Jump to content

Feedback from war: Soldiers - Tanks - Planes - Ships


Recommended Posts

On 11/20/2020 at 5:52 AM, Prefontaine said:

Looking for feedback on what needs to be adjusted with units from experiences in this current war. 

Soldiers are OP - maybe they always have been - but particularly with the change to tanks - they just get too much value. 5/0/0/0 builds are too common this war because it's impossible to lose value on soldiers.  

There's literally no way to kill troops in a way that cost less than troops cost to build. They are always  - not almost always- always a net positive unit on offense and defense, and that's why they're OP.  They could probably stand to be about 8x more expensive. It takes 200 gas/muni to kill 25k troops. At current low manu prices - that's $1mil to kill $125k in troops. An 8 to 1 cost ratio. They also shred tanks and ground attacks kill less than half the soldiers that an airstrike does.

 

The ability to go 5/0/0/0 and down dec to shred tanks and and loot has made it the go to strategy for losing nations, and they should have a viable strategy to continue fighting - but not in a way that's always net positive. You should be able to have a viable strategy to fight a losing war, but it should be more costly than it is for the winners. Maybe if more weight is given to infra in nation score - then losing nations will more quickly be in range of nations with lower city counts and be able to defend against 3 nation attacks in a more competitive way. There shouldn't be an incentive for not fielding troops in battle - the most effective way to fight should be with a full military. 

 

I also find it strange that tanks/planes/ships NEED gas AND muni in order to do anything but soldiers can roll you even with no food or munitions. I think if you have no food it should at least halve the amount of army value they have, and that's the smallest of nerfs. Realistically, soldiers shouldn't be able to fight without food. Maybe instead of increasing monetary cost - it should cost some food to recruit them as well. 

I think tanks are also OP - as many have mentioned, they kill too many planes - they should kill half of what a dogfight kills. The monetary cost should increase - not the steel cost - maybe 0.5 steel and $150 per tank. 

 

I agree with what folks said about planes. Planes don't die enough, aluminum isn't being used. 

Ships could use a major rework. Ships are problematic because they're super expensive to build and use a ton of gas/muni, they inflate your score a lot, but they don't kill troops so they're pretty useless except to blockade. They're very underutilized this war. Ships should be added to the troop equation, they should be able to kill planes - at least defensively. They should be able to kill ground troops on offensive attacks, it makes no sense that they destroy infra (and the citizens living in them) but do no harm to soldiers and tanks. 

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 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.

  Thank you for that info. I did not know this, This is why it good to have experience players like you in any game, willing to share knowledge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2020 at 4:39 PM, MBaku said:

Wall

Soldiers are not “op”

they are meant to be a cheap meatshield troop that are fairly efficient. The reality is the only situation where soldiers are exceptionally good is when a nation/alliance chooses to go purely soldiers to do dmg while having little losses. That is literally their use and they do not actually win anyone real alliance wars.

however this only occurs in dogpiles, if you think about it in an even fight where both sides are buying max units soldiers do not matter, tanks outweigh soldiers at max and can kill planes, planes are well they’re good. They’re basically a meatshield in an actual war and going pure soldiers will never win you the war, only compensation damage at max.

Dont base changes off a huge dogpile, If an side has to go pure soldiers they are losing much much more as they’re likely completely outnumbered and losing. It’s not as if people have the advantage and are still going pure soldiers.

 

EDIT: P.S. can you guys stop basing aluminum consumption on a war where planes were only majorily purchased in R1 thanks. 

Edited by KingGhost
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Soldiers killing 1k tanks in a suicide attack isn't even an issue though. 1k tanks cost 500 steel which at a price of like 4k ppu per steel equals a cost of $2m. With 3 ground battles that would be a damage of $6m, but instead of doing that you could also fire a missile and probably deal more damage. That's also like the only thing soldiers even do against someone with max ground, if they didn't deal some damage somewhere then the losing side wouldn't even need to have them.

Something that's not accounted for in damage stats of a war is revenue. In this last war you had quacks infra getting shaved pretty quickly while their opponents still had a lot of infra left at the end of it, hell we even had like Tyrion rebuilding to 3k infra per city mid-war. When some people on the winning side are still making $50m every day then I think it's pretty fair that the losers are given some kind of way to deal damage to at least balance that out and I don't think the soldier suicides are a problem.

Also, that's making it sound like losers are typically doing better on the war part which is not even the case, beige discipline was thrown out of the window last war because it wasn't needed and a common sight was the losing side getting raided and their opponents enjoying that.

In the end quack didn't surrender because they felt spamming soldiers was winning them the war, they surrendered because they felt that was not the case, and I think just that alone makes it seem pretty silly to criticize the few things that gave them any way at all of putting up a fight.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 12/17/2020 at 11:38 AM, KingGhost said:

Soldiers are not “op”

they are meant to be a cheap meatshield troop that are fairly efficient. The reality is the only situation where soldiers are exceptionally good is when a nation/alliance chooses to go purely soldiers to do dmg while having little losses. That is literally their use and they do not actually win anyone real alliance wars.

however this only occurs in dogpiles, if you think about it in an even fight where both sides are buying max units soldiers do not matter, tanks outweigh soldiers at max and can kill planes, planes are well they’re good. They’re basically a meatshield in an actual war and going pure soldiers will never win you the war, only compensation damage at max.

Dont base changes off a huge dogpile, If an side has to go pure soldiers they are losing much much more as they’re likely completely outnumbered and losing. It’s not as if people have the advantage and are still going pure soldiers.

 

EDIT: P.S. can you guys stop basing aluminum consumption on a war where planes were only majorily purchased in R1 thanks. 

I guess my issue is that they're more than just "fairly efficient", there's no way to get a net positive killing soldiers. They also steal money, and they're the only units that steal money with a net positive, tanks spend gas/muni and die so you spend steel and end up pretty much with a net zero benefit from any money they do steal. I think they're too cheap. You lose money airstriking them, you lose money rolling them with tanks, and the market cost of gas/muni would have to be crazy, historically low for that to change. The better thing to do imo is make them cost more.  I also think they shouldn't attack if you're out of food. 

And I also think soldiers are essential in general warfare, yes tanks are stronger, but you need both to win. Tanks and soldiers vs just tanks will win unless they have way more cities than you. Also, air superiority doesn't affect soldiers so they're important in competitive wars. They may not be the deciding factor in winning, but you will surely lose without them. In that regard, they are essential to real wars. 

Recap on soldiers  -they attack without muni, they attack without food, they steal more money than any other unit, you lose money killing them, they're immune to AS, and they're the cheapest unit in the game by a magnitude. You could make them 5x more expensive and all of these things would still be true. I think that's OP.

Edited by MBaku
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2020 at 9:03 AM, Dryad said:

Soldiers killing 1k tanks in a suicide attack isn't even an issue though. 1k tanks cost 500 steel which at a price of like 4k ppu per steel equals a cost of $2m. With 3 ground battles that would be a damage of $6m, but instead of doing that you could also fire a missile and probably deal more damage. That's also like the only thing soldiers even do against someone with max ground, if they didn't deal some damage somewhere then the losing side wouldn't even need to have them.

Something that's not accounted for in damage stats of a war is revenue. In this last war you had quacks infra getting shaved pretty quickly while their opponents still had a lot of infra left at the end of it, hell we even had like Tyrion rebuilding to 3k infra per city mid-war. When some people on the winning side are still making $50m every day then I think it's pretty fair that the losers are given some kind of way to deal damage to at least balance that out and I don't think the soldier suicides are a problem.

Also, that's making it sound like losers are typically doing better on the war part which is not even the case, beige discipline was thrown out of the window last war because it wasn't needed and a common sight was the losing side getting raided and their opponents enjoying that.

In the end quack didn't surrender because they felt spamming soldiers was winning them the war, they surrendered because they felt that was not the case, and I think just that alone makes it seem pretty silly to criticize the few things that gave them any way at all of putting up a fight.

I agree with all these things, I also think you could make soldiers 5x more expensive and all these things would still be true. 5x is a bit of a drastic balance change but i think 2x or 3x could make sense for all the reasons I listed in my response to KingGhost. I thought maybe tanks and planes should just kill more, but I think those ratios are good. 

Soldiers ARE just meatshields when you're losing, but I don't think meatshields should yield net positive gains, they should only reduce losses. 

I did wonder why quack kept any gas/steel/alum on their nations at all if they didn't have the intent to build any troops, or raws on their nation for that matter. Felt like a donation to raiders. If you're losing, missiles and nukes are the best way to deal damage because they guarantee improvements are lost and can still deliver major infra damage if folks want to rebuild mid-war. Why not just keep enough on the nation to make missiles and nukes for 2-3 days before getting beige and reset? On that note, a better way to provide some pushback on lopsided wars would be to increase the number of nukes and missiles made in a day. 

Last war was a bad example to decide what to change though because you should lose when you're that badly outnumbered, if they can win a war that lopsided then the game is badly imbalanced towards the underdog. If it was only 1.5 to 1 or 2 to 1, there should be some tricks in the bag to be competitive, I don't have the numbers but this seemed way worse, particularly for the 10-15 city tier. 

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.