Jump to content

Additional Ground Attack Types


Recommended Posts

Guest Elijah Mikaelson

I do like the last one, think that would be a game changer on this plane only spam if they was to lose tons of planes in ground attacks

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last time a suggestion to "balance" planes by allowing them to be attacked by ground units was made, the OP was probably the most downvoted post in the history of the forums.

This suggestion isn't identical to it, but the glaring balance problems associated with it are similar enough that I think most of the objections to that suggestion apply here as well.

I'm strongly opposed, and I suspect most of the replies to that suggestion would be as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it amusing that you see giving viability to ground units as unbalanced, while the current meta of only planes matter perfectly fine.

>Downvotes

Popular mechanics are not always good mechanics. The reverse also holds true.

Edited by ArcKnox
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ArcKnox said:

I find it amusing that you see giving viability to ground units as unbalanced, while the current meta of only planes matter perfectly fine.

>Downvotes

Popular mechanics are not always good mechanics. The reverse also holds true.

Ground units aren't unviable now and that's not what I said.

There are three big ways to balance the game that I typically see referenced:

1) "Realism" - This gets roundly criticized every time it's brought because it's a pretty dumb way to conceive of gameplay.

2) Balance around individual nations - This seems to be what you and Pre both had in mind for your respective proposals. It's definitely a relevant consideration, but probably isn't the most important and certainly isn't sufficient on its own.

3) Balance around groups - The main meta of PW centers around the actions of groups, namely alliances and coalitions of alliances. Balancing the needs and strategies of these larger groups is of paramount importance when considering mechanical changes, and this is precisely where both your and Pre's proposals fall short. As others outlined extensively in the thread I linked, "balancing" planes by nerfing them would unbalance the game by neutering nations' (and alliances') ability to effectively updeclare. The nominally unbalanced role of aircraft isn't a good enough reason to nerf updeclares. That line of thinking is analogous to demands to make the game more "realistic": where that complaint fails to understand that the game isn't meant to be a realistic simulation, the "planes are overpowered" complaint fails to understand the importance, if not outright primacy, of group play compared to individual play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly we need something like this. If someone has no ground at all then they wouldn't be able to defend there airfields. That much makes sense. Haveing wars currently only revolve around air makes them boring. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

> As others outlined extensively in the thread I linked, "balancing" planes by nerfing them would unbalance the game by neutering nations' (and alliances') ability to effectively updeclare. The nominally unbalanced role of aircraft isn't a good enough reason to nerf updeclares. That line of thinking is analogous to demands to make the game more "realistic": where that complaint fails to understand that the game isn't meant to be a realistic simulation, the "planes are overpowered" complaint fails to understand the importance, if not outright primacy, of group play compared to individual play.

Your complaints of harder updeclares ring hollow when you consider that hitting up may be difficult, but hitting down is impossible due to the very restrictive nature of downdeclare ranges. Combine this with the fact that nations that lose military units naturally drop in score makes life even more difficult for someone who should ostensibly be rewarded for making the investment in their nation. The top heavy group is at a severe disadvantage because the bottom heavy group can pick the time and place of the engagement, strike with impunity, and then hold them down indefinitely because of the glacial pace at which planes (the only unit that matters) are built. The top heavy group may win an individual battle, but their opponents are then dropped down below their range and are able to rebuild in peace for another round. This group is afforded very little opportunity for group play because they are perpetually on the defensive. Giving ground forces the ability to destroy planes would add another dimension and tactical depth to a currently 1 dimensional affair.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve actually messaged with Alex about this very thing, except I discussed it with naval.   Ships are a very expensive investment.   They also have anti-aircraft guns in real life.  Why aren’t they allowed to target anything aside from other ships while delivering often meaningless infra damage? Once built, they are just sitting ducks once your air is destroyed.

I do like the ground ideas you have here, especially the last one.    Air superiority takes tanks to 1/2 value.  Ground control still gives an opponent 67% availability of a plane that takes 6-7 days for a nation to build to max.  Issue I see is that soldiers are essentially free   Planes cost a substantial amount   

How about subsequent ground rolls reducing plane availability at an increasing rate after each subsequent roll?  Destroy them, render them useless, doesn’t matter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Kaz said:

I’ve actually messaged with Alex about this very thing, except I discussed it with naval.   Ships are a very expensive investment.   They also have anti-aircraft guns in real life.  Why aren’t they allowed to target anything aside from other ships while delivering often meaningless infra damage? Once built, they are just sitting ducks once your air is destroyed.

I do like the ground ideas you have here, especially the last one.    Air superiority takes tanks to 1/2 value.  Ground control still gives an opponent 67% availability of a plane that takes 6-7 days for a nation to build to max.  Issue I see is that soldiers are essentially free   Planes cost a substantial amount   

How about subsequent ground rolls reducing plane availability at an increasing rate after each subsequent roll?  Destroy them, render them useless, doesn’t matter. 

However soldiers are only a small part of ground. If someone builds tanks then afew soldiers are meaningless. This change will actually make tanks useful and not just a statpad for how much you kill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall I think this is great

I'm not sure how I feel about raiding airfields.  If that's unpopular it can be taken out as an option.  Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I'd suggest separating out attacks that focus on infra vs attacks that focus on improvements.

I'd also suggest one other attack type:

1) Guerrilla attack.  Can't ever take away resistance.  Zero or limited money/infra/improvement damage.  Significantly change the combat formulas so that casualties generally end up roughly as 3-2 attacker-defender and attacker casualties max out at about 25% of attacking force.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe add a tank killer option too, in addition to using gas and munitions, it uses steel and/or aluminum (for RPG's or tank mines)

Edited by REAP3R
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this.

Planes are way too overpowered, and that coupled with how hard they are to rebuild essentially is the reason the war system is so broken atm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Do keep in mind that Planes require much less Infra pop to cap out.  Which is pretty ridiculous, honestly.

And are the 2nd cheapest unit in the game (after soldiers). And can hit everything. And can hit everything *effectively*. And can't be hit themselves other than by planes and spies. And low NS inflation as well.

It's not even a matter of realism. It's a matter of balance.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PhantomThiefB
38 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Do keep in mind that Planes require much less Infra pop to cap out.  Which is pretty ridiculous, honestly.

Actually agree, it's kinda dumb I can't max soldiers at 750(maybe closer to 800, just a rough estimate) avg per city but I can max my aircraft out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

And are the 2nd cheapest unit in the game (after soldiers). And can hit everything. And can hit everything *effectively*. And can't be hit themselves other than by planes and spies. And low NS inflation as well.

It's not even a matter of realism. It's a matter of balance.

Increasing their contribution to NS would be an easy balance change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

And are the 2nd cheapest unit in the game (after soldiers). And can hit everything. And can hit everything *effectively*. And can't be hit themselves other than by planes and spies. And low NS inflation as well.

It's not even a matter of realism. It's a matter of balance.

Actually it is a manner of realism. If a nation doesn't have any soldiers then it wont be able to defend its airfields against an invasion of ground troops.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2020 at 4:51 PM, lightside said:

Actually it is a manner of realism. If a nation doesn't have any soldiers then it wont be able to defend its airfields against an invasion of ground troops.

I mean, this is a game where you can triple your population overnight, where you can play baseball through blockades with people you're in a state of war with, where loot can be transferred to you through said blockades and with the only thing forcing the surrender/capitulation being missiles, nukes, or a single boat. Where a single spy can somehow kill thousands of tanks with a single explosive charge, etc.

There are many concessions realism makes for balance as is. Furthermore, realism is often brought up in quite partial ways, which is why I'm not so keen on using it as a talking point for an argument. I'd rather it be based on game balance. With that said, I am fine with the idea of having planes be vulnerable to GA's (or other attacks that aren't just dogfights).

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I could go to 300 Infra per city, with only 5 Airfields and a PP.  And be the most effective combatant by minimizing my score as much as possible to abuse nations much lower in city count than myself while avoiding similar city count or higher nations with the drop in score.

The only penalty to the build would be economic only, but with as much wealth you could generate through Baseball or even dailies, or hell, just swap Airfields to Barracks for a few thousand Soldiers to raid inactives - I could easily cover that issue up.

I’ve been long on the bandwagon for several years that Planes need a nerf in some form or fashion.

Either boost other units to combat Planes, nerf the pop cap for Planes by increasing it drastically, or increase resource cost.  Each of these are a good solution towards balance.

If you want to spice the game up, then explore the OP’s idea in adding flavorful additional attack types for war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Elijah Mikaelson

If you rake the USA, they have about 7500 planes from bombers to fighter jets, (not taken in to account transporters and such as we are just talking fighter jets and bombers) compared to the 1.3m standing troops and the 865,000 reserves so about 2.165m soldiers, this means there is 151 US citizens to every solder and 43,626 us citizens to planes.

As flying a plane takes a greater skill level and cost more than just having soldiers, I personal there that there is something wrong with the system, where a nation have have 300 infra and be able to max out planes, you are not able to max ships due to not having enough population.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I had been thinking of something similar to this a few weeks back, but with some changes to make the ground game feel different than the air game. With the air it makes sense to select a mission, do it, and come home. Ground armies are more of a presence though and as such I was thinking something more along the lines of allowing a country to assign specialized support companies. A nation's army could support one form of support company at a time and it is basically their ground specialty and it is active at all times - attack and defense. Changing between support companies would have a small associated cost and take one real life day during which no benefits are received. Options for such support attachments could be as follows.

SPAA: Causes air casualties based upon the number of tanks (though not enough to deter planes from bombing tanks if the other side has clear air superiority - just enough to make attacking into an even fight become a bad idea).
Missile Artillery: First round strike (basically a free dice roll) on enemy army and additional infrastructure damage.
Logistics Company: Lowers the amount of ammo and gas spent during attacks and increases the amount of loot that an army can carry.
Maintenance and Engineering Company: Lowers the amount of ammo and gas spent on maintenance as well as nullifies the Fortified effect.

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.