More Missiles

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

    • More Missiles

      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.

    • Stuff like air to air missiles act on a far smaller scale then eg cruise or ballistic missiles do tho; so its pretty much assumed units already utilize this stuff on their engagement. What exactly do you think the „portable airdefense“ for infantry is if not giving them missile launchers to to hit aircraft with? Cuz i for one do doubt that they 360 noscope the pilots. Keep in mind that when mobilizing eg a tank you arent building a single tank but multiple (doubt you’d be able to fit the several hundred manpower required into the same one?)

      About missile costs: I think they’re actually in a pretty solid space and really the biggest investment is the research itself (only really early on they could be classified as expensive) tho ofc them costing supplies like a lot of other stuff does is sometimes an issue (tbh maybe inverting the supplies/oil cost is the way to go?)
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • I think there is a genuine point to be made here, when it comes to air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles.

      In Conflict of Nations, air units do not have any range. Whatever they hit will hit them back - they cannot out-range anything in the way that other unit-types can. The abstraction of their attacks seems to assume that Strike Fighters are using exclusively bombs, rockets and gun (very low-range weapons) and that ASFs are using exclusively gun. I think this is a result of the fact that the mechanics for air units were designed for games that represent WW2 or WW1, when planes didn't carry missiles. We've still got the same mechanics for air units that we have in Supremacy 1914 and Call of War 1942, and I don't think they really fit well with a game that represents the modern era.

      Anti-air has range while air units don't, and I think this puts air units at an inherent disadvantage - one that has led to very overly-complex and convoluted game mechanics governing the engagements between air and anti-air units, which very few players (even experienced ones) actually understand fully. In short, it's a mess.

      I reckon this problem (not everyone will agree that it's a problem, but I think it is!) could be solved by simply giving air units a normal range circle instead of the patrol radius. You'd still be able to send them to 'hover' over a location and they'd still engage units of their own correct target type that were in range, but the crucial difference would be that their own position would be set as the exact centre-point rather than as the entire range circle (as it currently is with 'Patrol'). That way, they would be able to out-range some targets in same way that ships or artillery can. Ranges could increase with levels in the same way that they do with other units. I think this'd make the whole thing much easier to understand and make the game mechanics more consistent across different unit types. It'd also alleviate some of the major problems that come with the current 'Patrol' mechanic, such as planes being detected, attacked and shot down by ranged AA from massive distances just because their patrol circle slightly intersects with the offensive range of the surface unit, while the aircraft can neither fight back nor even detect where they are being attacked from.

    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Air units are already pretty much the strongest units in the game, even more because AA is hardly of any use against experienced players, to easily exploited.
      Yeah, AA units need to be changed fundamentally as well!

      I'd give point defence units (inc. MAA) zero range, and range units zero point defence.
      The next thing I'd do is give range units 6 shots per hour (like they do now), but not limit them to one every 10 minutes. They could fire all 6 at the same time, or 3 at one target and 3 at another, etc. This would be calculated by the game according the relative HP of incoming air threats (each shot would have a damage value - the AA would use as many shots as it needed to destroy a target, and no more). Point Defence units would have an infinite number of shots, as they do now - they hit anything that hits them in Direct Attack. Range units would be able to be saturated by multiple strikes; Point Def units wouldn't.
      SAMs and TDS would be the only ground units with Range; Frigates would be the only ship with Range. Everything else would be Point Defence only.

      Planes would be able to use 'Range' or 'Direct' attack. Direct attack would use the full attack value in one go (but you'd get hit by Point Defence); Ranged attack would allow you to completely avoid Point Defence, but would only do, say, one quarter-strength damage every hour or something.

      Range of both AA and air units would upgrade with levels, so you'd need to upgrade your units in order to keep up with the range of your opponents' counter-unit. Maybe shots or damage per hour would upgrade with levels as well? (Gunships would be Direct Attack only, by the way.)

      Something like that would make a lot more intuitive sense to me, and hopefully there'd be fewer exploits because it'd be less complicated a system. The current system is insanely difficult to get your head around, giving those who know - your "experienced players" - too great an advantage over players who've simply read the wiki and tried to apply the units as described there.

      You should be able to read an in-game manual, then use the units and expect them to behave in the way you were told they would: this patently does not happen with Air/Anti-Air engagements.

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

    • WalterChang wrote:

      Something like that would make a lot more intuitive sense to me, and hopefully there'd be fewer exploits because it'd be less complicated a system. The current system is insanely difficult to get your head around, giving those who know - your "experienced players" - too great an advantage over players who've simply read the wiki and tried to apply the units as described there.

      You should be able to read an in-game manual, then use the units and expect them to behave in the way you were told they would: this patently does not happen with Air/Anti-Air engagements.
      That is more of an issue with the wiki being full of either incomplete or just plain wrong information? The game provided info being pretty bad is widely known and frankly it seems youre in the wrong thread; here's the relevant one for you Dorado should tailor the game to me and my playstyle
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • Teburu wrote:

      That is more of an issue with the wiki being full of either incomplete or just plain wrong information? The game provided info being pretty bad is widely known and frankly it seems youre in the wrong thread; here's the relevant one for you Dorado should tailor the game to me and my playstyle
      Well, I think that's a little unfair. I'm not trying to tailor the game to my playstyle - the suggestion is an attempt to make the mechanics simpler, more transparent and more obvious to all players, while maintaining a fair balance between air and anti-air. In order for the Wiki to fully explain the current mechanics around AA, it'd need a thesis-length document!

    • WalterChang wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      That is more of an issue with the wiki being full of either incomplete or just plain wrong information? The game provided info being pretty bad is widely known and frankly it seems youre in the wrong thread; here's the relevant one for you Dorado should tailor the game to me and my playstyle
      Well, I think that's a little unfair. I'm not trying to tailor the game to my playstyle - the suggestion is an attempt to make the mechanics simpler, more transparent and more obvious to all players, while maintaining a fair balance between air and anti-air. In order for the Wiki to fully explain the current mechanics around AA, it'd need a thesis-length document!
      it really doesnt? iirc i managed that in 2 google doc pages
      frankly the prime issue is usually not knowing which mechanics changed and how cuz they often dont mention that in the update logs; which in return usually leads to confusion on some details
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • Teburu wrote:

      it really doesnt? iirc i managed that in 2 google doc pages
      While other units require 2 sentences!

      Noone wants to read 2 pages of text in order to understand how to use one unit. This isn't a hardcore simulation that should require players to spend their time studying documents in order to understand the mechanics - like DCS World or something. It's an free-to-play arcade tactical wargame that you can play in a browser. Current AA mechanics are too complicated, convoluted, unintuitive, and riddled with the sort of problems that result in this:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      AA is hardly of any use against experienced players, to easily exploited

      I think it needs to be changed.

    • nah, the current aa mechanics are at its core pretty intuitive: dont yeet aircraft at AA and thats it for a basic explanation, really the same as any other mechanic: the moment you want to go into detail about you realize that there are a lot more details to account for if you want to play at a higher level

      you wouldnt need to read a google doc because the tutorial is pretty bad and lacking; thats not an issue with the mechanic itself

      tbh i find it a bit hilarious that on one hand you go „you should be able to read the ingame manual and know stuff“ but then come back with the „ reeee i shouldnt need to read two pages google doc to understand a mechanic“

      that way lies building a strawman cuz your entire argument is utterly misdirected
      „The game has is shit at explaining its mechanics so we should remove them“
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • playbabe wrote:

      always enjoy the sight of

      people understood the mechanic: yeah this is totally fine

      people that don't: reeeeeeeeee

      Opulon wrote:

      i'm cringing so hard at the guy shouting at how the awacs is useless on the other topic, i feel you
      In regards of the list Opulon, I and others collected, the mechanics are far from fine, but people criticising often fail to even spot the real issue and why their remarks are pointless, as long current flaws did not get solved :D

    • Yes, it's the essence of our list. We keep a lot of our remarks open-ended with something like

      "we don't know if it's a bug or by design, please ponder and review"
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.