New Unit: Artillery

[Stormrideron]

I want to make a game suggestion by introducing Artillery to PnW. 

 

Having Artillery will add a new role in the game as the "Infrastructure Destroyer", so beyond any wars, Artillery is pretty much use for defense purpose to weaken enemy forces before they reach to the front lines. Artillery is also always behind the defense line and usually the last one to get destroy. So, it should cost $50,000, 15 Steel and 10 Aluminium. There should be new building that allows production of Artillery, something like Siege Factory.

 

Pro

- Excellent at blowing up enemy infrastructures with ease.

- When defending, Artillery will weaken the enemy force first before it comes to the defense line.

- Always last unit to get killed.

 

Con

- Expensive to purchase

- Costly to maintain

- Ground Unit, easy to get destroy by enemy aircraft

- Is limited by Enemy Ground Control.

[Tomasious Rubinlord]

There's no much difference between artillery and missiles in terms of purpose, then.

[Stormrideron]

There's no much difference between artillery and missiles in terms of purpose, then.

You can't defend with missiles.

[Tomasious Rubinlord]

You can't defend with missiles.

 

Why would there need more types of units for defense?

Edited January 22, 2016 by Tomasious Rubinlord

[Stormrideron]

Why would there need more types of units to defend?

Cuz it adds more unit diversity, just like real warfare. You would want to weaken enemy country force and infrastructure first before sending in your men and tanks.

[Tomasious Rubinlord]

Cuz it adds more unit diversity, just like real warfare. You would want to weaken enemy country force and infrastructure first before sending in your men and tanks.

 

Regarding the financial expense of your porposed artillery, what use will it have if one can have tens of thousends of soldiers with much cheaper cost?

[Stormrideron]

Regarding the financial expense of your porposed artillery, what use will it have if one can have tens of thousends of soldiers with much cheaper cost?

See OP.

 

Soldiers are replaceable, but they are weak and gets killed easily. Artillery will be great for defending against enemy invasion by weakening enemy force.

[Alex]

What I think would happen is that people would "bait" your artillery by sending like 50 soldiers per attack, making you waste munitions or whatever firing at them. People who build the artillery would quickly lose out buying excess munitions, and get rid of their artillery.

[Stormrideron]

What I think would happen is that people would "bait" your artillery by sending like 50 soldiers per attack, making you waste munitions or whatever firing at them. People who build the artillery would quickly lose out buying excess munitions, and get rid of their artillery.

You can try to bait artillery, but the enemy will have to face our soldiers and tanks first. So let says artillery can destroy like 10% of invading force and then soldiers and, tanks takes care of the rest.

 

Worth a try putting it in test server to see how it goes. I think it would be pretty cool to have infrastructure destroyer unit.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Stormrideron

[Omnipotent]

 

Seems like something that would just over complicate the war system that we have, it's already fine as it is. This game doesn't need to have every single real life unit out there in game.

[Atzuya]

Tanks by the current mechanic can already work as artillery units. They destroy far more infrastructure than soldiers, very costly both to purchase and maintain, die easily from airstrikes, and tend to die the last in ground battles.

[Omnipotent]

Tanks by the current mechanic can already work as artillery units. They destroy far more infrastructure than soldiers, very costly both to purchase and maintain, die easily from airstrikes, and tend to die the last in ground battles.

We might as well change the name of tanks to vehicles then, if that's the case.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Would be great against tanks.