Aircraft Carrier; Reimagined

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

    • Let’s get on the same page here. The devs strive to make the game as realistic as possible, but in the grand scheme of things the game is not a simulation

      -Railguns shoot through cities and sometimes even mountains to hit armor on a higher elevation
      -Point Defense devours thousands of missiles like it’s a buffet
      -A level 1 AWACS can detect armored units on the ground
      -We won’t talk about Euro Stealth Bomber or Elite Bomber

      I am a person who enjoys realistic games. Most of my suggestions in this forum are bound by realism, and many of the dev’s (original) choices are too. However, I heavily disagree with the notion that the game needs to be fully realistic, or that games centered around fiction are no good. Halo, Call of Duty, Fallout, Minecraft are proof of this. I wouldn’t be in favor of CoN becoming Star Wars, but it doesn’t exactly have to be a simulation either, and it’s acceptable for the devs to bend realism in favor of fun and balance
      Yee Haw
    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Let’s get on the same page here. The devs strive to make the game as realistic as possible, but in the grand scheme of things the game is not a simulation

      -Railguns shoot through cities and sometimes even mountains to hit armor on a higher elevation
      -Point Defense devours thousands of missiles like it’s a buffet
      -A level 1 AWACS can detect armored units on the ground
      -We won’t talk about Euro Stealth Bomber or Elite Bomber

      I am a person who enjoys realistic games. Most of my suggestions in this forum are bound by realism, and many of the dev’s (original) choices are too. However, I heavily disagree with the notion that the game needs to be fully realistic, or that games centered around fiction are no good. Halo, Call of Duty, Fallout, Minecraft are proof of this. I wouldn’t be in favor of CoN becoming Star Wars, but it doesn’t exactly have to be a simulation either, and it’s acceptable for the devs to bend realism in favor of fun and balance
      I can respect that. There should be an equal amount of realism and creative content. My worry is that the game could add a ton of cool features that are in real life that they're missing out on.
    • Job_ee wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      Please read more carefully - I criticized the notion of "realism" that someone claimed the wholly-unrealistic and wholly-imaginary proposed game unit would introduce.

      Have a nice day.
      My point is that the unit proposed is extremely realistic and is supported by players with more XP than you. And as a game that claims to use realistic units in their creepy adds on social media, it should make strides to actually do so.
      Bless your heart.

      Have a nice day.
    • Job_ee wrote:

      Opulon wrote:

      I don't think it's a good idea to assume that the game is realistic, because it's marketing tries to sell it as "realist" to an audience that, by design, has a limited understanding of reality.


      My main complain with the Carrier is more about its genetics in the game economy : The legitimate players can only deploy it in mid-late game where the map is already done. By that time, the aircraft carrier is less "a strategic option", and more a show of dominance.

      And when the aircraft carrier is deployed in power in early-mid, well, we all know what it means from the player :D
      Also question, how did you get your current game stats? According to your game account, you have more than a 32:1 kill ratio for infantry and very similar with armored. Heavies is also a 32:1 kill ratio. What are you doing to get these game stats? Melliodas for example doesn't have stats that come close, and he's an expert.

      By what account is melliodas an expert ? He's a casual dude that has received some good advices but doesn't try hard or anything, he just gets his fun in casual maps. Compared to the 99% of players that are yet to discover that a sword isn't to be held by the side that cuts your hands, yes, he is good. But it's not hard to be good with that kind of referential.

      I'm not an expert either. I like to define myself as a "slightly above average player" per comparison to the circles of players i tend to interact with. I know a bit more than the average player (again, from my standards) because i am blessed with cordial relations with a lot of very competent players, and i love tea talks.

      How did i got my current game stats ?

      By playing in public games. No other explanation. As long as the typical player of CoN is who he is right now, and as long as he will be so unable to analyse his own skills and how to play the game in such ludicrous illusions... i will have 10 K/D, without breaking a sweat, and so will everyone here with a sparkle of skill, not even a lot.

      Put me against Kurtvonstein, Kalrakh, or Sandpool, and see me (or him) struggle to be the one that comes over the top with a >1 K/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.
    • If i'm not wrong about Melliodas, but i would need to re-ask, i've seen that he is playing quite a bit with Nubluk, a Carthage Officer. It's likely he gets some on field training with this player, as seen in their Korea challenge ^^.
      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.
    • Tifo_14 wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      OK waffles, you can have your new aircraft carriers, if I can have my super battleship.

      jp010.jpg
      Is that from Call of War?
      I guess it's possible, but not knowingly, as I hate WW2 shit. I just googled image "battleship graphic" and picked one.
      *** 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
    • I think the Carrier should, at least, be able to launch cruise missiles. Coz, as many other palyers have stated before, those carriers are pretty muchs useless if you compare all the resourses and time you need to invest to use them properlly, against their actual usefullness in game; by the time you get, lest say, one stack of five carriers, max lvl, with all the 75 units that can carry along, (so it can be a force to be feared, as it should be in the first place, taking in note all you need to invest on them), plus all the ships you'll need to protec it, the game has already ended or you are the only player left

      Also, for everyone who likes naval units, some time ago I posted an idea/suggestion for a new elite naval unit; I don't think its perfect, but you know what they say: "By failing you learn to do better." Anyway, if you want to check it out and/or leave a comment/feedback, you're welcome to do it so. I'll leave the link below...

      New Idea for an Elite Naval Unit
    • playbabe wrote:

      literally all unit you need to support carrier can launch the damn cruise missile.
      what that? you are telling me you use carrier with 0 aircraft and 0 warships supporting?
      Man, didn’t you read what I post? If I’m preparing to research for carriers I would put with it every unit I could research for to support it, because if I dont do that, it will just become a big ass target

      And you’re right, Cruisers and Destroyers are already able to launch cruise missiles, but I don’t see why the Carrier shouldn’t be able to do it as well. It will certainly give it a more offensive role in the battlefield, instead of just being there holding planes or losing them to a more practical and cheaper airfield

      At the end of the day, I was just posting a suggestion, and of course it won’t be perfect. And if you have a better one, you should post it, coz that’s why we all come here isn’t? To at least give some ideas of how the carrier could be improved to make a better game experience for us, the players
    • Rapt0ris wrote:

      I still cannot comprehend how anybody has yet to mention the fact, that carriers lack the ability to heal units they carry. Its a must have for the unit to be even remotely viable.
      I still cannot comprehend how anybody doesn't even understand how carrier work and rambling about it should be change.
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD
    • playbabe wrote:

      Rapt0ris wrote:

      I still cannot comprehend how anybody has yet to mention the fact, that carriers lack the ability to heal units they carry. Its a must have for the unit to be even remotely viable.
      I still cannot comprehend how anybody doesn't even understand how carrier work and rambling about it should be change.
      Well, enlighten us, my intellectual friend, you that claim to know that much about the matter, how the Carrier actually works and how can you make it a practical and a viable option in the battlefield? Just don't say that, "all you need to do its to put an escort to go along with it, yes some frigates, destroyers and one cruiser or two will do the trick" because even I with my tiny little brain would have been able to figure it out that

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

    • You don’t. that’s the real problem of carrier. You can not make it practical to use without wasting so much resources.

      You have 2 options to fix the carrier

      option 1. move the burden to other players by allow team to host aircraft on carrier or allow it to automatically move together with team naval fleet. this will eliminate the need of your own naval escort or aircraft.

      option 2. reduce the overall resources needed. nerf the hell out of carrier but drastically reduce all cost.
      research, mobilization, building demand. cut them all.
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD