Suggestions (My 1st Post)

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

    • Suggestions (My 1st Post)

      Hi, first of all thanks Devs for this game.

      I'm just gonna leave these thoughts here maybe some good will come out of it.

      1. Airborne Infantry
      Challenges:
      vulnerability while air assaulting
      infrastructure required for effective use

      Suggestions:
      a. Buff Airborne Infantry indirectly by increasing patrol radius of Air Superiority Fighter. ASF patrol radius increases a little bit, and increases a little more with each speed upgrade.
      b. Increase AIrborn Infantry air assault radius with upgrades

      I think the Airborne Infantry is good as it is. It is too vulnerable when hitting "behind enemy lines", though, and dissuades use. This change hopes to counteract some of the vulnerability.
      Further increasing air assault radius will also lessen its reliability on airbases as the game goes on, and increase its potential as a "surprise" unit. (take opponent's lightly guarded bases, quickly dismantle production buildings, then leave)


      2. Carrier
      Challenges:
      Indirect cost (planes)
      Covers 2-3 tech trees to operate
      Lack of defined role (in the navy's rock paper scissors setup of destroyers-submarines-frigates-cruise missiles, carriers don't fit in)

      I am also aware of the challenges of putting other player's planes in your own carrier. That would've been neat but I assume that's not possible, so my suggestions work around it.


      Suggestions:
      1. (ROLE 1) So as not to interrupt the current navy interaction, I imagine carriers to fill the role of "continental invasion" platform
      a. Slightly Nerf the operational radius of planes and bombers overall (this is to make carrier as continental invasion platform viable)
      b. make navy jets deal less damage than their non-navy counterparts (to give clearly defined roles, non-navy jets deal more damage but have hard time reaching another continent. Navy jets deal less damage but easier to reach another continent)
      c. SCRAP naval AWACS, and make regular AWACS carrier deployable from level 1
      d. make drones carrier deployable from level 1

      2. (ROLE 2) Naval centerpiece
      a. Carriers boost an officer's buff.
      A stack with carriers have no buff.
      A stack with officer is buffed.
      A stack with officer AND carrier is buffed some more.

      3. (COST)
      a. I don't know if its possible with the game engine. But I suggest Carriers spawn with planes inside it. A cheap, generic purpose, unupgradable(?), "airplane-militia". I imagine this to be a VTOL aircraft.
      b. Greatly reduce Naval ASF and naval strike jet research time. I suggest 30 mins.
      c. A straight up buff by reducing research cost, build cost, and build time.


      Carriers spawn with 5 of these aircraft. Succeeding upgrades of the carrier don't increase the number of these pre-spawned aircraft, but only increase its capacity. The reasoning being that a player who wants to commit to carriers likely are thinking of using other fixed-wing bombers or striker jets.

      Islets are nice and make good strategic hotspots, but hopefully carriers become a viable alternative with these changes.


      3. New VTOL aircraft
      A unit related to my Carrier suggestions

      1. shorter operational radius
      2. cheaper to get than other planes
      3. requires later research day (day 7?)
      4. carrier deployable from level 1
      5. weaker overall but not by a lot. Should be reasonably effective for someone who did not invest in ASF and Strike Jet research. But should lose to someone who invested in ASF and Strike Jet research.
      6. If upgradable, very limited research upgrade options.

    • 1. Airborne
      a.) I Completely disagree, the vulnerability while air assaulting is pretty intentional; and buffing ASF patrol range would not really "fix" that

      b.) The issue with needing airfields is the norm for really any units capable of air assault, however; nearby airfields "overlap" leading to an increased area they can cover. I guess the range could be a bit longer but frankly, that's the same for really any unit with a fairly short range.

      2. Carriers
      Oh boi, Carriers. There is, quite a lot wrong with Carriers in their current state you already name a couple of things but here are a few more:
      - there is really not much use for what is essentially a mobile airfield, the incredibly high amount of small islands make for a pretty perfect staging ground for invasions and can often easily replace a carrier, to add on to this: there are only a handful of island nations; the idea of projecting airpower across vast distances like IRL is made useless by the simple fact that the vast majority of the land is connected, thus you can easily just conquer the distance and use airfields instead
      - incredibly limited in terms of what you can put on them; especially the inability to utilize mixed stacks to mitigate dmg taken hurt here
      - high building requirements (on top of all the other costs)

      2.1) Would not really address any of its issues IMO, in general not much of a fan of nerving other units in an attempt to define a "role" for the carrier. It already has one, in terms of Navy vs Navy combat it's role is at best the one of an airfield for ASW helis, the issue here is that there really aren't that many Aircraft that are carrier-based that are decent against navy to begin with.
      a.) No.
      b.) Hell no, completely counterproductive to what you want to achieve, having carrier-based aircraft with more range than their normal version gives you less of a reason to put them on a carrier. Because exactly what lack of range are you trying to compensate for then? As said above I'm in general, not a big fan of nerving that many units for something as vague as changing the "role" of the carrier.
      c.) Actually agree, Naval Awacs belong into the trash, wouldn't give Awacs the ability to operate from carriers from lvl 1 tho
      d.) Could've sworn they already were, but no they arent,

      2.2.) Disagree, simply because a stack with a carrier is inherently at a disadvantage. For multiple reasons actually.
      - Any Carrier could be a ship that deals damage instead, so a Boost would have to be big enough to offset that difference
      - It's quite a bit slower than other ships, making that stack an easier target
      - If it only buffs a stack with Officer then any carrier outside on Officer stack is useless in that regard

      2.3)
      a.) Disagree, probably not even possible but it would in general invalidate quite a lot of aircraft
      b.) Honestly this one is completely useless because building a Carrier takes quite some time and within that frame its more than easy to get Naval Aircraft. On top of that you also need to research the normal version anyway, rendering any reduced cost/research time for the naval version pretty much a moot point.
      c.) Somewhat agree, I think the thing to do here would be to reduce Naval Base required to build a Carrier from 5 to 4, nothing much beyond that. The cost of making a Carrier would be pretty appropriate if it was actually good.

      3.) VTOL
      Eh not really sure what to think about it, Helis already more or less fill the role of being Aircraft that doesn't need a naval version to land on a Carrier. Don't really see much of a point if I'm being honest, because on top of not really adding anything new to the game, in terms of effect on the gameplay in general it would be yet another aircraft you use to increase the survivability of mixed stacks.

      Overall I give it a 6 (+1 for effort) out of 10 points. Could have used boldening/underlining for headlines. Maybe not putting a couple of different suggestions into the same thread, because while most are related they could have used more elaboration. Its really short and mostly boils down to: Perceived Issue --> Proposed Solution without any explanation of the thought process that went into it or explanation of how it would (should?) affect gameplay in general.
      Still a lot better than the usual suggestion.
      I am The Baseline for opinions