Nerf the Multiple Rocket Launcher

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

    • No. It's 100% the 100 range. The best proof i can give is that if you think of it deep enough ---> "as long as nobody does MRLs, you don't need MRLs. It's only when someone does MRLs lvl 4 with 100 range that suddenly, your mobile and towed artillery become threatened and you need to step up"

      I disagree and there is already a set of units that use artillery weapons and support my theory.

      Naval Units. The major naval units are the frigate, destroyer, cruiser and attack sub. The unit like the mrls is the destroyer. It does great damage to both surface and sub targets but it starts with low range and never gets above 75. The cruiser does but it gets murdered vs subs. The sub gets great dmg against both and range but has some big negatives like it can't operate well in shallow waters and can't bombard cities, ground units or shoot at air targets.

      There is a balanced relationship between these naval targets so u can't just build one thing. (Although a fleet of cruisers really only has to worry about high lvl subs...)

      The Corvette is purposely left out because it's a glorified police boat.

      If the mrls was a naval unit it would be a cruiser that hits surface/subs at 10/10 and starts at rng 75.

      That would be the only unit ppl build unless they build corvettes to guard their harbors first.

    • Tumbler wrote:

      Naval Units. The major naval units are the frigate, destroyer, cruiser and attack sub. The unit like the mrls is the destroyer. It does great damage to both surface and sub targets but it starts with low range and never gets above 75
      Destroyer never gets above 75 range? Are you sure we're talking about the game? Because except corvette all naval units (not including seasonal ones for obvious reasons lol) cap out at 100 range
      Your comparison utterly fails because while range is like the primary factor for navy vs navy; they all eventually reach the same range and max lvl ships vs max lvl ships just comes down to hit& run and activity

      also: "the unit like the mrls is the destroyer" a few sentences later " if the mrl was a naval unit it would be a cruiser"
      uhm pls decide which one?
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • Destroyers and frigates go to 100?

      (Checks) I've never seen anyone do that nor have I ever upgraded them that far...


      I don't think it changes much, I don't see a big reward for taking the destroyer or frigate to 6 vs just getting cruisers to t2.

      To clarify, the unit most like the mrls currently is the destroyer. But it doesn't do everything better. It can't go h2h with cruisers.

      The mrls currently is like if you took a cruiser and gave it equal attack vs subs and surface. You wouldn't need anything else.

      In the artillery group u don't need anything else because the mrls hits hard and soft targets equally hard and starts with superior range.

    • Smallsword wrote:

      I'm not really making an argument... just saying that MRL already have weaknesses... the major one being that it takes so much time and research to even get one made.. let alone a doomstack... and an airassault from TD seems to be really effective against MRL already.
      These dooms stacks can be made operational by day 25 in my experience. By day 30-35 the stacks should be near full potential. I don’t know how quickly you are ending your games but generally there is time enough to do some damage.

      And umm, how are you going to air assault TD on my MRLs with SAM Launchers, radar, and ASF protecting them?
      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.

    • Tumbler wrote:

      Destroyers and frigates go to 100?

      (Checks) I've never seen anyone do that nor have I ever upgraded them that far...


      I don't think it changes much, I don't see a big reward for taking the destroyer or frigate to 6 vs just getting cruisers to t2.
      Man, you have much to learn, my friend
      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.

    • Aeneas of Troy wrote:

      Smallsword wrote:

      I'm not really making an argument... just saying that MRL already have weaknesses... the major one being that it takes so much time and research to even get one made.. let alone a doomstack... and an airassault from TD seems to be really effective against MRL already.
      These dooms stacks can be made operational by day 25 in my experience. By day 30-35 the stacks should be near full potential. I don’t know how quickly you are ending your games but generally there is time enough to do some damage.
      And umm, how are you going to air assault TD on my MRLs with SAM Launchers, radar, and ASF protecting them?
      SAM is inconsequential.
      Radar wont pick up the airlift (unless it's that useless AWACs haha)
      ASF is a danger, for sure... Same with MAAV...
      Dropping TD on a protected stack comes with sacrifice... but how many TD does it take to eliminate a 10 stack of MRL?... How prized is that target?

      I think most players with a doomstack operate it with the feeling of invulnerability... a TD surprise at least can cause them to act with more trepidation.


      "Kill in the Cradle" is about denying you enemy advantage... it's really a war of attrition.
      It's not that the games end quickly, it's that time is rendered my ally.
      It's not always easy to get to the opponent you need to stifle... but it's also not that hard to do either.

    • TA are much smaller then MA so of course they have less range


      Using public games as reference leads generally to faulty assumption.
      I always max out all 3 ships: FF, DD and CR
      Though most in my alliance are more likely to go FF and CR only, and maybe get some subs on top


      Jumping with TDs on MRL doom stack sounds like a good idea, until you realise a experienced player will hardly 'stand and shoot' with his artillery, so good luck jumping on a moving target without getting taking down by enemie ASF
      Same goes for minimum range for MRL. Active experienced player will work with max range on default, so will hardly care about a minimum range from the start


      How do you want to 'Kill the Cradle', when the other guy is on the other side of the map?
      If 10 people of 60 go for AB3, will you try to go after all of them at the same time?
      Your 'strategy' only works on public games, because they tend to be 60-90% dead, good luck with that if you are on a map with 1-2 dozen active people

    • @Kalrakh

      It's hard to say... you make allies with some... enemies of others... you send ships out... use sabotage... convince others to attack them... there are ways (where is Kurtvonstein's little saying when you need it)
      "Kill in the Cradle" is more of a principal than a strategy... One that I'm sure is easy for you to understand... in essence its to deny your enemy any advantage you can... most importantly to deny them what you can't counter.

      15 TD don't have to land in the same place.
      You don't have to land on the MRL ... you can entrap it.
      I think that's where the 40 min range would come in handy for the TD... you get a little safe zone.


      Public games are just as important to consider as AvA ... I wish the format had a more competitive/active user base... but it's not like there has never been a decent player to play them.

    • Honestly, I hope they grow strong, so I meet finally a challenge, so 'kill the cradle' is the opposite of what I tend to do, I guess.


      your TDs have to jump very deep into hostile territory to trap MRLs, good luck with that
      If you have 15 stacks of TDs, the opponent has surely more then one stack of MRL anyway :)

      How ever I still bet on the ASF that will most likely take them out of the sky before they even get close ;)

    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Honestly, I hope they grow strong, so I meet finally a challenge, so 'kill the cradle' is the opposite of what I tend to do, I guess.


      your TDs have to jump very deep into hostile territory to trap MRLs, good luck with that
      If you have 15 stacks of TDs, the opponent has surely more then one stack of MRL anyway :)

      How ever I still bet on the ASF that will most likely take them out of the sky before they even get close ;)
      i agree
      "CoN is a game of 80% skill and 20% luck" - Tifo_14

      "I don't get paid enough to do anything" - Germanico

      Nothing stops the Tifo :thumbup:

    • Man, you have much to learn, my friend



      There is a lot to learn, I pickup new little bits all the time. Didn't know high level fighters get low SIG radar at tier 3, that was interesting.

      Didn't know destroyers and frigates hit range 100 at lvl 6 or 7 respectively but I did know that upgrading them past tier 2 isnt how u win games.

      So many units just don't need to be built because a few units just do most things well enough and u get way more bang for your buck with upgrading a few units vs many.

    • Tumbler wrote:

      Man, you have much to learn, my friend



      There is a lot to learn, I pickup new little bits all the time. Didn't know high level fighters get low SIG radar at tier 3, that was interesting.

      Didn't know destroyers and frigates hit range 100 at lvl 6 or 7 respectively but I did know that upgrading them past tier 2 isnt how u win games.

      So many units just don't need to be built because a few units just do most things well enough and u get way more bang for your buck with upgrading a few units vs many.
      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 assume that upgrade your infantry (from the word “many”) but I use infantry solely for taking and holding cites and so do not need to upgrade infantry. And I never build armor. Instead I focus on navy, aircraft, and artillery stacks with support.

      Usually the first part of every war consists of a naval battle, the one who wins that battle almost always comes out victoriously overall. It probably is a good idea to have the advantage at those crucial moments.
      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.

    • Tumbler wrote:

      Man, you have much to learn, my friend



      There is a lot to learn, I pickup new little bits all the time. Didn't know high level fighters get low SIG radar at tier 3, that was interesting.

      Didn't know destroyers and frigates hit range 100 at lvl 6 or 7 respectively but I did know that upgrading them past tier 2 isnt how u win games.

      So many units just don't need to be built because a few units just do most things well enough and u get way more bang for your buck with upgrading a few units vs many.
      The problem with taking publics as basis of evaluation. On a public everything can work and bring you victory, even going with only ASF as air force and anti-ground unit.

    • Does a minimum range really effect a MLR player?

      I mean i never let anybody entangle my MRL in melee anyway. Thats why I have a blocker...or i make hit and run.

      With a minimum range:

      I would keep a stack of blocker + recon in the 50 km range to prevent anyone from getting our of the blast zone...
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.

    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      Does a minimum range really effect a MLR player?

      I mean i never let anybody entangle my MRL in melee anyway. Thats why I have a blocker...or i make hit and run.

      With a minimum range:

      I would keep a stack of blocker + recon in the 50 km range to prevent anyone from getting our of the blast zone...
      It would force them to invest heavily into the blocker, instead of just being able to get by with the MRL alone
      Also, if Spec Ops heli is low Radar Signature… does that mean ASF/MAA simply can’t shoot at it?
      Yee Haw

    • No experienced players only invests in MRL alone anyway, one unit type alone will not win the game.


      It means T2 AWACS can detect them and then they can get taken down by ASF for example, even though they should be full stealth like all other stealth units

      At least nothing in their description tells you, that they have low signature in mid air, while being otherwise unseeable

    • Aeneas of Troy wrote:

      Tumbler wrote:

      Man, you have much to learn, my friend



      There is a lot to learn, I pickup new little bits all the time. Didn't know high level fighters get low SIG radar at tier 3, that was interesting.

      Didn't know destroyers and frigates hit range 100 at lvl 6 or 7 respectively but I did know that upgrading them past tier 2 isnt how u win games.

      So many units just don't need to be built because a few units just do most things well enough and u get way more bang for your buck with upgrading a few units vs many.
      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 assume that upgrade your infantry (from the word “many”) but I use infantry solely for taking and holding cites and so do not need to upgrade infantry. And I never build armor. Instead I focus on navy, aircraft, and artillery stacks with support.

      Usually the first part of every war consists of a naval battle, the one who wins that battle almost always comes out victoriously overall. It probably is a good idea to have the advantage at those crucial moments.
      Sorry but this is absolutely not true. Even in ww3 map there are a lot of countries that doesn't need to focus on navy. Namely whole Eurasia which is a lot.
      I would actually say opposite. If you're on Eurasia you can forget navy completely and still win.
      Some countries are more exposed like France, Italy... But they can still win without navy.
      Don't forget, the time when you have your perfect navy stack, your opponent could have so many planes and some arty or vice-versa.
      Especially planes can be healed quickly meaning you can't afford your first attack to fail.
      Using navy to win is actually very situational on country you are playing.
      Why would Russia need navy in CoN? Germany, Poland, Serbia... etc?

      Back to topic, I like the idea of minimal fire range for MRL and I think Towed arty need bufs.

      Was it a thing long ago Towed could fire immediately while still not operational after departure?

    • Zemunelo wrote:

      Aeneas of Troy wrote:

      Tumbler wrote:

      Man, you have much to learn, my friend



      There is a lot to learn, I pickup new little bits all the time. Didn't know high level fighters get low SIG radar at tier 3, that was interesting.

      Didn't know destroyers and frigates hit range 100 at lvl 6 or 7 respectively but I did know that upgrading them past tier 2 isnt how u win games.

      So many units just don't need to be built because a few units just do most things well enough and u get way more bang for your buck with upgrading a few units vs many.
      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 assume that upgrade your infantry (from the word “many”) but I use infantry solely for taking and holding cites and so do not need to upgrade infantry. And I never build armor. Instead I focus on navy, aircraft, and artillery stacks with support.

      Usually the first part of every war consists of a naval battle, the one who wins that battle almost always comes out victoriously overall. It probably is a good idea to have the advantage at those crucial moments.
      Sorry but this is absolutely not true. Even in ww3 map there are a lot of countries that doesn't need to focus on navy. Namely whole Eurasia which is a lot.I would actually say opposite. If you're on Eurasia you can forget navy completely and still win.
      Some countries are more exposed like France, Italy... But they can still win without navy.
      Don't forget, the time when you have your perfect navy stack, your opponent could have so many planes and some arty or vice-versa.
      Especially planes can be healed quickly meaning you can't afford your first attack to fail.
      Using navy to win is actually very situational on country you are playing.
      Why would Russia need navy in CoN? Germany, Poland, Serbia... etc?

      Back to topic, I like the idea of minimal fire range for MRL and I think Towed arty need bufs.

      Was it a thing long ago Towed could fire immediately while still not operational after departure?
      I am talking more about alliance challenges and end game showdowns. Of course one can win with any strategy in public matches and, yes, the country you play and how the game develops definitely has a say in what one builds. And I am not saying that having only navy is the way to go. But having a stronger navy over an opponent is a huge advantage.
      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.