Unbalanced game

How is this game balanced just because everybody can use the same units?:O It makes no sense , many units are crap , and some units are just mandatory.

Please keep this thread on topic and civil. I will be keeping an eye on this thread to ensure that happens.

Thank you

Good work dude ... after i try to invest resources in Forts ........ on 100 players map now i have +803 food/hour Good job GoW ... yeah, this is a unballanced game ....

Oh migh.... seems the game was dumbed down to facilitate the cry-babies...

What a pity

+1 for the unwilling to learn

-1 to skill in country management

Dude ... this game is not designed for what you want To be like you need another sistem ...

Well, this is a strategy game... Strategy incorporates more than just throwing armies at eachother. Strategy entails every factor that matters.

One factor has just been eliminated and thus the game has been dumbed-down to facilitate the dum... ermmm... the less skilled, less thinking, less interested.

Good work devs....not!

More than just a full dimension of the game has been lost

Dude ... you are fix with your morale development to built fortification ... but you play this game just to build ??? You are architect ? ))

A war cannot be just with Buildings ... wake up please is unfair to have the same amount of army like a player who gave x10 less province like me ... Spain cannot fight against China, no ? Like germany cannot fight with US, RUSSIA, CHINA ... we talk just for troops population Right ??? i have 585,000,000 people ... how can i have the same army with someone who have 50.000.000 ???

The only way to make this game working is to put another sistem on moral ... if you are good with money food resources and buildings your army will fight at 100% ... if you are a dumb ... your army will fight with 20% 10% ... or 50% ... this can be tested to see how it`s works ... just think smart ...

Sitting economic well people can accept to be part of your country. If not sit tight and people are dying of hunger and have nothing developed to kill your troops when they go to the countryside or to fight big handicap ....

A war is not just buildings....did I say that? You make too many assumptions.

For the rest of it, the game has been dumbed-down for 'the players that needed that' (which is just another of saying what I won't say now, because you would report the post again) and that is a pity.

But for those who just want through armies at each-other, it probably is better this way.

If it makes you happy though, enjoy it. Maybe you do stand a chance now... as do all the other players that never wanted to learn all the many aspects of the game and how to balance them, which however were the aspects that make the game interesting and challenging.

It will most likely become quite a bit more boring now.

_Pontus_ wrote:

A war is not just buildings....did I say that? You make too many assumptions.

For the rest of it, the game has been dumbed-down for 'the players that needed that' (which is just another of saying what I won't say now, because you would report the post again) and that is a pity.

But for those who just want through armies at each-other, it probably is better this way.

If it makes you happy though, enjoy it. Maybe you do stand a chance now... as do all the other players that never wanted to learn all the many aspects of the game and how to balance them, which however were the aspects that make the game interesting and challenging.

It will most likely become quite a bit more boring now.

Oh well...Italians win a lot of wars .... though not 1 since the Romans, I believe, so I will follow your lead for sure.

Keep cutting the wood wit a spoon and have fun with it.

_Pontus_ wrote:

Oh well...Italians win a lot of wars .... though not 1 since the Romans, I believe, so I will follow your lead for sure.

Keep cutting the wood wit a spoon and have fun with it.

Orkhepaj wrote:

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... 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?

AT's are a defensive unit, and in my current belief, can actually be used extremely effectively with the right thought and support, in an offensive role. Level 5 AT's have a 12 defence against armour. 12. that's not exactly small potatoes from what I've seen. On the offensive, they have an attack of 6 against armour. That right there is pretty hefty. Against infantry, they have a defence of 3, which is pretty admirable for unit that's sole existence is to destroy big, hulking, heavily armoured rolling fortresses, and not small, nimble, flexible infantry.

Yeah, okay, they're slow. But so what? Provide the correct support, and you basically have a mobile fortress. Can be out maneuvered? There's a way around that, too. Can be bombarded? There's a way around that one too. I'm starting to see that the vast majority of players have a reliance on one core feature, and with good reason: Speed. But... you don't get to have something that's fast, without it having drawbacks of it's own.

AT's get a penalty in mountains like anything else. This is probably the only thing I probably disagree with. AT's, in mountain regions, just like commando's, should actually get a bonus, even if only a small one. Consider this: the weakness of the AT is its lack of maneuverability, correct? It's slow, tanks are fast, this allows them to be blind sided, allows tanks to use terrain to it's advantage, and the more open the terrain, typically the greater the advantage to the tank. So why should AT's get a bonus in mountains? Because they CAN'T be out maneuvered. They can't be blindsided so easily. Tanks going through a mountain road that goes through a forest and dealing with canyons and valleys... That is a lot of places, a lot of positions, a lot of angles that an AT can simply sit at and wait until a tank rolls on by. The tank can't see it, or can't see it early because of the positioning... but by then it's already too late. The shells are fired, the barrage of heavy tank destroying rounds is laid out, and the tank column, forced to move in single file along specific routes gets turned into scrap metal. Ambush tactics are best in mountains, and AT's are most effective in defensive ambushes, so that penalty should be removed, possibly turned into a +25% bonus.

Other than that, AT's are QUICK to produce. Something like 7-9 hours, vs the LT's 12. This I believe is the reason for the higher manpower cost. Someone spamming tanks? Spam AT's, and set them in defensive positions. You'll make more AT's than they'll make tanks, and eventually, they'll run out of roads they can take without having to attack an AT position. Iunno about you, but I don't like to underestimate something. Everything has its use and purpose, and if used with thought to every single aspect of it, you'll find that a unit designed purposefully to counter another unit can do just that. Think about it... L5 AT, 1vs1 even L3 heavy tanks, point for point in power outmatch them. Yeah, AT HP happens to suck something chronic. And something could potentially be done to address that. HP is the ONLY other advantage tanks have over AT. Maybe that can be addressed by supporting with Artillery, another unit a lot of people don't put much stock in, by softening up the advancing targets, allowing the AT's superior damage stats in defence to work their magic.

In urban terrain, even the massively powered, massively armoured, massively armed HT's at L3 will fall 1-on-1 with AT's. Since urban terrain is a form of rugged terrain, so that point is already moot.

I'm not a fan of AA, but I'm learning to be. I'm learning to find ways to make it work in my favour, when the strategy and need arises. If you try doing the same for AT, I think you'll be surprised at just how effective it can potentially be with the right support. But that's key. The RIGHT support. You don't support it correctly, and it's scrap metal. The same however, applies to everything else in this game too. Think outside the box. Think in a way where your advance isn't about speed, and I think you too, will find that AT's can be seriously quite dangerous.

How do you prevent people from going around you? And if they do pass over a 20 provinces wide border and they run right at your resource fields. How will you catch up, since the AT are pretty slow compared to the LT. Like you mentioned, you will need anti-air (and other units like tanks) in the mix to fight of bombers and infantery. Making the buildtime of your stack not only dependent on the buildtime of the AT, but also the built time of your own tanks and anti-air.

But good luck in your game, I'm curious to know if it will work.

I can't really provide much detail, I'd hate to have my idea snatched and used against me, and also hate for someone to sit there and pick apart ways to counter it. But if you think about it, I'm sure you'll come up with idea's and options of your own, or perhaps even the same as me, that should, in theory at least, cover all the bases.

Vigor555 wrote:

LT are so vulnerable to TAC

1st example: A stack of 13 LT + 18 SP-Arty + 3 SP-AA easily withstand 20 Tacs. Each raid of the Tacs, they lost 1 bomber + significant extra damage against max. 1 death on my side and very little extra damage.

Had the enemy continued, he would have lost all his Tacs and I would still have had a group of 10 most likely.

2nd example: 30 LTs vs 20 TaCS => didn't go so well for the LT's, though the Tacs suffered

3rd example: 12 LT + 20 SP-Arty vs 22 Tacs => Tacs withdrew after heavy losses. Own losses fair for the damage done to Tacs.

TACS are no super weapons IF and WHEN you don't do monoculture (i.e. only LTs). Adding a few SP-AA surely helped a lot, but mostly the larger number of units did the job methinks, since the LT+Arty did well too and only the solo-LTs didn't.

That shows how incredibly well balanced it is, since it requires every player to think of solutions fitting his own style and allows them to do so.

Azkazan wrote:

How do you prevent people from going around you? And if they do pass over a 20 provinces wide border and they run right at your resource fields.

Same here; hence, adapt to the situation as it develops.

Basically do what the Romans already did in northwest Europe (from Netherlands eastwards into Germany)...

Just saying...

[edited: took out where I said what I do, because Azazel is right. And ... better than showing what to do, is to teach how to think... After all, this is a strategy game and not a hack&slash and (surprisingly) strategy requires thought...]

Catalin92 wrote:

if you are a dumb ... your army will fight with 20% 10% ... or 50% ... this can be tested to see how it`s works ... just think smart ...

Add to that the wrong use of the different unit types for the wrong purpose, instead of in varying combinations as the situation requires and exploiting their specific benefits.

Like in chess: there is no use to ask why the tower can't move diagonally.

Because it is a tower and not a knight, it thus has a specific different skill set and use. The tower has to be used for its own purpose and benefits in combination with other units, instead of complaining about what it cannot do.

You mean the Rook lol.

And the bishop moves diagonally, and I wholeheartedly agree with your analogy! Well said.

Sorry; didn't know the terminology was different in English. In my language they are called (translated into English ofc) 'Tower' and 'Knight'.