Jump to content
Changeup

Add Anti-Aircraft to Tanks

Recommended Posts

Seems like tanks would be kind of OP with how many people can build if they destroy planes as well (at least to such an extent). Would need to be low enough; people can still have a chance at winning an air attack against someone who also has planes as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Seems like tanks would be kind of OP with how many people can build if they destroy planes as well (at least to such an extent). Would need to be low enough; people can still have a chance at winning an air attack against someone who also has planes as well.

That's why I rebalanced the rates; to avoid Wampus being able to kill 3400 planes in one attack and keeping tanks from being too OP.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the exact scaling formula for this? Also what's the logic behind the cost?

 

Also I think that if you were to make a suggestion like this, the mechanic itself should fit into the current game's type of damage scaling - you can look those up on the wiki.

I think the best suggestion you could make here is one that fits into the mechanics of the game as they exist if you plan to add a system on top of it.

Edited by Alexander Hamilton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would they also work defensively against planes under your proposal & how many planes would someone need to beat somebody with max planes & tanks with your proposal with for example 30 cities each? Think it would probably be to hard to balance this into something feasible & could make it near impossible to win air attacks against someone of similar city number. Wouldn't make much sense for them to only work offensively, when tanks are normally active defensively as long as you have the gas/ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? Tanks are constantly built and used by almost everyone. Some doctrines call for tanks to not be used early in the war in order to compress score, but after that even alliances following that doctrine boost their tanks.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding why tanks tend to not be used by smaller nations in wars. In fact, The Covenant built tanks for our blitz against TS/TE and knocked out 80 nations in a day because we had land units when they didn't. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll support this with 2 changes. 

1. Air Supremacy against you removes the ability to use the anti-aircraft guns. 
2. If you have 0 planes you can't use AA guns.

Just to add some extra realism to the realistic war mechanics. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so uh, anti aircraft work against air attacks, planes being destroyed by ground attacks would just be normal realistic warfare.

15 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I'll support this with 2 changes. 

1. Air Supremacy against you removes the ability to use the anti-aircraft guns. 
2. If you have 0 planes you can't use AA guns.

Just to add some extra realism to the realistic war mechanics. 

Your enemy having air supremacy is exactly when AA guns are most useful, making this suggestion not.only laughably stupid an obvious in it's bias (as you usually are) but also useless.

The point of AA guns is being able to shoot down planes, without planes. Again, makes the entire suggestion pointless and is an obvious of bias for an alliance that uses only planes. God forbid ya gotta change strategies if the war system is more balanced lol.

 

Not that the way this is suggested is exactly a proper solution to anything. 

Edited by Akuryo
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I'll support this with 2 changes. 

1. Air Supremacy against you removes the ability to use the anti-aircraft guns. 
2. If you have 0 planes you can't use AA guns.

Just to add some extra realism to the realistic war mechanics. 

Well we added some extra realism to the realistic war mechanics, then how would you use 90% of your planes when they have ground control, controlling your air fields, you would have to pray Sheepy adds Air craft carriers  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Okay, so uh, anti aircraft work against air attacks, planes being destroyed by ground attacks would just be normal realistic warfare.

Your enemy having air supremacy is exactly when AA guns are most useful, making this suggestion not.only laughably stupid an obvious in it's bias (as you usually are) but also useless.

The point of AA guns is being able to shoot down planes, without planes. Again, makes the entire suggestion pointless and is an obvious of bias for an alliance that uses only planes. God forbid ya gotta change strategies if the war system is more balanced lol.

 

Not that the way this is suggested is exactly a proper solution to anything. 

In any real war if you have air supremacy your Anti aircraft capabilities are one of the first things to go. So yes, it's pretty realistic. In fact ground troops are more effective using SAM's against planes when a country has air supremacy, rather than slow moving tanks you can't really hide.

I mean sure i'm being biased, but so is the OP. 

9 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

Well we added some extra realism to the realistic war mechanics, then how would you use 90% of your planes when they have ground control, controlling your air fields, you would have to pray Sheepy adds Air craft carriers  

That's a whole new suggestion thread needed. We are on about AA vs planes here. Keep on topic.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concept is good but OP in the current format.
Adding an extra zero makes it less OP

As for the smol nations, you dont need to worry much. Declaration ranges for larger nations is already nerfed enough

In current scenario, Aircrafts are too OP. 
So something like this or making GC reduce enemy air to 50% is a must needed nerf.

Edited by ShadyAssassin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Changeup said:

Tanks are currently one of the military units used more sparingly used in alliance warfare. They're expensive and their value goes down even more with Air Superiority. My suggestion is to be able to add Anti-Aircraft guns to tanks. 

Cost: Anti-Aircraft would cost an additional 20$ on top of the standard tank cost. Munitions usage would increase 20% over the current levels. Upkeep would go to 60/90$ instead of 50/75.

Effects: Currently a tank has about 40 army value (calculated by buying one tank and looking at the increase in army value). With anti-aircraft, a tank would have 50 army value.

How many planes could it take out: I'd say for every 15 tanks with anti-aircraft, one plane is taken out if I have less than 1000 anti-aircraft tanks, I'd be able to take out around 65 (maximum) planes per Immense Triumph ground attack. For a moderate success, it goes up to a 20-1 ratio (50 planes) and for a pyrrhic it goes to 1-25 (40 planes). This changes as the amount of tanks increases. See the ratio chart below: 
1316131468_Screenshot2019-10-12at9_31_41AM.png.01b01a335ac168191b27b407b6ec6840.png

Adding anti-aircraft would not affect the maximum amount of tanks you can have. While anti-aircraft tanks are effective for taking out planes, they are less effective on the ground than normal tanks. This will likely lead to most nations having both anti-air and regular. 

This would be a monumental change and would add a whole new dimension to alliance warfare. It would completely change the way tanks are used in the game and could make coming back against someone with more planes then you far easier.

Comment with suggestions and feedback!

Your numbers are ridiculously flawed. Anti-air tanks would destroy balance even further. Id be more inclined to allowing a special missle project to directly attk planes... Than this unbalanced suggestion.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. 

2 hours ago, Changeup said:

Cost: Anti-Aircraft would cost an additional 20$ on top of the standard tank cost. Munitions usage would increase 20% over the current levels. Upkeep would go to 60/90$ instead of 50/75.

I feel like anti-aircraft's should be expensive on the upkeep. So, the upkeep should be like, 80/120. So, if I had 10,000 anti-aircraft tanks, I'd have an upkeep of like 800k during peace, and 1.2 million during warfare. 

2 hours ago, Changeup said:

How many planes could it take out: I'd say for every 15 tanks with anti-aircraft, one plane is taken out if I have less than 1000 anti-aircraft tanks, I'd be able to take out around 65 (maximum) planes per Immense Triumph ground attack. For a moderate success, it goes up to a 20-1 ratio (50 planes) and for a pyrrhic it goes to 1-25 (40 planes). This changes as the amount of tanks increases. See the ratio chart below: 

As other people have said, this seems to be way too high. I'd think that, as Shadow said, it should be 150 ant-aircraft tanks per aircraft. So, even a nation like Wampus could only destroy 360 aircraft. (Which is still about half of their daily aircraft buy, but it's better than 3600 aircraft lol)

2 hours ago, Changeup said:

Adding anti-aircraft would not affect the maximum amount of tanks you can have. While anti-aircraft tanks are effective for taking out planes, they are less effective on the ground than normal tanks. This will likely lead to most nations having both anti-air and regular. 

I like this idea. So, just to be certain though, you're saying that a regular tank may be worth 27 armed soldiers (or whatever, I don't know the actual math for that bs) and an anti-aircraft with be worth like 22ish armed soldiers (or 3/4th of a regular tank)? That'd be a really cool thing. 

 

Also, you never mentioned how'd you go about actually buying anti-aircraft tanks. I'd assume that it would be like the other units in the game (with it's own little thing) and the max would be your (factories *250 - (regular tanks+anti-aircraft tanks)) just to get the # you have remaining. 

I think they should also show up in battle differently (for two reasons, the first being so that Alex can more easily program a new unit, instead of using way too much code to not do that. The second reason is so that you don't waste anti-aircraft in battles against an enemy with no aircraft. Just to save the extra munitions.)

Over-all though, I like the idea. Seems like something we've been wanting for a while now. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Swedge said:

Tanks are fine tbh. Main benefit is the ground advantage vs. soldiers + extra loot. I don't think tanks are unbalanced; plane balance should be addressed but you do that either through readjusting numbers or (suggestion incoming...) actually introducing a standalone AA unit.

 

Imo war mechanics could do with a new feature to make it more interesting/less stale. So my personal suggestion would be to introduce a new improvement, something along the lines of an artillery factory which could produce 3 types of unit:

- Anti-Air (good vs. planes but relatively useless vs. soldiers/tanks). Can only be used defensively.

- Anti-Tank (good vs. tanks, less effective vs. soldiers, relatively useless vs. planes). Less effective on offense.

- Artillery (good vs. soldiers, less effective vs. tanks, relatively useless vs. planes). Less effective on offense.

In terms of numbers something like this, similar to tank factory: manufacture 150 artillery pieces per day, max 750 per factory. Running costs $30 per day in peace, $45 wartime, munitions.png1 per 100 artillery. Max 5 factories per city. Unit cost $40 and aluminum.png1. Or something along those sort of lines.

Imo would make things a lot more interesting in terms of strategy choosing artillery composition (i.e. you have max 750 per factory but have to choose which of the 3 units / or what ratio you want to use - with the same recruitment rate as tanks, i.e. 5 days to max out, it would take some time to switch out composition to effectively counter enemy setup).

Whether Alex would be arsed to make such a change is another question altogether. But if you want to do something with the war system imo this is the way to do it.

I like this idea.

I think the cost should be a tad bit higher (like 40, 60)

But other than that, I like this idea a lot. 

 

Also, how will this effect nation score?

Edited by CitrusK
Forgot about score

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would make it even harder to win any of your wars if facing any bigger nations if they can wipe out both your ground & air force using one type of attack. 😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CitrusK said:

Also, how will this effect nation score?

One normal tank is 0.05 score. An anti-air tank is 0.07 score.
 

 

18 minutes ago, Swedge said:

Imo war mechanics could do with a new feature to make it more interesting/less stale.

That's kind of what this is. It'll definitely spice things up, though I like the idea of an artillery factory. We don't want too many military types, though. 

 

35 minutes ago, Mack g said:

Your numbers are ridiculously flawed. Anti-air tanks would destroy balance even further. Id be more inclined to allowing a special missle project to directly attk planes... Than this unbalanced suggestion

How would it destroy balance? If anything, it would keep air from being overly OP. We could do it with ships instead of tanks if that's what your suggestion. Not really a fan of the missile thing, but it could work. 

 

52 minutes ago, ShadyAssassin said:

Concept is good but OP in the current format.

Of course it would be considered OP, as it directly targets another OP unit. 

 

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Concept is good but OP in the current format.

Just because a feature doesn't directly benefit you doesn't make it biased. This goes for everyone else in Coalition B who is complaining about it. I didn't have politics in mind when I created this thread; you guys turned it political. As for your suggestions: I like the first, but not the second.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CitrusK said:

I like this idea.

I think the cost should be a tad bit higher (like 40, 60)

But other than that, I like this idea a lot. 

 

Also, how will this effect nation score?

Numbers can be played about with of course. In terms of raw combat value they should be less effective than tanks imo but thats made up with their effectiveness vs. their respective counter. I haven't really put that much more thought towards the numbers tbh but something along those sorta lines is what I'm envisioning.

 

In terms of score could do similar tanks: (Artillery * 0.05) or play about with it depending on combat impact - certainly the disadvantage of fielding large numbers of artillery would be pushing the score range up so like everything else pros + cons with the military setup you run. Just makes things a bit more tactically diverse than the current system we have.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.