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.

    • jemandanderes 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.
      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.
      AFV armored fight vehicle

      MBT main battle tank

      TD tank destroyer

      SF strike fighter

      NSF navy strike fighter

      UGV unmanned ground vehicle

      it's 'HB' bomber aircraft
      Guns are always loaded.
    • playbabe wrote:

      give low signatures to corvette and towed arti
      add towed mechanic, 1 units that faster then towed arti will speed the towed arti up.
      (ex. afv 1.5 speed stack with 1 towed arti. the towed arti will have speed of 1.5)
      give them low signature and give them back the ability to shoot while disembarking from air assault :)

      getting 1.5 speed from armor if pulled by it might be a nice feature, but hardly any real use, after all their 'high mobility' feature is the ability to air assault

      But having to disembarking for 1 hours makes them useless sitting ducks, even more if every kind of radar can spot them
    • I see very little in this thread or any others about the cost per HP, or cost per increment of Attack/Defense strength in these conversations? It comes up a little, but not often.

      When I'm thinking about a unit's value those things, along with the time time my city get tied up building it, and the ability of 3 units to cover more territory than 2 when they split up, are often more important to me than making 1-vs-1 comparisons.

      The 1-vs-1 isn't wrong, because once the unit is built, that's what it experiences in battle; but when you're deciding what to build, it does often give different results than an analysis that factors in production costs, production time, and the total costs of a planned-stack.

      Are you folks who are contributing to this thread doing similar analysis (and just not writing about it), or are you focusing on the 1-vs-1 sort of analysis?

      KFG
    • Kranzegrad wrote:

      jemandanderes 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.
      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.
      AFV armored fight vehicle
      MBT main battle tank

      TD tank destroyer

      SF strike fighter

      NSF navy strike fighter

      UGV unmanned ground vehicle

      it's 'HB' bomber aircraft
      Thank you, but I know what these abrreviations mean. What I was wondering about was "IFV", you were referring to it as the "best unit ever". Can you please tell me what that means?
      a.k.a. jem and and eres
    • KFGauss wrote:

      I see very little in this thread or any others about the cost per HP, or cost per increment of Attack/Defense strength in these conversations? It comes up a little, but not often.

      When I'm thinking about a unit's value those things, along with the time time my city get tied up building it, and the ability of 3 units to cover more territory than 2 when they split up, are often more important to me than making 1-vs-1 comparisons.

      The 1-vs-1 isn't wrong, because once the unit is built, that's what it experiences in battle; but when you're deciding what to build, it does often give different results than an analysis that factors in production costs, production time, and the total costs of a planned-stack.

      Are you folks who are contributing to this thread doing similar analysis (and just not writing about it), or are you focusing on the 1-vs-1 sort of analysis?

      KFG
      Most unit have pretty distinct roles, so pure stat comparison is hardly feasible :)
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      I see very little in this thread or any others about the cost per HP, or cost per increment of Attack/Defense strength in these conversations? It comes up a little, but not often.

      ...
      Most unit have pretty distinct roles, so pure stat comparison is hardly feasible :)
      I understand - But, because the units' different roles are ... well... different ...It would also be infeasible to make any true 1-vs-1 comparisons.

      But - If you are going to play, you have eventually to decide where to invest your finite resources(Supplies, Electronics, Rares, Money, Time, Gold, etc.).

      So you start making compromises, and (unless the game lasts a really long time) you try to figure out the best way to press a small number of unit-types into service accomplishing multiple roles.

      When I do that, it leads me back to doing the arithmetic to figure out the cheapest way to get enough "multi-role" units built quickly enough to accomplish the most important items on my to-do list.

      Suitability for one role is a part of the evaluation, but the cost of doing well-enough across multiple roles is more important for me, for many game days.

      My original comment was simply asking for other poster's opinions about how much that cost-for-accomplishing-one-or-more-roles was a part of what they are writing here.

      KFG
    • Teburu wrote:

      clearly mrls; and i’d buff them by giving them another 100 range and AA capabilities
      THIS

      So much THIS!!!!
      *** 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
    • KFGauss wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      I see very little in this thread or any others about the cost per HP, or cost per increment of Attack/Defense strength in these conversations? It comes up a little, but not often.

      ...
      Most unit have pretty distinct roles, so pure stat comparison is hardly feasible :)
      I understand - But, because the units' different roles are ... well... different ...It would also be infeasible to make any true 1-vs-1 comparisons.
      But - If you are going to play, you have eventually to decide where to invest your finite resources(Supplies, Electronics, Rares, Money, Time, Gold, etc.).

      So you start making compromises, and (unless the game lasts a really long time) you try to figure out the best way to press a small number of unit-types into service accomplishing multiple roles.

      When I do that, it leads me back to doing the arithmetic to figure out the cheapest way to get enough "multi-role" units built quickly enough to accomplish the most important items on my to-do list.

      Suitability for one role is a part of the evaluation, but the cost of doing well-enough across multiple roles is more important for me, for many game days.

      My original comment was simply asking for other poster's opinions about how much that cost-for-accomplishing-one-or-more-roles was a part of what they are writing here.

      KFG

      Example: Motorized Infantry vs National Guards

      National Guards are about 60% more expensive in regard of combat stats gain and upkeep, but if you only want to delay the attacker, NG give the most HP in the shortest amount of time
      If you want more speed, Motorized also win, they only need level 2 to get their speed upgrade



      Example: Strike Fighter vs Choppers (all but Elite)
      Choppers win in regards in versatility and stats, they are beefier and can be adjusted to fit the target (more gunships for infantry heavy stacks vice versa), they can also be easier mixed, because you do not need level 3 airport. Their low radar signature makes them easier to hide, there are only a few AA units that can really damage them and they can fight pretty much every kind of unit without big issues.
      If you want convenience and speed strikers of course win, you need less air fields to use them because of their bigger range (though more airfields still helps getting a higher DPH [damage per hour] and they are quicker back and forth)


      Example: Starting unit
      Recon are best unit if you want to go offensive, quickly build and wreck starting troops, as they mostly consist of infantry
      Motorized are best, if you start with at lest 2 supply cities
      ASF are the most versatile unit in general, if you mass as group of 4-5 they can easily take down most units early on, they can scout for you and defend you against hostile aircrafts
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      My original comment was simply asking for other poster's opinions about how much that cost-for-accomplishing-one-or-more-roles was a part of what they are writing here.
      Example: . . .
      I have no quarrel with what you wrote

      And, I would love to read more advice like it, that also included explicit comparisons of research and production costs, in addition to including the units' best post-production roles.

      Often I can't afford to make the right unit for a role, so I have to make do with what I can afford to research and build. That makes me want to plan ahead to build suitable, affordable, multi-purpose, compromise units.

      I'm not writing "Yes, but ...".
      I am writing "Yes, and ..."

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

    • There are only few instances where I went in quite deep comparison.

      Though the game might get dull quite quickly, if you get told all the little things, instead of figuring them out for yourself?

      At least I am pretty much at a state, where there isn't much left to figure out, as not many know the game mechanics as well as me from the stuff I experienced.

      How ever the core of the game, is to have a plan what you want to go for: air force, artillery or navy and focus your research on that.

      Then depending on the fact, if you play alone or with allies, you expand and diversify your tool kit as much as necessary, while you grow.
    • @Kalrakh said it all and there is hardly anythin to add. You have your basic toolset which is optimized for the basic game.


      Means for me, helicopters for damage dealing, SAMS to counter fighters and national guard for looting.

      And then you vary on the situation. If I see other using helicopters I do AWACs. If I see they do lot of submarines I do NPA. If they research chemicals weapons I do theater defense and so on...
      Alle sagten: Das geht nicht. Dann kam einer, der wusste das nicht und hat es einfach gemacht.
    • jemandanderes wrote:

      Kranzegrad wrote:

      jemandanderes 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.
      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.
      AFV armored fight vehicleMBT main battle tank

      TD tank destroyer

      SF strike fighter

      NSF navy strike fighter

      UGV unmanned ground vehicle

      it's 'HB' bomber aircraft
      Thank you, but I know what these abrreviations mean. What I was wondering about was "IFV", you were referring to it as the "best unit ever". Can you please tell me what that means?

      IFV has none nega terrain areas (including terrain mountain), but except jungle areas has ATK -25%. Posi (ATK/DEF +25%) terrain areas are desert and tundra, and urban is until 'IFV final tier'.

      It's little low costly/fast for mobilzation it, than MBT.

      IFV lvl 1 ATK/DEF vs infantry 7.0 and vs armor 5.0.

      MBT has lot ATK/DEF -25% terrain areas, including mountain and urban areas.
      Guns are always loaded.
    • Kranzegrad wrote:

      jemandanderes wrote:

      Kranzegrad wrote:

      jemandanderes 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.
      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.
      AFV armored fight vehicleMBT main battle tank
      TD tank destroyer

      SF strike fighter

      NSF navy strike fighter

      UGV unmanned ground vehicle

      it's 'HB' bomber aircraft
      Thank you, but I know what these abrreviations mean. What I was wondering about was "IFV", you were referring to it as the "best unit ever". Can you please tell me what that means?
      IFV has none nega terrain areas (including terrain mountain), but except jungle areas has ATK -25%. Posi (ATK/DEF +25%) terrain areas are desert and tundra, and urban is until 'IFV final tier'.

      It's little low costly/fast for mobilzation it, than MBT.

      IFV lvl 1 ATK/DEF vs infantry 7.0 and vs armor 5.0.

      MBT has lot ATK/DEF -25% terrain areas, including mountain and urban areas.
      So you mean AFV (Armoured Fighting Vehicle)?
      a.k.a. jem and and eres
    • jemandanderes wrote:

      Kranzegrad wrote:

      jemandanderes wrote:

      Kranzegrad wrote:

      jemandanderes 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.
      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.
      AFV armored fight vehicleMBT main battle tankTD tank destroyer

      SF strike fighter

      NSF navy strike fighter

      UGV unmanned ground vehicle

      it's 'HB' bomber aircraft
      Thank you, but I know what these abrreviations mean. What I was wondering about was "IFV", you were referring to it as the "best unit ever". Can you please tell me what that means?
      IFV has none nega terrain areas (including terrain mountain), but except jungle areas has ATK -25%. Posi (ATK/DEF +25%) terrain areas are desert and tundra, and urban is until 'IFV final tier'.
      It's little low costly/fast for mobilzation it, than MBT.

      IFV lvl 1 ATK/DEF vs infantry 7.0 and vs armor 5.0.

      MBT has lot ATK/DEF -25% terrain areas, including mountain and urban areas.
      So you mean AFV (Armoured Fighting Vehicle)?
      OOPS!!! I am terrible sorry that misleading 'TEXT ERROR' sorry...'. I mean AFV > IFV infantry fighting vehicle.

      _______________________________


      This year 2021, is my bad year ever! family issues and apartment moving. ||
      Guns are always loaded.