Jump to content
Prefontaine

Changes to military units and attacks.

Military units  

50 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

First off I'll say kerchtog lost the upper tier because they never combated IQ Strat. IQ used city 20s to create space for their handful of 24+ to get into a safe zone and slowly take down Kerchtog whales. All kerchtog had to do was suicide w double buys into the attacking IQ nations, 3 suiciders around 20 cities would destroy roughly 250 planes, their upper tier never loses. Point is, players have figured out the game mechanics and worked for years to use them to their advantage. There is always a way within the current mechanics to achieve your goals, you just have to use a new Strat. 

 

Beat IQ with their own tactics. Create a core of 15 city nations used to take down IQ. You can slot them and take them down one by one without them being able to counter you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone finally had the balls to suggest it. Bravo, Pre.

I prefer option 3 the most; but you'd need to adjust what air and ground control mean. Otherwise, ground simply becomes the dominant units, because ground control means cutting air in half and air can't attack back at all.

You could also go with option 1 under normal circumstances, but should someone attain air, ground or naval control, they could then use that unit type to attack other unit types, with increasing damage dealt based on just how in control you actually are, based on the same existing mechanics for if you run air strikes on ground/naval units right now- the more jets they have, the more damage is still absorbed by those jets instead of the tanks you're targeting.

  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Prefontaine - I just got outta bed, but here's a thought I had about units.

Suppose that ground/naval units cannot attack air, like now. Maybe they should have a defensive values. ie. 100 planes attack 100 ships, then the 10 ships would be able to eliminate max quantity X attacking air. Same with ships attacking ground forces. Even without a navy, ground forces would still have coastal defenses. Even without air, defenders would still have SAM's. This way, it would work in values for units not portrayed in the game. Regular wargames always had variable attack/ defense values for different unit types. Nothing new there, and it might take just a small change to the combat equations. This way, planes don't really get 'nerfed'. The ground forces get a little defensive buff vs. air/naval attack, and ships should get a better anti-air buff than ground.

It would probably take care of the 'Ghost Fleeting' phenomenon, too. The one ship could possibly be eliminated by the ground defenders assumed nation coastal defences, depending on number and type of ground force. Rather than portray the units for purchase, build them into the equation for combat resolution.

Naval units would have better air defense than armor units. Armor AD would be better than infantry. And fortifying can have the same effects vs. air/naval units attacking ground forces. Getting the defensive values right might take a bit of testing.

And any game changes should really wait until the war is over.

Me get coffee now....hope this was reasonably coherent....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I want to know where pre is getting his idea that a 10 city difference can be overcome by air units when it cant.  The city difference has to be smaller than that  or the smaller nations  have to be  working in conjunction with a larger one who is doing most of the damage. The past two wars are proof that larger nations are needed in every war in order to actually take down other larger nations.

 

 Even if pres preconception was correct, the game would still be played how @Alex wants it to. Sheepy has stated numerous times over the years that he doesn't want an unbeatable top tier which is what's been suggested here.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo losing the war the response is "it's the game mechanics fault" just surrender already and stop trying to get Alex to mess the game up in your favor.

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rigging the poll to so no change could not be the most popular option, suggesting it during global war(when  war mechanic changes in the past have gone horribly wrong) yeah something is fishy with this topic... 

 

But okay I´ll give my other 2 cents:  option 1 is bad, you must delete spies as unit because killing only spies with em is stupid, nukes and missiles could only be nuked or missiled away, Fraggle would be glad. option 2 you can nuke everything so one nuke should realistically be able to kill all of enemy planes or tanks or what ever type of force you choose, not good at all. option 3 a little better but still the problem of nukes being realistically able to kill everything....

Edited by kalev60
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Curufinwe said:

That's a poll that is structured to affirm a certain outcome.  Your poll is structured to affirm a certain outcome.  Both polls have the same issue, except I probably wouldn't craft a poll that way since I realise that the results would be skewed due to its poor structure.

Since I have some time my lunch, here you are. I have three pitches, all of which require a large amount of balancing and calculations and putting hard numbers to before moving forward it a more legitimate pitch. Had I put all three of these in the OP with details that would ultimately waste a lot more of my time than going for just one approach that was more openly receive.

Quote

Two Archetype System
-Ground can fight air. Offensive damage cap at 90 planes max (1 city's worth of planes)
    -Defensive AA guns.
        -Requires FORTIFY GROUND action
        -Adds damage to air attacks against nation
        -Bombing runs against non-navy can destroy soldiers/tanks in small numbers (unless being targeted specifically by bombings)
        -Navy bombings defense bonus is the least, but run no risk of losing units.
        -Strengthens vs Dogfighting the most as planes are less worried about ground
            -Maybe doesn't impact success rate of mission, just losses.
    -Offensive sabatoging airfields
        -MAP use varies with impact of these attacks -- Will need at least 3 scenarios of 2 maps, 3 maps and 4 maps
        -Damage to infra is medium compared to ground attacks, focus is on destroying planes in airfields.
        -Consider a damage cap based on max planes in 1 city (90)
            -Maybe roll does 33-66%
        -Defending units are only ground vs ground.
            -Planes can do damage on the way out after they're attacked, no impact on success but damages ground.

-Navy can fight ground. Offensive damage cap at 1250 tanks 15000 soldiers (1 city's worth of soldiers/tanks)
    -Defensive shellings
        -Requires FORTIFY NAVY action
        -Adds damage to ground units attacking nation.
        -Strengths Ground v Ground most
        -Adding damage to ground v air might too much (review later)
    -Offensive shellings
        -Navy can bomb ground.
        -Only can be defended by Navy.
        -No navy to defend, no losses by attacker
        -Damage limited to 1 city worth of tanks/soldiers (1250/15000)
            -Based on map usage, similar problem to air scenario for MAPs.

-Air can fight Navy. Offensive bombings not limited by caps like other archetypes. Defensives abilities lower than other archetypes.
    -Defensive bombings.
        -Requires FORTIFY AIRCRAFT action
        -Adds damage to navy attacking nation.
        -Adds damage to Ground attacking nation.
        -Adds damage to air attacking nation.
    -Offensive bombings.
        -Aircraft can bomb ground
        -Boming runs against Navy are barely impacted by a FORTIFY GROUND
        -Kills vs Navy go above 1 city because planes can more easy bomb mobile targets, leaving planes with an advantage.
        -Lower infra damage some. Maybe sliding scale, impact lower citys less, higher city counts more.
    

 

As you can see there's a lot more than just making all 3 units types able to attack each other in the same manner. Had popular oppinion been at this point to allow planes to attack ground as well, to keep them having an advantage, it would be more easy to address that looking at all of these. Also imagine this being at least 4-5 times longer due to details and formulas included for the more official pitch. You can also see that the idea drastically limits the damage being done to other units navy/ground to be limited to 1 city's worth of units max. You'd be spending MAPs to kill at most 90 planes assuming the way on the ground was reasonably clear. There are other things in this pitch that could include changes to sup's. Time-caps for how quickly they can be obtained to help with gaining sup's before

 

This is why I wanted polling data of the three options. Would you like to put in the time and work on three different approaches where only 1 is what's wanted? Or would you like a simple poll to point you in the right direction? And don't tell me the mechanics on warfare don't need to be changed, because everyone admits planes are the best unit, and when you have somethings that's clearly this overpowered you need to make some adjustments. 

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"31 People has voted this poll" (However pressing show votes only shows 11)

Tho

"48 people has downvoted this post"

Those who has voted plus the owner of the post, instead searching the way to nerf the planes, I would suggest (wow a suggestion coming from a newbie) to get better, if you can have tanks, instead producing tanks save that Steel, make ships and the rest of the steel sell it to buy Aluminum and make planes. If someone took down your planes, then get better. Improve yourself. Please do not seek to lower the game for your prefference just because you are lazy to improve your tactics or improve your economy.

 

Why Is so hard to get better? Because you are doing an effort, that can be rewarded later. Shame of people that want easy stuff, and want the rest of the world to be nerfed just because your own lazyness.

Edited by Khanter Molchaniye
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Khanter Molchaniye said:

"31 People has voted this poll" (However pressing show votes only shows 11)

Tho

"48 people has downvoted this post"

Those who has voted plus the owner of the post, instead searching the way to nerf the planes, I would suggest (wow a suggestion coming from a newbie) to get better, if you can have tanks, instead producing tanks save that Steel, make ships and the rest of the steel sell it to buy Aluminum and make planes. If someone took down your planes, then get better. Improve yourself. Please do not seek to lower the game for your prefference just because you are lazy to improve your tactics or improve your economy.

 

Why Is so hard to get better? Because you are doing an effort, that can be rewarded later. Shame of people that want easy stuff, and want the rest of the world to be nerfed just because your own lazyness.

Ontop of being unintelligible, this post is amusing because a BK noob says "get better" to the very with the very same attitudes that BK and it's allies are so against. Further, they are better, it collective mob outrage to a ridiculous level and the complete suicide of the number 1 alliance, and the complete ambivalence and apathy of their upper tier to do anything, and miscommunications of goals of different groups and their pushes, and a wind tunnel of "Stats mean we win" to stop their otherwise vicious rampage of shredding you. 

The fact it took that combination of specific things to even and tip the scales should've stopped you from wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curufinwe
3 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Since I have some time my lunch, here you are. I have three pitches, all of which require a large amount of balancing and calculations and putting hard numbers to before moving forward it a more legitimate pitch. Had I put all three of these in the OP with details that would ultimately waste a lot more of my time than going for just one approach that was more openly receive.

 

As you can see there's a lot more than just making all 3 units types able to attack each other in the same manner. Had popular oppinion been at this point to allow planes to attack ground as well, to keep them having an advantage, it would be more easy to address that looking at all of these. Also imagine this being at least 4-5 times longer due to details and formulas included for the more official pitch. You can also see that the idea drastically limits the damage being done to other units navy/ground to be limited to 1 city's worth of units max. You'd be spending MAPs to kill at most 90 planes assuming the way on the ground was reasonably clear. There are other things in this pitch that could include changes to sup's. Time-caps for how quickly they can be obtained to help with gaining sup's before

 

This is why I wanted polling data of the three options. Would you like to put in the time and work on three different approaches where only 1 is what's wanted? Or would you like a simple poll to point you in the right direction? And don't tell me the mechanics on warfare don't need to be changed, because everyone admits planes are the best unit, and when you have somethings that's clearly this overpowered you need to make some adjustments. 

Well the conceit (and fundamental flaw) of your approach is presuming that 1) your 'solutions' to the problem you claim to have identified are workable (they're not, for all the reasons subsequently pointed out) and 2) they're the only legitimate ones (since you structured your poll to preclude any sort of alternative and are trying to force people to vote for one of three deeply problematic options).  As was pointed out earlier, if you want to have an actual conversation about the war mechanics that's fine, but coming up with three flawed options and trying to pass them off as the only acceptable means to address the issue because 'it's too much work' to go about this process in a less disingenuous way just speaks to the flawed nature of your approach.  Your polling is designed to determined which of these options are 'wanted' when it's fairly apparent that none of them are and you're wasting your and everyone else's time trying to shove your three self serving options down everyone's throat by skipping the sort of consultation phase that might uncover what people actually do want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Requesting thread lock. Clearly thread has been derailed by people who are unable to follow simple instructions. Will simply continue without public input and simply inquire privately to informed individuals. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

Requesting thread lock. Clearly thread has been derailed by people who are unable to follow simple instructions. Will simply continue without public input and simply inquire privately to informed individuals. 

So if people disagree with you then the thread is no longer civil?

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

Requesting thread lock. Clearly thread has been derailed by people who are unable to follow simple instructions. Will simply continue without public input and simply inquire privately to informed individuals. 

The correct response to overwhelming negative public reaction is to reconsider your plan, not to claim that everyone is wrong with the exception of you. If you are so confident that you can make a better game on your own, go ahead and do so and leave the rest of us alone

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curufinwe
3 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Requesting thread lock. Clearly thread has been derailed by people who are unable to follow simple instructions. Will simply continue without public input and simply inquire privately to informed individuals. 

Perhaps the guy who is obviously incapable of dealing with feedback that he doesn't agree with shouldn't be tasked with proposing comprehensive changes to the game.  Maybe go back into retirement if you find it so distressing that pretty much everyone who commented on them finds your ideas problematic, since we'll just be having this conversation again whenever you resurface from your impending sulk ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If posting a carefully curated poll with no input as the only ways to improve the game, gets you pushback, would it not be better to listen to it? I mean you're acting like its your way or there's no way forward which itself is a terrible precedent to set. Either you wish to listen to suggestions and work on ideas accordingly, or preferably not be disingenuous in your approach to suggesting change to the game without expecting push back. 

If anything your suggestions seem to be trying to solve a political problem with mechanical solutions. If the idea is people can compete and "its bad!" than go ahead and keep trying to push these suggestions true, but they fundamentally alter the game to make a certain type of nations overpowered and untouchable rather than attempting to even the playing field allowing for the game to be more free-flowing and promoting user-generated content. If at the end of the day, this game is a simple cities:skylines ripoff, I'd rather play that than focusing on any grand strategy through these type of suggestions. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you start a war with a blitz and you don't hit first the enemy air (unless you have an easy chance to get ground control before hitting air) you are considered an incompetent, we all agree that this is the only way to win the first phase of a conventional war, therefore the game has a problem

So yes, all units should be able to hit at least another type of unit

But I also think that no unit should be able to do high damage to a different type of unit so if ground can hit air there's no way that a full ground can damage a full air as another full air would do

And at the same time a full air attack should never be able to kill more tanks and soldiers than what a full ground attack would do, but right now airstriking tanks with full air can kill more thanks than a full tanks ground attack would do, and that makes no sense since people decide to simply not buy tanks and do other things like submarine warfare

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.