More Missiles

Colonel Waffles · Dec 16th 2021, 2:24am

Tumbler wrote:

Missiles are cool.

Offer more missiles.

Air to Air Missiles, give fighters at Tier 4 and air to air missile to fire. I think a new research tree would useful so while you get this missile is doesn't give you cruise,ballistic or icbm progress. Have the damage be similar to the normal fighter dmg and have it be fireable once every 12 hours. Not sure what the costs should be but assuming it does similar damage to fighters a block of 5 fighters firing missiles would take out 1-2 enemy fighters/fighter-bombers.

I don't really like the missiles costing so much (in general) so hopefully have the 12 hour timer being the main limitation to using these and the overall cost of making them would be fairly low? This would be a perk for Air to Air fighters specifically since they seem to be a little less useful than than strike in most games. (range would be 100?)

Attack Helo's should be able to use Air to Ground missiles that hit hard targets about as hard as normal hits.

Gunship helo's should have rockets which when fired hit about as hard as the helo normally on soft targets.

These could be a tier 3 vehicle upgrade in helo's? I don't see many people upgrading them that far so maybe tier 2 (lvl 4 GS, lvl 3 Attk, lvl 4 ASW)

Heck maybe just give missiles/ rockets to helo's first and see how it goes because fighters def get a ton of use already so they are pretty good.

Maybe Stealth fighters / stealth fighter bombers get Missiles only? There would be a reason to build them then! They look cool as shit but I can never spare the time and resources to build them when I alread have a large airforce of fighters and strike fighters. But if those could fly around and hit other targets with missiles and never be seen that would be pretty cool.

These are already represented in game. They are already a thing.

-Gunships have machine guns and rockets. This is tailored to soft but useful against hard targets too

-AH has ATGM, AAM and a cannon

-ASF have AAM, cannon and ground attack missiles. Only a few hardpoints means they can carry the same weapons as SF just not nearly as many

-SF have bombs, Ground attack missile, machine gun, AAM, probably other things

-NSF have what a SF has in addition to anti ship missiles

-UAV got them assasinate-a-general missiles

Basically, they already have them. No point representing a weapon as tactical as a small missile. You already have the cruise missile, is that not enough?

Maybe instead, consider Tactical ballistic missile (Its a real thing)
Cost as much as a BM, with less range and damage. The selling point is a massive HP pool that lets it smash through TDS. Essentially trade off of damage/ran in favor of guaranteed effectiveness

Tumbler · Dec 17th 2021, 12:14am

At tier 2 for ASF fighters I want to click the missile button and it show sidewinder. I can fire it up to a range of 50. (Maybe longer not sure what the patrol range is but just beyond that)

At t3 I want to click the missile button and see two choices, sidewinder and aim 120. Aim 120 range would be double sidewinder range.

Dmg of sidewinder would be 2 to fixed, 1 to rotary.

Dmg of aim120 is 4 fixed/ 3 rotary.


A sound effect of someone shouting fox 2 Will play when missiles are fired.

No special resources needed to use these missiles.

Do something like this for all the fighter air units and the gunship and attack helos.

The heck is happening with my post..

Tumbler · Dec 17th 2021, 12:19am

At tier 2 for ASF fighters I want to click the missile button and it show sidewinder. I can fire it up to a range of 50. (Maybe longer not sure what the patrol range is but just beyond that)

At t3 I want to click the missile button and see two choices, sidewinder and aim 120. Aim 120 range would be double sidewinder range.

Dmg of sidewinder would be 2 to fixed, 1 to rotary.

Dmg of aim120 is 4 fixed/ 3 rotary.

A sound effect of someone shouting fox 2 Will play when missiles are fired.

No special resources needed to use these missiles.

Do something like this for all the fighter air units and the gunship and attack helos.

Colonel Waffles · Dec 17th 2021, 1:17am

Tumbler wrote:

At tier 2 for ASF fighters I want to click the missile button and it show sidewinder. I can fire it up to a range of 50. (Maybe longer not sure what the patrol range is but just beyond that)

At t3 I want to click the missile button and see two choices, sidewinder and aim 120. Aim 120 range would be double sidewinder range.

Dmg of sidewinder would be 2 to fixed, 1 to rotary.

Dmg of aim120 is 4 fixed/ 3 rotary.

A sound effect of someone shouting fox 2 Will play when missiles are fired.

No special resources needed to use these missiles.

Do something like this for all the fighter air units and the gunship and attack helos.

If sidewinders already exist in the game, why would you add them again. They are basic weapons, there is no need for them because CoN takes place on a strategic scale. If you want to fire individual sidewinders, why not play something like Ace Combat?

KFGauss · Dec 17th 2021, 1:38am

I know the following point has already been made, but the thread does seem to be continuing to drag on without everyone acknowledging it.

In addition to asking Dorado for an option to equip planes with a variety of missiles. maybe we could ask the devs for options that allow me to equip my infantry with a variety of weapons? Some could carry ordinary automatic-rifles, some could carry shotguns, some could carry bolt-action sniper rifles, some could carry big pistols, some could carry heavy machine guns, ...

Or we could assume that the devs made the current infantry the way they are in order to create a good-enough approximation of troops armed with all of those weapons, and that the game represents them the way it does now in order to balance "realism" with ease-of-use. If that's the case of infantry and all the other units, then for the "More Missiles" topic, the game already includes (approximates) every single air-launched missile anyone can name, without exception.

Kalrakh · Dec 17th 2021, 1:55am

How would that even work with the unit system? Could make a stack of 10 different infantries, that all need to get visualized separated`

How ever you can already imagine, that your troop has a wast selection of different weapons, one infantry consists of about 1000 soldiers after all.
For a reason there is an upgrade, that gives your infantry better anti-aircraft weaponry

KFGauss · Dec 17th 2021, 3:58am

KFGauss wrote:

. . . the game already includes (approximates) every single air-launched missile anyone can name, without exception.

Kalrakh wrote:

How would that even work with the unit system? Could make a stack of 10 different infantries, that all need to get visualized separated`

How ever you can already imagine, that your troop has a wast selection of different weapons, one infantry consists of about 1000 soldiers after all.
For a reason there is an upgrade, that gives your infantry better anti-aircraft weaponry

The point I wanted to make was in the last (highlighted in yellow) sentence I wrote.

The current game doesn't need Sidewinder, or Sea Sparrow, or ..., and the reason it doesn't need those missiles is the same reason that the game doesn't need different type of small arms for infantry. They are already included in the game units' approximations.

I only mentioned infantry weapons because they are a more obvious than airplanes' air-launched missiles example of why the missiles aren't needed.

Opulon · Dec 17th 2021, 11:00am

Gary Grigsby War in the East 2 just released, for people that like, to quote an US Army General, "to bother with things i never actually bothered with in all my Career"

Enjoy.

Kalrakh · Dec 17th 2021, 11:04am

Holy shit

WalterChang · Dec 19th 2021, 10:40am

KFGauss wrote:

the game already includes (approximates) every single air-launched missile anyone can name, without exception.

The point I made earlier is that the game does not do this.

Air units have zero ranged attack (ie. no missiles). The patrol radius approximates that the air unit occupies the entire circle at all times during the patrol. That is why surface units are able to see them and shoot at them merely by 'overlapping' the patrol radius, and not need to get themselves into range of the centre-point of the aircraft's patrol position.

Air-to-air engagements happen at zero range: approximation is that gun only is used.
Air-to-ground engagements happen at zero range: approximation is that only gun, rockets and bombs are used.
Surface-to-air engagements can happen at up to 100 range: approximation is that missiles are used.

Kalrakh · Dec 19th 2021, 12:21pm

No, they are not happening at Zero-Range, the game just assume both sides have weapons of the same range:

Striker attacking infantry, infantry shoots at strikers with ground-to-air missiles, but they have only few and therefore can't deal much damage

WalterChang · Dec 19th 2021, 12:34pm

I'd argue that a Strike Fighter should be able to out-range any point-defence ground unit, if it were using air-ground missiles rather than just gun/rockets/bombs.

The fact that they can't do this is why I think that the game's approximation of air units does not apparently include missiles.

Kalrakh · Dec 19th 2021, 12:40pm

Why? Do you know what this 'point defense' entails for weaponry?

WalterChang · Dec 19th 2021, 12:47pm

In the context of the game, I assume it to mean a zero or very short range defence value: defence only of its own stack or own position.

I don't see why air units shouldn't be able to out-range anything at all.

scott steiner · Dec 19th 2021, 6:23pm

Most people in the game dont use missiles. So I think the current amount is sufficient.

The Destroyer1 · Dec 19th 2021, 6:28pm

So what your explaining and what I'm thinking in my head, is like a timed/limited missile silo?! What?

HMRoyalAirForce · Dec 19th 2021, 7:17pm

I am ex military, so I done this for a living.

The game is of course not reprehensive of the real World in that the game will allow you to fire so many missiles and then it takes a day to resupply.

So one bomber or cruiser (AS AN EXAMPLE) fires two missiles and that is it. A naval (spits) ship would have more than two missiles and be able to fire more than two missiles at one time.

As I am ex Royal Air Force, then planes yes do have a limited supply, but they just fly back and get reloaded again and off they go, and it takes less than a day.

The game would just be pointless if you had an unlimited fire rate, as you might as well just produce missiles and anti air, the game would just be boring.

Yes planes should have air to air missiles, and anti air should not be as effective as it is, anti air is not that good in real life lol

KFGauss · Dec 19th 2021, 9:24pm

WalterChang wrote:

KFGauss wrote:

the game already includes (approximates) every single air-launched missile anyone can name, without exception.

The point I made earlier is that the game does not do this.
Air units have zero ranged attack (ie. no missiles). The patrol radius approximates that the air unit occupies the entire circle at all times during the patrol. That is why surface units are able to see them and shoot at them merely by 'overlapping' the patrol radius, and not need to get themselves into range of the centre-point of the aircraft's patrol position.

Air-to-air engagements happen at zero range: approximation is that gun only is used.
Air-to-ground engagements happen at zero range: approximation is that only gun, rockets and bombs are used.
Surface-to-air engagements can happen at up to 100 range: approximation is that missiles are used.

OK, and what I'm claiming, whether you want to agree with it or not, follows below. I hope we can at least reach an understanding instead of talking past each other.

When the game designers decided to initially stop adding unit-types to their game, they were deciding that ALL important weapon types (for the game mechanics they wanted to implement) were adequately represented in their game, and that any items that weren't explicitly there were either unimportant in the game's mechanics (such as a cook, or a cook's pistol) or were already rolled into the approximations they created for the units they did decide to include.

Folks keep wanting to look at these categories of games as half-finished lists of real-world hardware, and consequently wanting to add some shiny new toys-du-jour to them. The games simply aren't that. They are sets of complex, balanced game-mechanics rules, and use units that make (enough) sense within those rules. The designers do add some new units periodically, but they don't add them because they are or were in the real arsenal of some country during some pseudo-random historical period.

Complaining that CoN doesn't explicitly complement planes with separate plane-carried missiles is just a bit like (prepare for an imperfect analogy ...) complaining that because crossbows, trebuchets, and longboats once existed, chess should include them. The fact that those weapons existed and were once used alongside or by knights isn't the point.

Opulon · Dec 19th 2021, 10:29pm

There is this variant of chess from China where there is a unit called canon that can basically yeet iteslef from one side to the other of the board.

WalterChang · Dec 20th 2021, 2:12am

KFGauss wrote:

OK, and what I'm claiming, whether you want to agree with it or not, follows below. I hope we can at least reach an understanding instead of talking past each other.
When the game designers decided to initially stop adding unit-types to their game, they were deciding that ALL important weapon types (for the game mechanics they wanted to implement) were adequately represented in their game, and that any items that weren't explicitly there were either unimportant in the game's mechanics (such as a cook, or a cook's pistol) or were already rolled into the approximations they created for the units they did decide to include.

Folks keep wanting to look at these categories of games as half-finished lists of real-world hardware, and consequently wanting to add some shiny new toys-du-jour to them. The games simply aren't that. They are sets of complex, balanced game-mechanics rules, and use units that make (enough) sense within those rules. The designers do add some new units periodically, but they don't add them because they are or were in the real arsenal of some country during some pseudo-random historical period.

Complaining that CoN doesn't explicitly complement planes with separate plane-carried missiles is just a bit like (prepare for an imperfect analogy ...) complaining that because crossbows, trebuchets, and longboats once existed, chess should include them. The fact that those weapons existed and were once used alongside or by knights isn't the point.

I don't disagree with that, really (apart form the chess analogy, of course!).

I do think that the game's approximation of planes leaves a bit to be desired, though. I don't advocate players having to manually select and fire individual air-to-air or air-to-ground missiles whenever they want to attack something (beyond the cruise missiles we already have, which I think are represented in a good way by the game), but I do think that the patrol/direct attack system could do with some work to make it better - from a gameplay point of view, mostly, but also so that it's a better representation of the role that aircraft can carry out.

Share