What are the worst units in the game, and how would you improve them?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Lets take a look a 2 elite unitss. Btw UGV is not considered Elite to me.

      Elite tank, since nerfed missle defend values this is no game changer. I dont see the extra benefit of more muscle power that gets ripped apart.from.the air.

      Elite Bomber, different to railgun and elite sub you have to research the whole heavy bomber tech tree to build this unit. Given the fact that bombers are useless when you want to kill units thus ia waste of research time. Its a nice to have toy when you have maxed out MRL and SAM and naval AWAC. But given the running costs of warfare with missles its a niche weapon, nothing you see regular.
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.
    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      Given the fact that bombers are useless when you want to kill units thus ia waste of research time.
      Heavy bombers won me my last game by themselves. I didn't even need to fight my opponents, because they all quit after I reduced their homeland cities to smouldering ashes where they could no longer produce any units.

      This is not at all uncommon a result in public games.
    • I do not think that one simply having SAM to cover all homeland without economy burden.
      let say 2 SAM per homeland. with 6 homeland country that’s 12 SAM which could be on frontline but now sitting in homeland eating away your supply production. How much it cost? idk ‍♀️ but it must cost something
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD
    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      well they probably had infantry only anyway...so they would have died when you would have used Strike Fighters...same effect.

      attacking a player with at least half a brain you woudl have run into SAM, Fregatte or ASF...Game over for Bombers.
      That isn't true. What you're primarily doing with HBs is destroying buildings and resource production over a very long range. Strike Fighters can't do that. If you're close enough to get Strike Fighters into range of enemy homeland, then yes, they tend to be defended by AA and/or ASFs. But if you're half way across the world from them, people generally aren't expecting their homeland to be vulnerable, so they don't tend to defend it as much.

      I took out 2 of 5 in a coalition like this. The third one did put SAMs and Frigates in and around his Homeland after that, so I had to be a bit more careful, but it certainly isn't Game Over for the bombers. Stacks of 5 L4 HBs (which is what I used) is over 100 HP each, so you'd need an awful lot of AA to stop them getting through - and he didn't have enough of them. They still devastate a city even if it is defended by SAMs, so they still achieve their objective despite taking damage (unlike missiles, which can't be stacked and therefore just get shot down before they can hit). The SAMs will also be heavily damaged or destroyed after 1 or 2 strikes, and they can't be replaced because the cities have no buildings left. So even if you lose bombers to AA initially, you win in the end.

      Heavy Bombers are strategic weapons, not tactical weapons - and they can be very effective. If you are complaining about them having low damage to units, then you are using them wrong. That's not what they are for.
    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      playbabe wrote:

      Sergio_G wrote:

      I think there are no bad units in the game. It's just that each unit has its own task that it must perform.
      yeah and those units pretty much suck ass on their own taskcorvette, role: "defense coast line"
      ingame: can't defense their coast against anything that can shoot it back.

      towed arti, role: "high mobility support"
      ingame: suck ass damage, getting out run by infantry with superior firepower, be a sitting duck outside airfield range.
      Imo I think Towed Arty damage and speed is fine, but it needs to be more spammable
      Lower cost and mobilization time, so they are a good early game support alternative to gunships
      I agree, they are very good early game artillery, since you can start building them at the beginning of day 3 while you need to wait till day 6 to build your first MRL.
      Though I don't see how gunships are good early game support, they just get obliterated by ASF when they don't have AA support.

      Zemunelo wrote:

      They [towed artillery] are already so fragile that one attack with planes or choppers destroy them easely.
      Well, that's why you should also get SAM and ASF. There is not (and should not be) a unit that can do everything on it's own.
      a.k.a. jem and and eres
    • Sergio_G wrote:

      I think there are no bad units in the game. It's just that each unit has its own task that it must perform.
      So what's the role of these units:
      -AFV
      -MBT
      -TD
      -SF
      -NSF
      -UGV

      Edit: decided to exclude heavy bomber since its use is debatable.
      a.k.a. jem and and eres

      The post was edited 1 time, last by jemandanderes ().

    • jemandanderes wrote:

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      playbabe wrote:

      Sergio_G wrote:

      I think there are no bad units in the game. It's just that each unit has its own task that it must perform.
      yeah and those units pretty much suck ass on their own taskcorvette, role: "defense coast line"ingame: can't defense their coast against anything that can shoot it back.

      towed arti, role: "high mobility support"
      ingame: suck ass damage, getting out run by infantry with superior firepower, be a sitting duck outside airfield range.
      Imo I think Towed Arty damage and speed is fine, but it needs to be more spammableLower cost and mobilization time, so they are a good early game support alternative to gunships
      I agree, they are very good early game artillery, since you can start building them at the beginning of day 3 while you need to wait till day 6 to build your first MRL.Though I don't see how gunships are good early game support, they just get obliterated by ASF when they don't have AA support.
      Imo gunships are the best counter to infantry early game when used correctly. They are much faster and deadlier than towed with the downside being they take damage

      A stack of 1 Gunship and 1 ASF can kill someone’s starter ASF in a pinch thanks to damage distribution. This means that a player wouldn’t be able to repel the attack using the starter ASF alone

      They can also cut down waves of lvl 1 infantry that could rush you in the first few days. That’s how I deal with the 10 unit suicide stacks that occasionally pop up
      Yee Haw
    • jemandanderes wrote:

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      playbabe wrote:

      Sergio_G wrote:

      I think there are no bad units in the game. It's just that each unit has its own task that it must perform.
      yeah and those units pretty much suck ass on their own taskcorvette, role: "defense coast line"ingame: can't defense their coast against anything that can shoot it back.

      towed arti, role: "high mobility support"
      ingame: suck ass damage, getting out run by infantry with superior firepower, be a sitting duck outside airfield range.
      Imo I think Towed Arty damage and speed is fine, but it needs to be more spammableLower cost and mobilization time, so they are a good early game support alternative to gunships
      I agree, they are very good early game artillery, since you can start building them at the beginning of day 3 while you need to wait till day 6 to build your first MRL.Though I don't see how gunships are good early game support, they just get obliterated by ASF when they don't have AA support.

      Zemunelo wrote:

      They [towed artillery] are already so fragile that one attack with planes or choppers destroy them easely.
      Well, that's why you should also get SAM and ASF. There is not (and should not be) a unit that can do everything on it's own.
      I don't understand this comment. Who said that towed should do everything?
      And why do you talk about ASF or SAM?
      Who said that you should go in rampage with only towed?

      But the fact is, towed will die whatever you bring with them. One single shot and they are dead or with very low health (same as dead for several days).
      ASF and SAM can be baited so nothing can stop you to attack at least once.
      Not to mention if you're against airforce player he will probably have a lot of ASF+strikes or choppers.

      Imo, towed are good as alfa strike mostly in defense (your territory) in early or mid game.
      To surprise enemy. But if they know you have them, forget about them.

      They need more love.
      Lower production costs, low radar visibility, higher speed or ability to fire while boarding (did they had that before?). Not everething but some of those.
    • Here's a couple of topic-adjacent questions. Who can tell us all ...
      1. How many unit types (ignoring tech levels and elite units) exist in the game?
      2. How can we convince Dorado to tell us some stats (I'll take anything they might want to offer) about how frequently each of those unit types gets used in public WW3 and in alliance-challenge WW3 games?
        1. What unit types are almost never used?
        2. What types are almost always used
        3. Which types usually only built early, or late, in a game
        4. How do the stats change if inexperienced players' choices are removed from the population
        5. etc.
    • Units I never build:

      Mech infantry
      Naval inf
      Afv (nor naval variant)
      MBT
      Mobile art
      Strike fighters
      UAV
      Aircraft carriers (nor any carrier-variant planes)
      NPA
      Submarines

      I can kind of see what some of these are for, but they don't fit what I want to do. Others just don't seem to work at what they're meant for. Carriers are just too expensive and unnecessary.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      Units I never build:

      Mech infantry
      Naval inf
      Afv (nor naval variant)
      MBT
      Mobile art
      Strike fighters
      UAV
      Aircraft carriers (nor any carrier-variant planes)
      NPA
      Submarines

      I can kind of see what some of these are for, but they don't fit what I want to do. Others just don't seem to work at what they're meant for. Carriers are just too expensive and unnecessary.
      A.) Aircraft Carriers are quite useful if you are playing a helo-centric game, in the long run they can actually save you resources in not having to build so many airfields.
      B.) Carrier-variant planes - not building these is a big mistake. For example: an ASF/NASF mixed stack is going to be able to make more attack runs without losing a plane than a pure ASF stack due to damage distribution.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      WalterChang wrote:

      Units I never build:

      Mech infantry
      Naval inf
      Afv (nor naval variant)
      MBT
      Mobile art
      Strike fighters
      UAV
      Aircraft carriers (nor any carrier-variant planes)
      NPA
      Submarines

      I can kind of see what some of these are for, but they don't fit what I want to do. Others just don't seem to work at what they're meant for. Carriers are just too expensive and unnecessary.
      A.) Aircraft Carriers are quite useful if you are playing a helo-centric game, in the long run they can actually save you resources in not having to build so many airfields.B.) Carrier-variant planes - not building these is a big mistake. For example: an ASF/NASF mixed stack is going to be able to make more attack runs without losing a plane than a pure ASF stack due to damage distribution.
      it's just that some players need to first try such options themselves, test them in battle. Until they do so, they will not understand the advantage.
      There will be no World War III veterans.
    • KFGauss wrote:

      "Damage distribution" - For us newer folks, what does that phrase mean in CoN
      let set that if [A] and units both can operate together and both have 10 HP

      with stack of 2[A] units will have total of 20 HP in which, if the stack take 10 damage.
      you will lose 1 of [A] unit and go home alone

      with stack of 1[A] and 1[B] together, same total 20 HP. even tho the stack take 19 damge.
      you will go home with 1[A] with 0.5 HP and 1[B] with 0.5 HP left. no unit lose.

      pro
      - your stack will have very high survivability; less units dead

      con
      - sacrificed some damage
      - more expensive to run

      now that this is not the definitive. there still another heavy factor involving in which is Damage distribution weight.
      this still very much secret. some unit stack together with other unit will very evidently take more damage or very less
      relative to other in stack

      example 1. Corvette + 4 transport fleet. when getting attack, the 4 transport fleet will take very light damage. (around 1/5) but corvette despite being the only corvette, absorb around 4/5 of incoming damage.
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      A.) Aircraft Carriers are quite useful if you are playing a helo-centric game, in the long run they can actually save you resources in not having to build so many airfields.B.) Carrier-variant planes - not building these is a big mistake. For example: an ASF/NASF mixed stack is going to be able to make more attack runs without losing a plane than a pure ASF stack due to damage distribution.
      A) is an interesting idea! Might try that one next time. Although, I can see a few drawbacks as well.
      B) I was aware of, but to be honest I never really found it necessary. I tend to research stuff that I need for a particular situation, rather than going 'optimal' for it's own sake. And public games... don't often require much optimizing! I do take the point, though. And it would fit in nicely with the Heli/carrier combo.

      KFGauss wrote:

      "Damage distribution" - For us newer folks, what does that phrase mean in CoN?
      To use this example, say you've got 5 asfs with 23hp each and 14 damage. If you come against an identical stack of enemy planes, you're going to lose 70 hp, which is 3 of them. If you have 3 normal asfs plus 2 naval asfs instead, even if the hp are the same you're only going to lose 2 planes - one of each. This is because the 70 damage is distributed 60/40 (42/28) across the two types, and neither type receives enough damage to lose more than 1 plane.