Jump to content

Feedback from war: Soldiers - Tanks - Planes - Ships


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

Aluminum simply is not being spent in wars, and I completely disagree with the others here about increasing the steel cost of tanks, if you look at the worldwide total steel graphs you'll see that tanks are at a good place price wise.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*insert once again suggestion to increase dogfight kill rate to make air and ground roughly equally viable for wasting someone*

Literally the easiest and simplest solution, just change a single damn number.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah alum consumption is almost unchanged in this war, meaning people aren't building/using planes.  Ground kills way too many planes that it doesn't make sense to rebuild planes unless you're willing to max your tanks too.  I don't mind them destroying some planes, but a ground attack can destroy more planes than a dogfight.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ground attack kills more planes than Dogfight, either increase the kill count in Dogfight or decrease the kill count in Ground attack.

I disagree about nerfing tanks, Perhaps make more use out of aluminium.

Also when your enemy has just soldiers and you've both soldier and tanks when doing ground attack, amount of tanks we loose is just absurd (it's totally not profitable at all to attack with tanks)

And ships are just vulnerable to planes ( hope you can do something about it)

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All conventional combat is incredibly inconsistent; you can run the same fight a dozen times and get several wildly different results. I can sim 400 planes attacking 600 and get a 2:1 kill ratio with the result being pyrrhic victory, and then sim the same fight again and get about even kills and the result is an immense triumph. Why? I have no idea. I can't plan attacks very well if I have no idea what the result will be, and the results are this insanely varied. Especially when trying to coordinate between members. When you're setting up multiple attacks and they can all go completely differently there isn't much to do other than sit back and roll the dice, which isn't fun or satisfying. That's the only major issue that doesn't involve a total rework.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd want to make a new debuff for Soldiers. Basically if you're in a war and you Blockade them, get Air Superiority, have Ground Control, maybe something like "Logistics Control", a combined benefit for having all 3 other debuffs. It could (1 or more of the following):

  • Do double casualties to enemy Soldiers
  • Half the casualties of enemy Soldiers
  • Reduce enemy Soldiers from damaging Tanks

When you're winning a war, it can be frustrating to dominate every level of combat but still have opponents suicide cheap Soldiers into tanks for additional damages. This could prevent that from happening. It may also make more well-rounded wars where players consider different ways of winning wars. It can also help scenarios of down-declares where they have a mass of soldiers but don't bother to build tanks, planes, or ships to give their opponents a way to overcome their mass of soldiers if they don't commit resources elsewhere.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Isjaki said:

The cost of tanks need to be increased back to the old level of 1 steel/tank. At the moment, tanks are cheap AND powerful as compared to other units.

1 steel would be too expensive for new players, maybe 0.75 steel/tank would do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Android_ELITE said:

All conventional combat is incredibly inconsistent; you can run the same fight a dozen times and get several wildly different results. I can sim 400 planes attacking 600 and get a 2:1 kill ratio with the result being pyrrhic victory, and then sim the same fight again and get about even kills and the result is an immense triumph. Why? I have no idea. I can't plan attacks very well if I have no idea what the result will be, and the results are this insanely varied. Especially when trying to coordinate between members. When you're setting up multiple attacks and they can all go completely differently there isn't much to do other than sit back and roll the dice, which isn't fun or satisfying. That's the only major issue that doesn't involve a total rework.

It's really not that inconsistent if you know how damage is calculated. Dogfights have always favored the attacker, even when outnumbered. Only thing that's inconsistence is the victory type, but that's intentional rng.

Anyways, I agree with what other people are saying. Airstrikes/dogfights are a joke. Look at what ground battles can do in comparison:

Destroy more tanks. Destroy more planes. Costs less maps. Costs less munitions/gas. Loot from ground battles. More cost effective infra damage.

Also, contrary to popular opinion, soldiers are the best unit in the game (not tanks). I don't agree with the change that made them take less damage in ground battles. They're immortal.

Edited by Krouton
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO don't adjust damage.

Air beats air. Air beats all. Ship beats ship. Tanks beat air. Soldiers beat tanks. It's pretty balanced, more than it was.

Steel is rare enough and has to be split between ships and tanks, so it's an economic decision whether to do it. I suggest just slightly increasing steel cost for tanks, but keep it less than 1.

Alternatively, keep tank damage, but increase soldier damage. If you want to use your tanks instead of aircraft, be prepared to have them shredded by the soldiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the solution to tanks problems are a bit more simple than you guys are making it out to be. Your all focused on the cost and the effectiveness of tanks but actually the effectiveness is fine on planes[via GAs] - the real issue is the maximum number of tanks a nation can hold. Alex reduced the max number of planes early this year, so I think that fixing the amount of tanks per factory to a lower number will solve all of these issues at once, thus I think we should just reduce the amount of tanks per factory from 250 to 200.

Tl;dr : By lowering the maximum number of tanks a nation can hold it will also lower the effectiveness of tanks destroying aircraft. Thus balancing tanks in being greatly useful but not incredibly OP. Edit : Oh and just to add some extra icing on the cake maintaining max tanks becomes cheaper too.

Additionally I also support Akuryo's suggestion to upgrade dogfight effectiveness - not airstriking targets like tanks or soldiers but solely for air vs air by at least a little bit. I've had MS or PV's while suiciding into a superior airforce that should have never happened. But it did.

Edited by PhantomThiefB
  • Upvote 2

image.png?ex=65f5acc8&is=65e337c8&hm=1606ce00348e48cf652f897b3bc05280d703dba4c8d18f7b009ab2ca44a5283b&

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2020 at 1:44 PM, Akuryo said:

*insert once again suggestion to increase dogfight kill rate to make air and ground roughly equally viable for wasting someone*

Literally the easiest and simplest solution, just change a single damn number.

This is the best feedback I have seen^

gg-fu-banner.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2020 at 6:44 PM, Potpie99 said:

Aluminum simply is not being spent in wars, and I completely disagree with the others here about increasing the steel cost of tanks, if you look at the worldwide total steel graphs you'll see that tanks are at a good place price wise.

 

On 11/20/2020 at 6:46 PM, Lord Tyrion said:

Yeah alum consumption is almost unchanged in this war, meaning people aren't building/using planes.  Ground kills way too many planes that it doesn't make sense to rebuild planes unless you're willing to max your tanks too.

 

On 11/20/2020 at 8:17 PM, Flavee said:

I disagree about nerfing tanks, Perhaps make more use out of aluminium.

 

Hrmm, here's a completely off the wall / radical suggestion: how about ground control restricts opponent to using 2/3rds planes. Ya know, instead of tanks killing planes... 🤔

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Military level should not be base on 5553 buildings. That could be a max level, however total military levels should be base on population and not a magic building.

IE:

nation1 has 16 cities with a average of 300k people per city given him about 240k troops

nation2 has 16 cities with a average of 40k people per city and just because of a building can somehow build the same number of troops.  If you do the math for nation2 to raise 240k troops would need to empty 6 cities of all of their population including the very young and old.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, levothy said:

Military level should not be base on 5553 buildings. That could be a max level, however total military levels should be base on population and not a magic building.

IE:

nation1 has 16 cities with a average of 300k people per city given him about 240k troops

nation2 has 16 cities with a average of 40k people per city and just because of a building can somehow build the same number of troops.  If you do the math for nation2 to raise 240k troops would need to empty 6 cities of all of their population including the very young and old.

That's already how it is. If you have 5553 and a solid population, that's the max but then if your population is too low, it inhibits how many soldiers/units you can have.

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Adrienne said:

That's already how it is. If you have 5553 and a solid population, that's the max but then if your population is too low, it inhibits how many soldiers/units you can have.

this could use a buff tho - i think you only need like 600 infra per city before population even becomes an issue - maybe 1000 infra per city would be a better floor before population begins to affect how many soldiers you can have. 

Edited by MBaku
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • 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.