Search Results
Search results 1-20 of 679.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
Morale Provinces
PostQuote from FarmerJG: “I just captured a province a few days ago and it is somehow at 83 percent morale. That is more than some of my homeland provinces! ” One driver behind this is the neighborhood morale factor. Cities with low(ish) morale pull down their neighbors' more than provinces. Add to this the fact that the baseline target is only 90% for HL cities while 100% for all provinces.
-
Quote from T8.0: “Do you level up infantry? Why or why not? ” Only when it makes sense, which IMO is exclusively for NG Lv3. Then you get the cheapest HP, along with speed increased to that of arty. Quote from T8.0: “Anti-aircraft belongs to the tank category, hence the tank commander give a boost to them too, right? ” TankO does give a boost, as AA (i.e. MAAV and SAM) are hard targets. I would not call them a "tank category", being rather support vehicles, though.
-
Anti-Air
PostQuote from playbabe: “PD is defense damage deal against attacked aircraft before aircraft do without conditions. ” That's what I said, too (although you meant to say attackING here, correct?).
-
In one of my experimental games I got to a stage where lots of armoreds needs to be cleaned up in abandoned AI countries. I figured this is a good occasion to demonstrate, with specific ingame combat data, how vulnerable they are in actual practice. (Some stacks are reinforced by AFVs besides infantry meatshield.) I am about to spam mixed Attack+Gunship helo force for this operation. My country, Finland, is still limited in the necessary Components production (with a net of 2154/day excess over …
-
Anti-Air
PostQuote from Shadow_C: “When the CM hits the fleet it should deliver the dmg it deals but, for some reason it does only half of it. This is the Point Defence. ” This is a rather confusing way of putting it. PD simply means that the AA scores an extra hit on incoming airforce (including missiles), over and above those triggered by the AA coverage. (If that hit halves the HP of the missile, then the dmg from the latter is indeed roughly half, but it could be other ratios depending on both the AA str…
-
National Guard
PostQuote from playbabe: “so they just reduce all insurgent max HP. ” Which, ofc, does not counteract the higher strength.
-
Related to this topic, we've discussed insurgents attacking territories (in a thread I cannot locate in Google, alas, shame on me ;-(). So I figured I post this here. I made an observation in a game where multiple AI countries are attacking me (a joyful occasion to learn something new). The expansion moves occur all at the same time for insurgents as well as other AIs. This clock is random, and is separate from that of the insurgent spawning.
-
National Guard
PostQuote from KFGauss: “A) Can someone in a newly started (post-change) game take a look at the Insurgent stats in their game and report what their Insurgents' Atk/Def/Stats are, and B) If the pre-change and post-change Insurgent stats are the same, am I right when I think that we should tell Dorado that if they wanted to implement a neutral change (no nerfing and no buffing) they missed the target? ” A bit of late reply, but here it goes: this past week (in a game that definitely started post-chan…
-
Quote from KFGauss: “Many players call doing that, "damage distribution". ” "Mitigation" is the term of art for exploiting the damage distribution feature. Back to the title question: you answer is correct ofc. There are (rare) cases when separating the planes make sense: when the defensive damage would kill one of the stacked units, but the attack is still necessary. Then attacking with single units they will still survive (although adsorbing more damage cumulatively). Like you said about the p…
-
Season 10 is Out!
PostQuote from Saucon21: “Helicopter should at least get the range of the elite plane and damage of it. ” That would be a very weird "balancing", then.
-
Quote from Dealer of Death: “The phrase "contemporary battlefield technology" pretty much rules out the 80's. ” Not really - having followed the phrase "late 20th [...] century", this may well mean being contemporary for that time (i.e. include the 80ies). I think Opulon's characterization sounds spot on. In any event, over-analyzing the minutia of language used by Dorado (which is often vague or even deliberately ambiguous) provides no insight.