Artillery/ships should attack every 5 minutes and anti-air should scan every 2 minutes

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

    • Seroslav wrote:

      ...

      People who have a life outside of game, often play x1, and this hit&run change is to let them play the game on more fair play conditions with 'no lifers'.

      ...
      No, this is the EXACT OPPOSITE of "fair". Fair is according to those wishing to devote the time to the game vs other pursuits, the advantage their invested time affords them. There is nothing fair about punishing those who actually invest the time. In fact, this decidedly unfair. If you want to play a strategy game that is turn based, go play chess.
      *** 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
    • Seroslav wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      You know, those no lifers are those who tend to play speed maps because of the have no life

      This feature would just make 1x more interesting for them, they normally are quite bored from 1x maps, because everything happens so slow

      And it will surely not prevent them from trying to tick


      the only thing that could prevent ticking would be immediate automatic return of fire, everything else will not remove ticking

      and making AA act more frequently will just remove strategy from the game, because it would make piercing the bubble pretty much impossible

      also if you change this feature for 1x maps, it will most likely also affect 4x maps
      No lifers play both, as they have time to do so and some of them dislike x4. Being no lifer is not same as liking x4. You mix two trends in players in one, with no particular reason for it.
      I dont think that need to click 12 times more to get the same result as now clicking once, would make hit&run more interesting for anyone. 12 times more "work" to get the same is nothing like more interesting. It rather gets 12 times less effective way to get advantage by staring at the screen and clicking,... instead of being smarter in strategical way.

      People play strategic games to compete through strategy mainly, not through more clicks.

      Do you play CoN to challenge others through strategy? Why you choose CoN over other games? To be able to outclick others or rather win through smarter strategy?

      Leaving this hit&run unattended just makes some players resign from playing this strategy game, when losing is caused not cause of mistakes they did by cause of not being able to spend that much of time in game. And x1 CoN games are mainly focused on people wanting slow pace of game and those not super active online, cimparing to other RTS games. So hit&run lose some of them. It should be made less effective.

      Its not about preventing, I did not write "preventing". Its about making hit&run less effective, 12 times less effective.

      About AA, just flying freely over AA, without it reacting (which is totally unrealistic) would be decreased. And damage done in a way as AA would attack sooner (first attack would be in max 2 minufes, instead of max 10 minutes, now, but next attacks would be as same in 10 minutes periods).

      As airforce is strongest, too strong maybe and this aspect of fighting it is unrealistic, it should be fixed in my opinion, making AA react more often to bring a bit more of balance in game.

      About x4, AA reaction should be analogical there. About hit&run, could be changed in some way, but there is already time needed to hit&run down to real-time 15 minutes, so more time consuming and as much more happens in x4 and people joining it, does already have in mind that much mire happens when they are offline... its less needed to change it there.

      People who have a life outside of game, often play x1, and this hit&run change is to let them play the game on more fair play conditions with 'no lifers'.

      That would make more oftem play CoN in long run, I believe, cause less often they would be overruned by just 'clicking more guys'. And thats more money for Dorado. Making game more friendly for players with a job, family and friends, as there is much more of them.

      I tend to win through smarter strategy, I get to easily distracted for being that good at hit & run :)

      I prefer CON over Supremacy 1914 because it is far less luck dependend, how ever there are not really that many games of this type anyway.

      Your idea would just make this game even more micro heavy like a RTS like Starcraft. You are very delusional, if you believe this would change anything but making the situation worse.

      However most people play do not even build units, that can do hit & run, so they hardly care anyway. Infantry, tanks and Strikers are the main units for the casual gamer after all.

      I already told you, why AA units are currently subpar, though not sure if you were able to follow me.


      Removing hit & run form the game is also like removing skill & knowledge from the game.
      If you remove hit & run not smarts will increase the chance of winning, but being the bigger fish will.
      Good luck fighting a golden boy if you can-ät outplay him due to your own activity.
    • If hit and run is a problem for you, strategize your way out of it.
      You can solve this problem with what's available in the game... at least at certain points of the game.
      MAA at T2 gets a 50 range... so helicopters can't hit and run.
      SAM has range increases and starts kind of large anyway, so SF aren't an issue
      Navy vessels have different ranges available at different times... you can select a unit that gets range extensions more in line with your play activity.

      When you're going to be inactive for a nights sleep or whatever leave your game state in a defensive position... or a position to avoid engagement.

      You can have scouts or radar to keep your ranged fire units vigilant.

      I'm not sure how fire controls operate since I don't have them... but seems like the aggressive mode would be useful.

      Not saying any of this eliminates hit and run... but any of them would help mitigate the cost of inactivity and hit and run's success rate.

      I've been thinking of this Gen. Patton quote almost constantly over the last several days:
      “A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.”

      To apply this philosophy here:
      As strategist, we need to use what is available now... not what we'd like to be available sometime in the eventual future.
    • Smallsword wrote:

      MAA at T2 gets a 50 range... so helicopters can't hit and run.
      This is simply wrong. Range 50 is as helpful as a broken cannon, when your attack knows how to use patrol attacks.


      Aggressive stance lets your units stop and shoot, when they detect hostiles in range. Good to clear out inactives/AI while you are offline yourself, not really helpful against hit & run
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Smallsword wrote:

      MAA at T2 gets a 50 range... so helicopters can't hit and run.
      This is simply wrong. Range 50 is as helpful as a broken cannon, when your attack knows how to use patrol attacks.

      Aggressive stance lets your units stop and shoot, when they detect hostiles in range. Good to clear out inactives/AI while you are offline yourself, not really helpful against hit & run
      Oh, well, oops.
      I tried.
    • I would be in favor of buffing the 2 lower artillery to fire more than once per hour.

      Maybe start with 2x per hour?

      Currently the towed and mobile artillery are a waste or resources and time when the mrls can do the job of both, has greater range and is a single unit to research.

      This is one of the reasons I'm not fond of helos. You have to swap them back and forth depending on the enemy as well as research two units instead of one. (Strike) then there is the range and speed...
    • Tumbler wrote:

      I would be in favor of buffing the 2 lower artillery to fire more than once per hour.

      Maybe start with 2x per hour?

      Currently the towed and mobile artillery are a waste or resources and time when the mrls can do the job of both, has greater range and is a single unit to research.
      increasing attack rate seems way over the top and kinda fails to adress the issue of mrl vs towed vs mobile artillery to begin with; tho frankly mobile is kinda fine



      Tumbler wrote:

      This is one of the reasons I'm not fond of helos. You have to swap them back and forth depending on the enemy as well as research two units instead of one. (Strike) then there is the range and speed...
      you dont need to swap them back and forth if you make a mixed stack, as bonus that also dramatically increases the survivability but tbh if you look for it you will probably find a couple threads going more into detail on it, it''s been discussd a lot
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      you dont need to swap them back and forth if you make a mixed stack, as bonus that also dramatically increases the survivability but tbh if you look for it you will probably find a couple threads going more into detail on it, it''s been discussd a lot
      They start with range of 50 and 65 respectively. Just to use them effectively together you have to research lvl 2 towed and combine it with lvl 1 mobile arti. This continues many times when u upgrade them so to keep them at the same range u have to dedicate a lot of time to research these units.

      The mobile arti also requires a lvl 3 barracks... In the end u can prob reach mrls at the same time it takes to build the two different artillery.
    • Teburu wrote:

      Smallsword wrote:

      What would the MAA need for range to actually work against a helicopter patrol hit and run? @Kalrakh
      75, probably 100issue is that with 50 AA range vs 50 patrol range, the helis arent forced to even spend a single second with the risk of eating the offensive AA tick
      They still deal point defense, correct?

      How long does it take MAA offensive tick to trigger?... it always seemed to me to be a moment before point defense...

      Also, how difficult is it to perform the patrol hit and run?... is it really specific placement?
      Can having the MAA moving make a difference?
    • Smallsword wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Smallsword wrote:

      What would the MAA need for range to actually work against a helicopter patrol hit and run? @Kalrakh
      75, probably 100issue is that with 50 AA range vs 50 patrol range, the helis arent forced to even spend a single second with the risk of eating the offensive AA tick
      They still deal point defense, correct?
      How long does it take MAA offensive tick to trigger?... it always seemed to me to be a moment before point defense...

      Also, how difficult is it to perform the patrol hit and run?... is it really specific placement?
      Can having the MAA moving make a difference?
      Point defense just by itself is far to low, even more since they put Elite Attack Choppers into the game. They eat MAAV for Breakfast.
      They also put in Elite Railguns, but seems like the interaction with patrol is buggy at best, so even Railguns are hardly any help.
      Also RG learn AA quite late when the first two weeks are already over.

      The offensive tick triggers only every 10 min, so a experienced player will figure out the 'check times' and attack in between.


      The difficulty of patrol attacks depends on how specific you want to attack and less you want your unit to be seen.
      If there are 3 ground stack close to each other but you only want to hit one or two of them, you need set your patrol in a way that accomplishes that.
      Which can get quite tricky, if the target might even be on the move.
    • Kalrakh wrote:


      The offensive tick triggers only every 10 min, so a experienced player will figure out the 'check times' and attack in between.
      Is that ten minute timer set from whenever the first offensive tick triggers?... As in, if the first time the MAA triggers offensive tick is at 10:05... then the next is 10:15.
      If so, would a separate stack of MAA with a different initial trigger time be on a different schedule?... As in, at 10:10 and then triggers again 10:20.
      If those are true could you have two stacks that work in tandem to essentially split the timing of triggered response in half? (at least for one to hit) ... Stack A triggers 10:05/10:15 as stack B triggers 10:10/10:20 and they are within 2.

      Is a rushing unit that much more difficult to exact a hit and run on?
    • Smallsword wrote:

      Is that ten minute timer set from whenever the first offensive tick triggers?... As in, if the first time the MAA triggers offensive tick is at 10:05... then the next is 10:15.If so, would a separate stack of MAA with a different initial trigger time be on a different schedule?... As in, at 10:10 and then triggers again 10:20.
      If those are true could you have two stacks that work in tandem to essentially split the timing of triggered response in half? (at least for one to hit) ... Stack A triggers 10:05/10:15 as stack B triggers 10:10/10:20 and they are within 2.

      Is a rushing unit that much more difficult to exact a hit and run on?
      NO, the regular offensive AA tick is globally the same for all AA on the same map
      if the American Frigate has their tick at 08:15 then the Saudi AA will also have theirs at 08:15
      tho ofc if the AA is reloading then it will miss the tick
      I've actually made a google doc that covers AA mechanics and should hopefully explain all the relevant stuff? docs.google.com/document/d/1oV…SkDGIlY8/edit?usp=sharing


      edit: removed the clusterfuck that is chainquoting
      I am The Baseline for opinions

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

    • Helpful, thank you.

      Sorry, I guess I meant ranged AA defense...which your paper explains well. It must be frustrating trying to explain these AA concepts over and over again to different people... or maybe the same person (me) a few times.

      So reload times are split to different times... or at least on is reloading and the other is armed... and the stacks are moving towards the attacking helicopters... is that the best a defender can do?

      I'm just trying to work out the ideal tactic to defend or mitigate the risk of patrol hit and run.... seems like you can rush towards them with two separate stacks and you up your defensive response chances.

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

    • At current state AA do not seem to react to patrol attacks at all. So AA can currently only defend against direct attacks or hit a unit on their way in or out.
      Most units have patrol radius of 50, which give them quite a short was in and out, so good players will hardly ever be hit by AA attack and need only to worry about point defense.


      If a unit is moving, you might need to adjust the patrol area from time to time, to update it.
      Patrol commands are static and do not adjust themselves.
      Also a reason you should not use patrol attack if you will be offline for a long while afterwards.
    • You guys made your own discussion in topic which is not related to what you discuss.

      I believe that guys who choose CoN over other games is that they can play it in a meantime of work/life/sleep, putting some small portions of time few or once a day sometimes.

      If they have more hours in a row to stay in game, they could play some RTS, when the full game can be started and ended in a sigle sit.

      x1 CoN games, lasts for weeks and that's why it should be made more game-life-balanced, making hit&run less attractive, both for navy and artillery.

      As hit&run works well, guys who actually choose CoN over others, in some part, probably a big one, tend to lose more often navy/artillery fights, so it's anti-productive for Dorado, as they unmotivate their core segment of players.

      And it's not about skill, cause hit&run is not a skill but a determination to stick online and check the game as often as possible to just click once per hour to hit the offline guy and run. It's not a skill, nothing big to learn, no secretive knowledge, just being online more often. Nothing much about strategy, just micro-managing to win thorough activity, not thorougy skill or strategy.

      Is CoN a game to log-in-often-to-win or it should be a strategy game, to compete by outsmart the opponent.

      Being active is not same as being smarte.

      I believe getting hit & run less effective will make the game better.

      Same to make anti-air scan radar more often, to be more realistic and make airforce less dominating.

      Often planes can go in the range of rathar hit something and run away with no punishment, cause scans are so rarely done, comparing to speed of strikers. It's unrealistic for SAMs or frigates not to react and make airforce too strong, comparing to other types of units.

      And it won't fry the servers as in x4 already those units have very similar times of reaction and they do not fry :) pure nonsense about frying :)

      And thanks for advices, but I am actually the guy who mostly outplay others with bigger activeness, but I just believe it's not what this game should be about. It should be more as a strategy game, not click-more-to-win-without-much-of-strategy game.
    • Seroslav wrote:

      Same to make anti-air scan radar more often, to be more realistic and make airforce less dominating.

      Often planes can go in the range of rathar hit something and run away with no punishment, cause scans are so rarely done, comparing to speed of strikers. It's unrealistic for SAMs or frigates not to react and make airforce too strong, comparing to other types of units.
      I don't agree with the basic premise of this. I never build Strikers because I feel like they're too weak. They get utterly fried by SAMs and frigates. If anything, I'd like to see the balance go the other way. Aircraft always take damage if they attack something that's within range of AA, don't they? Even if they're stealth. The principle of having more frequent radar/AA checks seems fine to me, but not for the reason you give.

      I agree with you about hit&run, though: it's bollocks.