Nerf the Multiple Rocket Launcher

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

    • Aeneas of Troy wrote:

      Actually, I usually prioritize upgrading my navy above ground troops and even aircraft. Without a solid navy, it is nearly impossible to win. The range that you get from upgrading ships insures little to no casualties and allows free bombardment and protection from amphibious invasion. They allow you to cover your own transports as they take over prime coastal cities. And since I usually have at least 20 vessels by day 35, I don’t think it a waste of resources. I think that upgrading your ships IS how you win games, I can’t think of much else that is more important.
      I always build a navy if I have coastal cities but unless there is a threat nearby, someone else building a lvl 2 shipyard, then I'll just park corvettes in the harbor and focus on building infantry and strike fighters. I've been playing with using national guard the last few games so I'll move all my infantry out as soon as the game starts and then queue up national guard to defend my cities and save on resources doing that. While it does put units in your cities early I don't see it being a good strategy. I still need to research infantry soon and build them and researching Infantry upgrades and national guard upgrades seems to leave me vulnerable to enemies that get infantry to lvl 6 before me.

      Taking land / cities is the key to success in my opinion and rarely does investing in naval units early make this process faster. I'm guessing you can get an exrta 5 infantry with the same time/resources it would take to build a frigate or destroyer for example.

      As the economy grows adding Artillery becomes and option and I still think MRLS is the only option that makes sense.
    • Tumbler wrote:

      Aeneas of Troy wrote:

      Actually, I usually prioritize upgrading my navy above ground troops and even aircraft. Without a solid navy, it is nearly impossible to win. The range that you get from upgrading ships insures little to no casualties and allows free bombardment and protection from amphibious invasion. They allow you to cover your own transports as they take over prime coastal cities. And since I usually have at least 20 vessels by day 35, I don’t think it a waste of resources. I think that upgrading your ships IS how you win games, I can’t think of much else that is more important.
      I always build a navy if I have coastal cities but unless there is a threat nearby, someone else building a lvl 2 shipyard, then I'll just park corvettes in the harbor and focus on building infantry and strike fighters. I've been playing with using national guard the last few games so I'll move all my infantry out as soon as the game starts and then queue up national guard to defend my cities and save on resources doing that. While it does put units in your cities early I don't see it being a good strategy. I still need to research infantry soon and build them and researching Infantry upgrades and national guard upgrades seems to leave me vulnerable to enemies that get infantry to lvl 6 before me.
      Taking land / cities is the key to success in my opinion and rarely does investing in naval units early make this process faster. I'm guessing you can get an exrta 5 infantry with the same time/resources it would take to build a frigate or destroyer for example.

      As the economy grows adding Artillery becomes and option and I still think MRLS is the only option that makes sense.
      If you get helicopters your national guards will never encounter any infantry. :D

      And don’t spend time upgrading national guard much…use it elsewhere, like those helicopters or asf to protect them…or MRLS stacks. Suddenly infantry and tanks start looking more like targets than threats :thumbsup:
      I am Aeneas, duty-bound and known above high air of heaven by my fame, carrying with me in my ships our gods of hearth and home, saved from the foe. I look for Italy to be my fatherland, and my descent is from all-highest Jove.
    • What about the speed factor? To my mind, a lot of the reason that MRLs are able to dominate on land is that it's perhaps too easy for them to stay out of the reach of melee units without the need for their own supporting ground units to protect them.

      Artillery in general are vulnerable to air attacks and to close combat - those are their weaknesses. You need other support units to protect them from the air, but you don't particularly need other units to protect them from close combat, because they can do that themselves as long as you're active enough to keep moving them. Perhaps if the speed difference between MRLs and tanks/AFVs were increased, it'd help those units gain a bit more relevance within the ground unit mix? Col. Waffles' minimum range suggestion would complement this as well.
    • It's an option we already often explored, but due to speed debuff in enemy territory, except if you put artillery at a base speed of 0.6 , it's not possible for close combat troops to actually catch them in most scenarios (except the one where the artillery guy is stupid, of course)

      MRL was already nerfed from 1.5 to 1.3, which helped a bit, but difference were marginal.

      In the meanwhile, People with MBTs were still reduced to wreck by people doing only Towed artillery (that moves 1.0) because "well, if he doesn't do any artillery, why would i bother with mobile or mrl ?"

      And let's not even speak of the air mobile ability, which allows said artillery to basically laugh "MBT peasant race"




      The underlying problem with that is also tied to demographics : Few people use artillery, compared to MBTs. A pretty big part of those people that use artillery still get wrecked by MBTs because they are inactive. We have more and more youtubers that show to great effect what it's like to have MRLs battlegroups against waves of MBTs, and the 100 K/D that results.

      They try to mirror, and they fail, because they don't see through the "glass cannon doctrine" that requires from the player a lot of dedication in presence, activity, and latency.

      As Dorado would probably elaborate : "If we nerf more than they are the artilleries because the 1% elite dominates with it, the artilleries that are already not very popular, will be even less used, which is not our goal"



      To be honest, the same paradigm applies with Strike Fighters. Guys that spam strike fighters against MBTs also get their 100 K/D, with even less effort, dedication, and etc, than the artillery counterpart. If i have artillery, to kill a MBT guy, i need to put my alarm at night, i need to bolster the game stats with "oh, this guy logs once every 30 minutes, 24/24, for WEEKS !".

      It works, but in comparison, with Strike Fighters, you tend to follow a "left click to win" approach.

      However, there's no public outcry to nerf the Strike Fighters.
      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.
    • Opulon wrote:

      However, there's no public outcry to nerf the Strike Fighters.
      There is, actually! It's utterly wrong-headed, but it exists. I've seen it!


      Opulon wrote:

      As Dorado would probably elaborate : "If we nerf more than they are the artilleries because the 1% elite dominates with it, the artilleries that are already not very popular, will be even less used, which is not our goal"
      I don't agree with this. The reason that the idiot masses don't build artilleries is mostly down the research and building requirements, I reckon. You put TA at 30 minute research for L1 with a L1 Army Base and L1 Arms Industry, and suddenly people would build them. You bring MA down to L2 Army base and people would build them.
      (The problem is, they still wouldn't necessarily know how to use them - it's not at all uncommon to see people mix artillery units into a tank/infantry stack and just use them in melee battles!)

      I think the game should be balanced according to the potential best use of the units available (as demonstrated by the "elites", as you put it), and not balanced according to the observed blunderings of complete morons.
    • "I think the game should be balanced according to the potential best use of the units available (as demonstrated by the "elites", as you put it), and not balanced according to the observed blunderings of complete morons."

      i would agree from my small individual point of view, but i have been convinced since a few years that the general balance was needed to cater to the ability of the 99%.


      Too Hardcore or demanding games are good on paper but tend to fail in effect, a bit like Hardcore full loot PVP Mmo always sound great on paper : absolute freedom, absolute responsibility, absolute logic between actions and consequences, as well as 100% emergent gameplay from the players.

      In effect, a lot of them die because a game needs its casual 95% to survive, and those casuals just plainly leave if the game doesn't answer at least partially to their expectations.

      Imagine that the infantry and the MBTs were nerfed to the ground. Don't ask why, just do it. The majority of players would not "switch" to other units. They would plainly stop playing.

      It's around this effect the game is forced to be somewhat balanced, and any nerf/buff that is meant to have an effect on the 1%, must take that into account.


      In other words, balancing is hard.


      About Strike Fighters, they don't need to be nerfed, because the problem is that very few people do the units that are very good against them. But in that case, a bit like the artillery, in a "elite only" map, the strike fighter could actually be BUFFED a bit, in order to be equally interesting to the attack helicopter. So let's give it a bit more damages and hp, right ? But if you do that, the thing is even more devastating for the 99%, that were not asking anything in that regard :D
      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.
    • Opulon wrote:

      "I think the game should be balanced according to the potential best use of the units available (as demonstrated by the "elites", as you put it), and not balanced according to the observed blunderings of complete morons."

      i would agree from my small individual point of view, but i have been convinced since a few years that the general balance was needed to cater to the ability of the 99%.


      Too Hardcore or demanding games are good on paper but tend to fail in effect, a bit like Hardcore full loot PVP Mmo always sound great on paper : absolute freedom, absolute responsibility, absolute logic between actions and consequences, as well as 100% emergent gameplay from the players.

      In effect, a lot of them die because a game needs its casual 95% to survive, and those casuals just plainly leave if the game doesn't answer at least partially to their expectations.

      Imagine that the infantry and the MBTs were nerfed to the ground. Don't ask why, just do it. The majority of players would not "switch" to other units. They would plainly stop playing.

      It's around this effect the game is forced to be somewhat balanced, and any nerf/buff that is meant to have an effect on the 1%, must take that into account.


      In other words, balancing is hard.


      About Strike Fighters, they don't need to be nerfed, because the problem is that very few people do the units that are very good against them. But in that case, a bit like the artillery, in a "elite only" map, the strike fighter could actually be BUFFED a bit, in order to be equally interesting to the attack helicopter. So let's give it a bit more damages and hp, right ? But if you do that, the thing is even more devastating for the 99%, that were not asking anything in that regard :D
      Yeah, I appreciate that, really. I'd argue that MBTs should be buffed, precisely for this reason, in fact. Because they are the go-to unit for causal players (tanks are cool, or whatever), they should at least pose something of a problem to players who've taken the time to understand the game mechanics in more depth. It'd make the game more challenging and fun for them as well!

      How about if artillery units were unable to reload while moving? I think this'd work quite well.
    • If I were making a game for fun (check back with me in a few years), I would use one set of rules and imaginary units, it would probably use abstract unit-icons because taking the time to wrap "realistic" skins around the units would be boring, and would trigger too many discussions like this thread.

      If I were making a game for a business (so that I don't run out of money and have to live on the streets), I would use a different set of rules and different imaginary units.
    • All the units in this game are imaginary by all accounts.

      They are very liberal depictions of non-existant entities that are associated with non existent statistics that can't be tied in any way to existent things, and they are painted with visuals that look like (while not entirely accurately) to existing units.

      Season units and officers take even more freedom with this, but yeah, as you point, the core design of such a game is that it's wildly inaccurate, abstract, and made for fun/business.

      I mean, what even IS "soft HP" in terms of reality ? What is the legitimacy of a missile or a plane having "HPs" when a plane will generally be put out of combat because a bird went through its exhaust ?

      The more you think of it, the less it is tied to reality.



      However, let's not underestimate the value of eye candy.
      Technically, the game could work EXACTLY the same if the visuals were made of animals. Tanks are rhinoceros, Planes are Eagles, Missiles are bees. The game would look amusing, but would still function the same in its glorious fantasy.

      The appeal is however to see the MBTs. Whatever their stats, in fact.
      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.
    • Opulon wrote:

      All the units in this game are imaginary by all accounts.

      They are very liberal depictions of non-existant entities that are associated with non existent statistics that can't be tied in any way to existent things, and they are painted with visuals that look like (while not entirely accurately) to existing units.

      Season units and officers take even more freedom with this, but yeah, as you point, the core design of such a game is that it's wildly inaccurate, abstract, and made for fun/business.

      I mean, what even IS "soft HP" in terms of reality ? What is the legitimacy of a missile or a plane having "HPs" when a plane will generally be put out of combat because a bird went through its exhaust ?

      The more you think of it, the less it is tied to reality.



      However, let's not underestimate the value of eye candy.
      Technically, the game could work EXACTLY the same if the visuals were made of animals. Tanks are rhinoceros, Planes are Eagles, Missiles are bees. The game would look amusing, but would still function the same in its glorious fantasy.

      The appeal is however to see the MBTs. Whatever their stats, in fact.
      This needs to be Bytro’s next game
      Garden Skirmish
      Yee Haw
    • Nerf the Hornets, they do waaaaaaaaaay too much damage against flower-based HP units, and active-reading pollen structure can only catch them up to T2 ! Outragous. In reality...
      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.