Prefontaine Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 With the current war wrapping up, please use this thread to post areas of concern with the casualty rates in the current war system. Just want everything to stay in one location for easy reference. This thread is only for discussion of MAP usage units so keep it limited to that please. Thanks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isjaki Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 Tanks, in my opinion, are too overpowered. They kill a lot of planes, and they are a relatively cheap unit to produce, due to the prices being lowered. The casualty rates of planes killed in ground battles should be lowered, imo. That, or make tanks more expensive. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted August 31, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 31, 2020 Ground battles are savage now. Especially with their ability to rip planes apart faster than you can reliably gain AS, ground has become the equivalent of aircraft in the old meta. You can either reduce ground casualties, though this makes war overall more grindy, by alot. Alternatively one could increase air to air casualties, making at a rough parity with ground, placing the emphasis on an organized first strike and a coordinated active membership and Milcom to send counters to either maintain or take back initiative. I prefer option two, especially with new beige mechanics hopefully coming soon to make all wars end in beige (something realistic, effective and quick, before you go flowing with the long term creative juices, please) as this truly makes combined arms and absolute necessary and opens up far more strategic options with Ground and Air both being powerful enough to floor people if used properly. A slight increase in airstriking tanks wouldn't be bad either. Hopefully a change for ships (better ship to ship kills, add in a targetting option like planes have, ships are giant floating missiles silos yanno) and spend our time testing the effectiveness of those, allowing them to target units or infra or other ships or even improvements. Ships as they are are as they've always been, meh. Good for killing infra, and so in my idea above they'd only be OK at killing other units instead of the slaughter parity with ground and air.  1 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted August 31, 2020 Author Share Posted August 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, Akuryo said: A slight increase in airstriking tanks wouldn't be bad either. And what about planes vs ships? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blink Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 Just now, Prefontaine said: And what about planes vs ships? Yeah needs to be higher too. A targeted airstrike should kill equal if not more tanks than a ground attack which simply wipes everything at the moment but for ships. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 I admit I didn't have much opportunity to get a good read on the ground and air battle mechanics against a similarly sized opponent, but it seems to me that, just from the numbers, it's actually harder to kill planes with tanks from an equal start than it is to dogfight the planes down and gain AS that way? Badly composed sentence, I apologize. Here, let me try again: A and B have equal tanks, soldiers, and aircraft. A attacks by ground, B dogfights. In this situation, A is trading ground damage equally with B and has a low chance of getting an IT at all, and needs two ITs to begin damaging aircraft that way. B on the other hand is trading aircraft favorably from the first strike, thus opening up a greater relative potential of a devastating IT on the airstrike, which would cripple A's tanks. Meanwhile, even if A manages a single IT... it didn't change the air game at all. Only the second IT changes anything. That requires a minimum of 6 action points to achieve with even a tiny odds of success, while the dogfighter is favorably trading from the first 4 action points. More than that, and do correct me if I'm wrong here, we're neglecting fortification. Fortification was (as far as I'm aware) never able to change dogfight damages meaningfully, but did change ground battles? If that's so, and remains so, then fortification is a potential counter to tanks in a way that it never could be against aircraft. While still leaving aircraft important, if not just as important, as they were before. Am I off base here? Â 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 9 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: And what about planes vs ships? I actually plane vs to ships to be fine still. It's lower than before but it's not like tanks where it's so low it's pointless. I still average 50 ships sunk with an Airstrike, max at 56, and can myself hold 375. A slight increase or even pre change numbers would be fine too, especially if ships get buffed, but the current would probably be fine as well even with a buff. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vein Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) 1. Ground v ground - the soldiers casualties are far too low, someone did 300k soldiers vs 200k soldiers and only ended up killing 10k soldiers which imo is way too little. With tanks being 0.5 steel instead of 1, the casualty there is looking fine. 2. Planes v planes - looking good with how it is rn. Maybe increasing the casualty tad bit would be better. 3. Ships v ships - it’s trash. You kill way to little. casualty needs to be increased by alot. 4. Plane v soldiers - horrible, casualty needs to be increased by alot. 5. Plane v ships - it’s not bad, but increasing the casualty would be better. 6. Plane v tanks - planes kills no tanks at all, casualty needs to increased. i dont have time to go into depth, but im sure others could do that for me. Edited August 31, 2020 by Vein 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 10 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Â I think that is the correct scenario you're looking at with similarly militarized opponents. However, if you get caught with your pants down like Wei, without much (or any) ground force, your planes and remnants of a ground force will be slaughtered. Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: I admit I didn't have much opportunity to get a good read on the ground and air battle mechanics against a similarly sized opponent, but it seems to me that, just from the numbers, it's actually harder to kill planes with tanks from an equal start than it is to dogfight the planes down and gain AS that way? Badly composed sentence, I apologize. Here, let me try again: A and B have equal tanks, soldiers, and aircraft. A attacks by ground, B dogfights. In this situation, A is trading ground damage equally with B and has a low chance of getting an IT at all, and needs two ITs to begin damaging aircraft that way. B on the other hand is trading aircraft favorably from the first strike, thus opening up a greater relative potential of a devastating IT on the airstrike, which would cripple A's tanks. Meanwhile, even if A manages a single IT... it didn't change the air game at all. Only the second IT changes anything. That requires a minimum of 6 action points to achieve with even a tiny odds of success, while the dogfighter is favorably trading from the first 4 action points. More than that, and do correct me if I'm wrong here, we're neglecting fortification. Fortification was (as far as I'm aware) never able to change dogfight damages meaningfully, but did change ground battles? If that's so, and remains so, then fortification is a potential counter to tanks in a way that it never could be against aircraft. While still leaving aircraft important, if not just as important, as they were before. Am I off base here?  Based on the experience in our blitz with mixed leadings, this is completely false. Air is by no means useless or weak, but ground is absolutely stronger. We noticed something, especially at CoTL where alot of our wars lead with ground. The DC after blitz, our targets were dead. Half ground, 70%, 100%, 0%, it didn't matter what they started with. They were dead all the same. If they had any ground left it was under 20%, their planes were in the 30s-40s at best and their ships were being hammered away. Meanwhile we noticed, those who lead Air, including you folks in TJest, at this same period in time had opponents with about half planes, and with their ground and ships mostly intact an still at extremely high levels. A 1v1 like you described is, frankly, kind of irrelevant. This is a team based game at the end of the day. You can't balance around a 1v1. Even in this 1v1, ground still has edge. It kills ground faster than planes kill planes, and when it ITs it kills planes faster than planes kill planes. At max tanks I kill 234 per GC. Every GC. No RNG. I average like 200-210 in an Airstrike. And don't forget, the RNG is wonky because the casualties are different. It used to be 2:1 air would IT every time. Boyce got a moderate on me, 2400:1100. Even when gauging people my own city count, having a plane advantage of 800 still have me at 45-50% IT odds. Meanwhile having nearly 50% greater ground, about what I had in planes, gave me something like 75% IT odds. Even when forces are equal, Ground RNG is kinder. These differences in a 1v1 aren't massive, they're definitely noticeable, and they're painfully and blatantly noticeable when team play and offensive action comes in, as we noticed in our own action. Planes are still viable, they're just slower. Alot slower. Cheaper too, but so, so slower. Ground and pound now can and will end you as fast as dogfights used to. It's not as one sided or unstoppable as that (memph mathed it out with me, in an equal numbers conflict with a blitz, the defenders focusing air can push back with some luck from RNG, and this accounts for no counters. However, the advantage again, still lies with the attackers using ground. We also found if the attackers hit with air against these same equal number equal size equal activity opponents, who responded focusing ground, the advantage would be pushed back from the blitz in their favor more often than not). This can be mitigated by going very close to DC, but since we assumed both sides were extremely active, that still might not be enough. Ground is absolutely the stronger of the two now. Planes are relevant, but are more of a supporting class. Edited August 31, 2020 by Akuryo 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 6 minutes ago, Akuryo said: -snip- Yes, ground ITs do kill planes much faster than dogfights kill planes, my point was that given relatively equal numbers aircraft should mathematically edge out as the ideal opening. In a 3v1 blitz scenario though, yeah you can reliably get ITs with the second wave after rebuilds, no doubt. But that's already giving the attacker a tremendous advantage; with that advantage there's definitely benefits to opening ground but without blitz and number advantage air should be better off. Lest we forget, you've been insufferably proud of the number of slots your alliance managed to fill. TJest didn't have that luxury since we went in with comparable numbers to our opponents, so it shouldn't be surprising that we couldn't zero our targets quite as quickly 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted August 31, 2020 Share Posted August 31, 2020 6 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Yes, ground ITs do kill planes much faster than dogfights kill planes, my point was that given relatively equal numbers aircraft should mathematically edge out as the ideal opening. In a 3v1 blitz scenario though, yeah you can reliably get ITs with the second wave after rebuilds, no doubt. But that's already giving the attacker a tremendous advantage; with that advantage there's definitely benefits to opening ground but without blitz and number advantage air should be better off. Lest we forget, you've been insufferably proud of the number of slots your alliance managed to fill. TJest didn't have that luxury since we went in with comparable numbers to our opponents, so it shouldn't be surprising that we couldn't zero our targets quite as quickly Hey I have low self esteem IRL I've gotta use something to boost it up so I don't turn k to a black hole of misery from which no happiness escapes. 😛 Aye in equal numbers it pretty much comes down to RNG. Still leans ground favoring, but it's by no means unstoppable. I think for an active and capable alliance this is better than the previous meta overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Changeup Posted September 1, 2020 Share Posted September 1, 2020 Ground v. Ground - I think this is fine, maybe a slight decrease to soldier-tank kills and a minor increase to soldier-soldier. Ground v. Air - A moderate reduction, probably 25-30% less than the current, on plane kills. Air v. Tanks - An increase is needed, honestly go from the current 14% of a rebuy to 25%, it's a bit weak right now That's all I saw that needed fixing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Cooper Posted September 3, 2020 Share Posted September 3, 2020 Ground v Ground needs to be fixed, it's hard to get an immense despite having almost twice as many soldiers as the enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted September 3, 2020 Author Share Posted September 3, 2020 2 hours ago, Sam Cooper said: Ground v Ground needs to be fixed, it's hard to get an immense despite having almost twice as many soldiers as the enemy. Just when you have soldiers, or are tanks involved in any capacity? Population does have an impact for the defender too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 7 hours ago, Prefontaine said: Population does have an impact for the defender too. ...No, it really doesn't. Yes, there's enough of a difference to mean that 50 soldiers is going to fail, but there's no realistic tactical scenario in which the defending population mechanic changes spit. 3k soldiers worth? woo. 0.01% higher odds of an IT as opposed to a moderate, and that's in a close battle which stops being relevant once the followup happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightside Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 (edited) Tanks are too strong now i think. tanks can kill more aircraft then aircraft can kill aircraft. Which shouldn't be the case at all. Also aircraft damage to other aircraft and tanks should be buffed. It was overnerfed i think. Edited September 4, 2020 by lightside 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Cooper Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 On 9/3/2020 at 11:22 PM, Prefontaine said: Just when you have soldiers, or are tanks involved in any capacity? Population does have an impact for the defender too. no tanks on either sides, and I am aware of population impact but it happens with downdeclares too, last one I remember was against a 11 city nation with 1500 infra (I am at 18 with 800 infra), it was 267k vs 152k soldiers and I got a moderate success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted September 4, 2020 Share Posted September 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Sam Cooper said: no tanks on either sides, and I am aware of population impact but it happens with downdeclares too, last one I remember was against a 11 city nation with 1500 infra (I am at 18 with 800 infra), it was 267k vs 152k soldiers and I got a moderate success. Yeah, that's well within the parameters of where a moderate is quite likely. Even ignoring the defending population, I'm seeing a calculated odds of 19% moderate 1% pyrrhic. So if anything you got luckier than you could have. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nokia Rokia Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 (edited) So earlier we were doing spy ops for fun when some fool came by and like tots killed 23 spiez in 1 ops like becky what is that tl;dr Spy Deaths shouldnt be so easy when it takes 2 months to fix sides this i feel maybe planes should go back to being 90 a city which would offset how fast tanks kill em Edited September 8, 2020 by Nokia Rokia 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 (edited) 1 Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted September 19, 2020 Share Posted September 19, 2020 On 9/8/2020 at 8:37 AM, Nokia Rokia said: So earlier we were doing spy ops for fun when some fool came by and like tots killed 23 spiez in 1 ops like becky what is that tl;dr Spy Deaths shouldnt be so easy when it takes 2 months to fix Friend, I've seen upwards of 30 spies killed in a single op IIRC. It's wack 😕 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nokia Rokia Posted September 20, 2020 Share Posted September 20, 2020 12 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Friend, I've seen upwards of 30 spies killed in a single op IIRC. It's wack 😕 ya it be that way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.