,as cl-s meant to be the aa defender of the fleet as there are no carriers in the game, this is fine.

But from my experience even a smaller fleet without cl-s attacked by a larger naval bomber squadron ,does pretty good dmg on those bombers. I think bb-s without fighter cover and cl support should die horribly vs naval bombers . At least naval bombers are good vs subs.

Strategy bombers : their range is so small IRL they could easily fly 2000km , so thats 1000km range more or less for earlier models ,but in this game most things have larger ranges like fighters/missiles ,and arties. They should be able to fly as far as they could in RL. 375km for lvl1 ?:O comeon it should 600km or more , the point of these planes to bomb way behind the front the enemy buildings , but they cant reach their targets , with their current range , they can fly a slightly farther than tactical bombers ,but they are not effective vs units ... they need a range boost.

Rockets : from the look of it these are insanely good , they realy shouldnt dmg troops much. They are ALWAYS cost effective and have way too long range , they act as a modern day scud comeon... oh and there is no real defense vs them.

Infantry: I dont get why they have only 15 hp , while tanks have 20 25 45... they are already slow and cost 1500mp.

Arty+aa+anti-tank:why they need 1000 mp too much.

Oh and what I experiecned so far : everybody mass build tanks especially lights

I have to agree with you on a few points. Strategic bombers is a huge one. The range I agree should be much much bigger than it is. You have to pretty much already be pushed through the enemy lines before you can use them, at which point you already have him crippled so there is no need to use them.

I also agree that naval bombers need a boost as with most people. As well Naval AA damage is pretty significant surprisingly.

Rockets while somewhat overpowered do have a limited range so they aren't as big of a deal for me.

I agree that Infantry costs far to much MP. And this is why you see such a large amount of light tanks. They move fast and do better damage in most terrain costing about half as much as infantry. Only think you need infantry for is cities primarily but you can get by with just Tac Bombers instead to weaken the troops in cities and use while they fight your tanks.

About the range increase for strategic bombers: That would mean that nuke bombers' range would also increase, meaning we could nuke someone halfway around the world, which isn't really balanced.

Why would that mean that? Those are different unit types and can be balanced separately.

Mate, it was a B-29 who dropped Little Boy. A bomber that was also used as a strat bomber.

Well first , a sample of some strat bombers from 1939-42

Bristol: 1,460 mi (1,270 nmi, 2,351 km)

Lancaster: 2,530 mi (2,200 nmi, 4,073 km)

B-17 : 2,000 mi (1,738 nmi, 3,219 km) with 2,700 kg (6,000 lb)

Mosquito (arguably a high speed tac bomber) : 782 nmi (900 mi (1,400 km)) with 410 gal (1,864-litre) fuel load at 20,000 ft (6,100 m)

Next, the argument that nukes delivered by strat bombers would unbalance the game : well , its a bit too easy in this game to get nukes , which could be toughened, but also , second , using nukes should have consequences ; like using more than 6 curtailing food yields by 25% , more than 12 ; 50% more than 18 , 75% as radiation spreads around the globe and kills all the crops and irradiates the populace and alters the climate of the whole planet. Third , thats the way it is IRL , and is realistic. Dont want to be nuked ? Have long range interceptors capable of shooting them down perhaps? Im not sure , but to me , limiting tac bomber range is less a strategy issue than not providing a decent counter in appropriate effectiveness : IE make it easier to set interceptors to intercept automatically (stay on alert) with radar tech development , interceptor upgrades for long range , etc..

Finally as an addition , buff sub attack power , with penalty for attacking ships with anti sub measures (destroyers level 2+ etc) , also , add carriers .. yes again game balance , I counter with the suggestion its better to have this realism and that they could be countered by their use in defense.

Unbalanced? Absolutely... just spam light tanks and win faster.

You think spamming light tanks is equal to victory? Wait until your light tanks go up against my ATs.

Yes . Can u attack with those AT-s? nope so you cant win no matter what.