Armour Rebalancing

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

    • Teburu wrote:

      No.
      That is completely misunderstanding the problem.
      The issue is not Melee vs Artillery being a bad matchup.
      But even Melee vs Melee being a terrible matchup because other units are so much better.
      I'm not sure it's quite as black and white as that. Melee combat is best to be avoided, yes - I see nothing wrong with the principle of that. If you can hit the enemy without him hitting you, then you do it. Standing artillery exchanges are also best to be avoided, for that same reason. And that's fine.

      So melee combat itself does not have to be made into an equally/more attractive option than using ranged bombardment. You just need to make the actual units attractive to use in some way: you need to give them a purpose. One purpose for them might be to chase down slower units that have weak melee stats (like Support)?

    • WalterChang wrote:

      I'm not sure it's quite as black and white as that. Melee combat is best to be avoided, yes - I see nothing wrong with the principle of that. If you can hit the enemy without him hitting you, then you do it. Standing artillery exchanges are also best to be avoided, for that same reason. And that's fine.

      So melee combat itself does not have to be made into an equally/more attractive option than using ranged bombardment. You just need to make the actual units attractive to use in some way: you need to give them a purpose. One purpose for them might be to chase down slower units that have weak melee stats (like Support)?
      For me cost has been the biggest factor in not doing armor. I think your suggestion would give a very niche use to armor (To destroy artillery) but is it even needed? If it is so expensive then why not make air? Maybe if they have good anti-air but units are slower anyway in enemy territory. This would make tanks very niche and rare anyway, I think already many noob players make tanks. The only reason a pro might make tank is if the enemy had good artillery + anti-air and that too the person would make when they have enough resources and time to spare because they need to level up the tanks to make them faster too. Tanks would still be expensive.

      I think tank should be used for what they are used in real life, as an armored support for infantry, they are 'tanks'. Their job is to protect the stack. They should be cheaper so that using them as tank is feasable.

    • Personally, I think the cost is the deciding factor—components in particular. You can build 2x Strike fighters for the cost of a tank. Then the tank will sap 80 components daily to keep running, further limiting your production. The Strike Fighters do not have this component hit. Just using strike fighter as an example as Elites are going to be rebalanced in some way. The SF's are more flexible than the tank, faster, easier to repair, and do not need artillery,inf, and AA cover to not be a sitting duck and to do the same job of killing other troops. I will generally ignore the rest of the armor because really if the MBT has no use the rest don't either. MBT's also have to be stupidly upgraded to be airlifted.

      You want me to use MBT's? They need to be cheaper than the airforce, airlift much faster, and have at least some token point defense AA. Wouldn't hurt to let them strike at range like upgraded motorized at some level so the whole stake can hit. The rest of the armor would be balanced around this for their more specialized intention. Remove the component upkeep cost as well, or at least give the airplanes something similar. I cannot field a navy and armor at the same time as it drags down production way too far.

    • Iamadrunk wrote:

      Well if you want to keep it realistic I think it should stay the same or lower the cost of armor or time to make it or both. The tank seems to be becoming a dinosaur on the battlefield with uav and mobile AT rockets shifting the balance as we are seeing in the Ukraine.
      Basically this. Tanks merely augment Infantry and for all practical purposes should just be attached to Infantry Regiments/Divisions like Hearts of Iron. For realism sake Tanks are coffins. The only plus side of being in a Tank or APC in real life is that you are hermetically sealed from nerve agents. As you see in Ukraine a scenario is playing out much like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Small, man portable, rockets are phasing out such tactics.

    • _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      Wow, this many replies in 6 hours :D

      Hmm, where to start?

      playbabe wrote:

      random shot -> won’t report if hit anything and deal only 50% damage
      shoot at radar signatures-> 80% damage (only applied to ground target)
      shoot at unidentified unit -> 80% damage
      shoot at revealed unit -> 100% damage
      Further nerf random shot I'd say, but rest is fine I suppose. The point was, however, was to not nerf ranged/air attacks, since they still play a big part in modern warfare and most battles are decided by air superiority, naval dominance, and artillery supremacy, not by the tanks and the infantry. As Teburu mentioned, melee combat in general just sucks (SBDE wise and flexibility wise), so what we really need to do is find a solution to make melee combat a viable option of combat.

      japan samurai wrote:

      —regarding armour being too weak, MBTs seem fine, they are fine if you have them supported by anti air and artillery. They are especially dangerous during early game rushes where I have once seen an ally get a stack of 2 MBTs and 2 Mech inf by day 4-6. Player played as Serbia. MBTs not really having too much power in urban combat seems fine, because it is easy to ambush.
      I seriously don't know whether to laugh or cry. 2 MBT and 2 Mech Inf do a whopping total of 2.6 fixed wing defensive damage. By day 6, you should have at least 5 ASF, which deals 4.5 against hard and 6 against soft. 100HP to 134HP, not to mention since tank player would have had to invest pretty much all of his resources into that measly 2 MBT and 2 Mech, he can't make much else. And at this point, you'd have made at least 2-3 EAA (and even if this was the before EAA era, helis/strikers would destroy this stack regardless.) Yes, it does have a lot of HP; that's about it if you have air dominance.

      japan samurai wrote:

      —AFVs are a generally all rounded unit, which makes it more favourable for people that play more focused on air doctrines.
      —CRV Is too weak due to its too high cost and useless armoured damaged at the start
      Um, what? AFVs are probably the worst out of the three main armour units (AFV, TD, MBT). They have the worst damage against ground units, they cost way too much for their intended use (all-terrain armoured vehicle), and have just a bit more than half the HP of a MBT.And when were CRVs expensive? 950 Sups and 850 Comps for a early game unit is reasonable. Obviously, it can't be spammed like NG, but that's the point. It serves as armour to defend against infantry rushes and early scouting ability. And the only armour you'll find early game is other CRVs (and as stated, late game CRVs except as border patrol)

      japan samurai wrote:

      AFVs and ACV anti air range of 25
      — MBTs to cost cheaper to make for certain doctrines like eastern and European (cheaper than Western because of hp difference)
      —AFVs research to take less rares
      —TDs to remain the same…(perhaps .5 damage against heli’s?)
      —ACVs (amphibious combat vehicles) get much further Scouting range? Sight of 40in mountains and 35 on normal terrain.
      AA range of 25 is useless. Irl MBTs are expensive as well, no need to make them less (would still be useless either way). I do like the idea that in different doctrines different units cost different amounts (perhaps SAMs are cheaper for Eastern, ASFs for western, and TDs for European).Also, why the extreme buff for ACV? To make it useful? All they need to do is perhaps make it cheaper, not make it an ultra-CRV in the jungle and forest.

      Aeneas of Troy wrote:

      What about giving them 25 range at higher levels like motorized infantry? Besides being very weak to aircraft, they can’t catch artillery that shoots-n-scoots; range would help this issue but maybe a slight speed buff would help as well.
      Idea is nice, but then might as well add a small range for all units; then the game would just become hit-and-run attacks from artillery against AI AFVs :/ Diving a bit deeper, if MRLs have 100 range at final level, and MBTs have 25 range, then the MRL would win if the player is active enough, meaning the battle just became dependant on if you have RL to deal with at that specific moment (obviously, this affects all gameplay at some level, but at this level it would be drastic.) And you can't even increase the MBT range to 50; towed artillery would then be useless; 12 soft dmg from MBT vs. 3.5 hard dmg from TA (of course, TA gets a range upgrade, but then it becomes shoot-and-scoot, which doesn't really solve the problem).Its fighting in Melee that is so bad. It’s inherently inferior to Aircraft/Artillery and the only upside is that it requires less activity

      Teburu wrote:

      Its fighting in Melee that is so bad. It’s inherently inferior to Aircraft/Artillery and the only upside is that it requires less activity.
      Keep in mind: Melee is really the only fighting style that is heavily impacted by entrenchment and terrain boni, on top of that units that fight in Melee have to not only trade damage, but trade dmg with other units that do most of their dmg to other ground units.
      On top of that the very fact that have to drive up to the enemy and hit them in the face is significantly less flexible than Artillery or Aircraft which can cover a larger area.

      Making Buffs/Nerfs to individual units does not even scratch the surface when whole game mechanics put Melee at a complete disadvantage.
      The core of the issue; melee combat needs to be revisited, otherwise it's doomed to pointlessness. Seriously, why bother investing in any non-ranged ground unit, except for NG, CRV, SAMs, TDS, and M. Radar? Even in high-tier gameplay, the only other non-ranged ground unit you might need is SPS, which I consider a niche unit. That being said, we shouldn't nerf the other toys of war. They do their job, and they do it well (except EAA, which does it too well). So basically the point of this thread now is not how to rebalance armour, but how to rebalance melee combat.
      Thank you for listening to my TED talk (Seriously, didn't expect it to get this long :rolleyes: )
      I don’t know whether to read this fully as I’m already laughing my ass off. By day 6 I don’t have 4 ASF, I have 4 SF at least, if not 3 and 1 coming out soon. I will have a few ASF to help and act as cannon fodder.
      Only someone who really has never been rushed by in early game will know how to play SF properly in early game. Getting your first SF by day 6(mobilise on day 5) is just the worst setup a strike fighter player can have.
      Speak about AFVs being more useless than CRVs. That’s not true at all, these AFVs do a lot of damage against infrantry, but they aren’t heavy armour, they do damage against planes other than all of the other armoured units.
      SPENDING ON CRV IS FOR PEOPLE WHO DONT UNDERSTAND THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE 2 SF BY DAY 4.
      Their price is too expensive for early game, and they are useless towards the end. The purpose of AFVs is for its mobility, its capability to kill armour to certain extent, adds armoured health to the stack. And that’s about all. Because you can fight with them in cities at max lvl and do pretty well since you get bonuses in infrantry damage.

    • Shou wrote:

      Iamadrunk wrote:

      Well if you want to keep it realistic I think it should stay the same or lower the cost of armor or time to make it or both. The tank seems to be becoming a dinosaur on the battlefield with uav and mobile AT rockets shifting the balance as we are seeing in the Ukraine.
      Basically this. Tanks merely augment Infantry and for all practical purposes should just be attached to Infantry Regiments/Divisions like Hearts of Iron. For realism sake Tanks are coffins. The only plus side of being in a Tank or APC in real life is that you are hermetically sealed from nerve agents. As you see in Ukraine a scenario is playing out much like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Small, man portable, rockets are phasing out such tactics.
      That’s only if you don’t count the era actually working
      What we see in ukraine is lone tank vs many Ukrainians. We don’t see a tank being destroyed in a combined arms because of AT.

    • japan samurai wrote:

      Shou wrote:

      Iamadrunk wrote:

      Well if you want to keep it realistic I think it should stay the same or lower the cost of armor or time to make it or both. The tank seems to be becoming a dinosaur on the battlefield with uav and mobile AT rockets shifting the balance as we are seeing in the Ukraine.
      Basically this. Tanks merely augment Infantry and for all practical purposes should just be attached to Infantry Regiments/Divisions like Hearts of Iron. For realism sake Tanks are coffins. The only plus side of being in a Tank or APC in real life is that you are hermetically sealed from nerve agents. As you see in Ukraine a scenario is playing out much like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Small, man portable, rockets are phasing out such tactics.
      That’s only if you don’t count the era actually workingWhat we see in ukraine is lone tank vs many Ukrainians. We don’t see a tank being destroyed in a combined arms because of AT.
      No. What we see is before the Kiev withdraw and other areas of Ukraine was a road of death caused by very few actual Ukrainian Infantry armed with FGM-148/ M47 Anti-tank weapons against numerically superior Armored spearheads by the Federation of Russia.

      Tanks in US Operations have always played a smaller role since the first Gulf War when taking Bagdadh would have lead to a similar scenario by US Intelligence.

    • Shou wrote:

      japan samurai wrote:

      Shou wrote:

      Iamadrunk wrote:

      Well if you want to keep it realistic I think it should stay the same or lower the cost of armor or time to make it or both. The tank seems to be becoming a dinosaur on the battlefield with uav and mobile AT rockets shifting the balance as we are seeing in the Ukraine.
      Basically this. Tanks merely augment Infantry and for all practical purposes should just be attached to Infantry Regiments/Divisions like Hearts of Iron. For realism sake Tanks are coffins. The only plus side of being in a Tank or APC in real life is that you are hermetically sealed from nerve agents. As you see in Ukraine a scenario is playing out much like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Small, man portable, rockets are phasing out such tactics.
      That’s only if you don’t count the era actually workingWhat we see in ukraine is lone tank vs many Ukrainians. We don’t see a tank being destroyed in a combined arms because of AT.
      No. What we see is before the Kiev withdraw and other areas of Ukraine was a road of death caused by very few actual Ukrainian Infantry armed with FGM-148/ M47 Anti-tank weapons against numerically superior Armored spearheads by the Federation of Russia.
      Tanks in US Operations have always played a smaller role since the first Gulf War when taking Bagdadh would have lead to a similar scenario by US Intelligence.
      Like I said, only tanks. I don’t care if you only have tanks or so on or you have 100 of them. If you are by yourself with no infrantry to help you look where the attack came from or suppress enemy positions.
      Do you understand English?
      ROAD OF DEath? More like an exaggeration the ukrainians will use to stir up propoganda.
      WHATEVER HAPPENED THERE? Was when ukraine had the chance, the capabilities to strike, to hit and run because the ENEMY WASNT PREPARED FOR SUCH STUFF.
      look at now, it’s different.
      In game, pushing with just tanks is suicide. Even on day 4. FACT. I don’t care what doctrine you use, you push a tank into my territory consider it dead.

    • japan samurai wrote:

      I don’t know whether to read this fully as I’m already laughing my ass off. By day 6 I don’t have 4 ASF, I have 4 SF at least, if not 3 and 1 coming out soon. I will have a few ASF to help and act as cannon fodder.
      Only someone who really has never been rushed by in early game will know how to play SF properly in early game. Getting your first SF by day 6(mobilise on day 5) is just the worst setup a strike fighter player can have.
      Speak about AFVs being more useless than CRVs. That’s not true at all, these AFVs do a lot of damage against infrantry, but they aren’t heavy armour, they do damage against planes other than all of the other armoured units.
      SPENDING ON CRV IS FOR PEOPLE WHO DONT UNDERSTAND THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE 2 SF BY DAY 4.
      Their price is too expensive for early game, and they are useless towards the end. The purpose of AFVs is for its mobility, its capability to kill armour to certain extent, adds armoured health to the stack. And that’s about all. Because you can fight with them in cities at max lvl and do pretty well since you get bonuses in infrantry damage.
      1. The thread wasn't about the usefulness of SF, but I'll answer this regardless. Who would win? 4 ASF, or 4 SF? I'll leave that up to you to decide (and don't start whining that SF is better in public games, since I once had the same mentality and got crushed by someone with only ASF. They destroyed my 5 SF, then used the ASF to bomb all of my units.)

      2. The point of my response to show the utter uselessness of the 2 MBT and 2 Mech Inf rush. Regardless of if you have ASF, SF, or EAA, they will defeat the MBT/Mech Inf stack.

      3. About your AFV point; it's mainly the cost. It costs 1600 comps and 650 elecs to make, which could be used to make SF or ASF (your choice), Attack Helis, nearly a Frigate (which is much more worth IMO, or even TDs (which I'd argue are far more useful than AFVs). It costs 1900 rares to research, which basically limits it to just the late game. And if you still aren't convinced by its utter uselessness, try invading an AI country with level 3 AFVs, and tell me how easy it is to counter them. The AA point isn't valid since why spend that many resources on a unit which is alright in defeating infantry, does a measly 1 defence against both fixed wing and rotary wing, when I could save the comps for planes and ships (maybe TDs, which negate the point of them max level in cities, since a level 1 TD would destroy a max level AFV in any city.), and just go for SAMs, or even MAAV?

      4. CRV is much more worth for its cost. Sure, it costs 950 sups and 850 comps, but it doesn't cost elecs. Why is this important? Since its the most beefy early game unit (barely tho), and if the enemy goes for helis their gunships would do less (and by the time they have a sizeable SF force, you'd have some MAAV, not to forget the previously mentioned ASF force). Now CRV even has AA capabilities for single attacks by planes, when enemy doesn't have 5 stacks. (Loosely quoting something Teburu said regarding CRVs in a different thread). Why is this different from your AA point? Since no-one uses AFVs before day 6. By then, you'd have 5 stacks of Helis/EAA/SF. Also, I never said CRVs weren't useless in the end; all armour is.
      "War does not determine who is right; only who is left."

      Always strive to be better
      Don't try and be the best
      A better world is always within out fingertips
      But Utopia just causes more stress.

    • _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      japan samurai wrote:

      I don’t know whether to read this fully as I’m already laughing my ass off. By day 6 I don’t have 4 ASF, I have 4 SF at least, if not 3 and 1 coming out soon. I will have a few ASF to help and act as cannon fodder.
      Only someone who really has never been rushed by in early game will know how to play SF properly in early game. Getting your first SF by day 6(mobilise on day 5) is just the worst setup a strike fighter player can have.
      Speak about AFVs being more useless than CRVs. That’s not true at all, these AFVs do a lot of damage against infrantry, but they aren’t heavy armour, they do damage against planes other than all of the other armoured units.
      SPENDING ON CRV IS FOR PEOPLE WHO DONT UNDERSTAND THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE 2 SF BY DAY 4.
      Their price is too expensive for early game, and they are useless towards the end. The purpose of AFVs is for its mobility, its capability to kill armour to certain extent, adds armoured health to the stack. And that’s about all. Because you can fight with them in cities at max lvl and do pretty well since you get bonuses in infrantry damage.
      1. The thread wasn't about the usefulness of SF, but I'll answer this regardless. Who would win? 4 ASF, or 4 SF? I'll leave that up to you to decide (and don't start whining that SF is better in public games, since I once had the same mentality and got crushed by someone with only ASF. They destroyed my 5 SF, then used the ASF to bomb all of my units.)
      2. The point of my response to show the utter uselessness of the 2 MBT and 2 Mech Inf rush. Regardless of if you have ASF, SF, or EAA, they will defeat the MBT/Mech Inf stack.

      3. About your AFV point; it's mainly the cost. It costs 1600 comps and 650 elecs to make, which could be used to make SF or ASF (your choice), Attack Helis, nearly a Frigate (which is much more worth IMO, or even TDs (which I'd argue are far more useful than AFVs). It costs 1900 rares to research, which basically limits it to just the late game. And if you still aren't convinced by its utter uselessness, try invading an AI country with level 3 AFVs, and tell me how easy it is to counter them. The AA point isn't valid since why spend that many resources on a unit which is alright in defeating infantry, does a measly 1 defence against both fixed wing and rotary wing, when I could save the comps for planes and ships (maybe TDs, which negate the point of them max level in cities, since a level 1 TD would destroy a max level AFV in any city.), and just go for SAMs, or even MAAV?

      4. CRV is much more worth for its cost. Sure, it costs 950 sups and 850 comps, but it doesn't cost elecs. Why is this important? Since its the most beefy early game unit (barely tho), and if the enemy goes for helis their gunships would do less (and by the time they have a sizeable SF force, you'd have some MAAV, not to forget the previously mentioned ASF force). Now CRV even has AA capabilities for single attacks by planes, when enemy doesn't have 5 stacks. (Loosely quoting something Teburu said regarding CRVs in a different thread). Why is this different from your AA point? Since no-one uses AFVs before day 6. By then, you'd have 5 stacks of Helis/EAA/SF. Also, I never said CRVs weren't useless in the end; all armour is.
      Look here , don’t pull up that thought where I have 4 SF by day 6 and don’t have any AsF to go go along. Don’t try and pull a quick one with me because you don’t have a good strategy on how to counter such pushes by day 6.
      so what if CRV has anti air capability, have you even been on discord to discuss the usefulness of CRVs for early game with people like @e’s just being e, @playbabe. Not only that,
      Who oh earth with some sort of skill and knowledge on the game will rush a TD with AFVs when clearly you can strike it with heli’s or planes until it is no longer a thing in the universe. You doing some really dumb simulations here that only a noob would do.
      If enemy goes for gunships, they can still do a lot of damage. So what if you get MAA, MAA is thrash. Who on earth gets it. Just played against a dude who rushed ally with MAA with inf stack, and CRVs and inf officer. With gunships and ASf together, destroyed the entire stacks along with his inf officer and other smaller stack pushes.
      You should probably talk more to e’s just being e on discord regarding uses of helicopters.


      Having 4 ASF stack to try and defeat the 2mech 2 MBT stack will take a long time. If you play Russia maybe you can afford that time. If you play anything else… and like I said Serbia had done that. I doubt you have time to do such a “fancy manoeuvre” with your ASFs. Let’s not forget that I’m talking about how getting SFs is better than focusing and spamming ASf to counter this stack and pushes rather than the 2 STRAGEGIES TRYING TO KILL EACH OTHER.

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

    • japan samurai wrote:

      Look here , don’t pull up that thought where I have 4 SF by day 6 and don’t have any AsF to go go along. Don’t try and pull a quick one with me because you don’t have a good strategy on how to counter such pushes by day 6.
      The point is that you wouldn't have nearly enough resources to have both 4 SF and enough ASF to deal with my ASF.

      japan samurai wrote:

      so what if CRV has anti air capability, have you even been on discord to discuss the usefulness of CRVs for early game with people like @e’s just being e, @playbabe. Not only that,
      No, I haven't been on the Discord, not that I could even if I wanted to. And just because everyone else has a different opinion on the CRV doesn't make my opinion on it useless. In short, I believe that the CRV is worth it in the early game, and you can believe whatever you want.

      japan samurai wrote:

      Who oh earth with some sort of skill and knowledge on the game will rush a TD with AFVs when clearly you can strike it with heli’s or planes until it is no longer a thing in the universe. You doing some really dumb simulations here that only a noob would do.
      Switch the TDs with AFVs; then you see the utter uselessness of the AFV without supporting units. Same with the TD. The point I was making, is that the only place an AFV is useless is in jungle and mountain terrain; everyone else, it gets outclassed by MBTs and TDs. And obviously the TD would have support units in this scenario; probably SAMs to deal with your SF, and air patrols from ASF and Helis/EAA.


      japan samurai wrote:

      Having 4 ASF stack to try and defeat the 2mech 2 MBT stack will take a long time. If you play Russia maybe you can afford that time. If you play anything else… and like I said Serbia had done that. I doubt you have time to do such a “fancy manoeuvre” with your ASFs. Let’s not forget that I’m talking about how getting SFs is better than focusing and spamming ASf to counter this stack and pushes rather than the 2 STRAGEGIES TRYING TO KILL EACH OTHER.
      Sigh, I never said that your SF strategy isn't valid against the 2MBT/2 Mech Inf stack. Obviously, it works, and works better than the ASF stack. That's the flipping point. You're essentially stating yourself that the 2/2 stack can easily be defeated by any competent player, taking into account that I mentioned early that at this point I'd have at least one EAA to deal with this.

      And now, before I lose any more brain cells, shall we please redirect this thread to the topic on hand, which is the rebalancing of armour and potentially the rebalancing of melee combat?
      "War does not determine who is right; only who is left."

      Always strive to be better
      Don't try and be the best
      A better world is always within out fingertips
      But Utopia just causes more stress.

    • _Pyth0n_ wrote:

      japan samurai wrote:

      Look here , don’t pull up that thought where I have 4 SF by day 6 and don’t have any AsF to go go along. Don’t try and pull a quick one with me because you don’t have a good strategy on how to counter such pushes by day 6.
      The point is that you wouldn't have nearly enough resources to have both 4 SF and enough ASF to deal with my ASF.

      japan samurai wrote:

      so what if CRV has anti air capability, have you even been on discord to discuss the usefulness of CRVs for early game with people like @e’s just being e, @playbabe. Not only that,
      No, I haven't been on the Discord, not that I could even if I wanted to. And just because everyone else has a different opinion on the CRV doesn't make my opinion on it useless. In short, I believe that the CRV is worth it in the early game, and you can believe whatever you want.

      japan samurai wrote:

      Who oh earth with some sort of skill and knowledge on the game will rush a TD with AFVs when clearly you can strike it with heli’s or planes until it is no longer a thing in the universe. You doing some really dumb simulations here that only a noob would do.
      Switch the TDs with AFVs; then you see the utter uselessness of the AFV without supporting units. Same with the TD. The point I was making, is that the only place an AFV is useless is in jungle and mountain terrain; everyone else, it gets outclassed by MBTs and TDs. And obviously the TD would have support units in this scenario; probably SAMs to deal with your SF, and air patrols from ASF and Helis/EAA.

      japan samurai wrote:

      Having 4 ASF stack to try and defeat the 2mech 2 MBT stack will take a long time. If you play Russia maybe you can afford that time. If you play anything else… and like I said Serbia had done that. I doubt you have time to do such a “fancy manoeuvre” with your ASFs. Let’s not forget that I’m talking about how getting SFs is better than focusing and spamming ASf to counter this stack and pushes rather than the 2 STRAGEGIES TRYING TO KILL EACH OTHER.
      Sigh, I never said that your SF strategy isn't valid against the 2MBT/2 Mech Inf stack. Obviously, it works, and works better than the ASF stack. That's the flipping point. You're essentially stating yourself that the 2/2 stack can easily be defeated by any competent player, taking into account that I mentioned early that at this point I'd have at least one EAA to deal with this.
      And now, before I lose any more brain cells, shall we please redirect this thread to the topic on hand, which is the rebalancing of armour and potentially the rebalancing of melee combat?
      I’m talking on the point anyone who is poor and can’t afford or isn’t allowed to get SC’s point of view. Because after this season end, your strategy of just using EAA might no longer be of an option.
      Armoured is armoured.
      Armoured is great for certain things. But AFVs is best throughout gameplay (in my opinion)It doesn’t get outdated and can help you relatively well. I use them because I play Flashpoijt and they great dealing with AI when I need to focus my Air Force on those living players.

      CRV is too expensive for the little defence values it gives. Useless against trying to fight enemy armoured units and only possibly good for air assault with other AM units, however only contributing when they touch down. CRVs are great for possible nations with excellent economy especially those that have many cities, not for your country play through like Romania. And even so the cost effectiveness compared to something like a Inf officer would be questionable.

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

    • japan samurai wrote:

      Point is I won’t die to that armoured push and feel like a complete idiot.

      You could defeat that armour push with 4 of your starting L1 Mot Inf and the CRV, probably. Be useful to bring in the Towed Artillery to help, just to make sure.

      That's the point. Armoured units don't do the job you'd expect them to. They don't do any job particularly well. They're ok as filler, but that's about it. And they're rather too expensive to be used like that.

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

    • I feel like this thread went from talking about the topic of ideas to fix armor to people fixating on their first 5-day rush strategies and which is better. I doubt the original intention of this thread was to talk about making level 1 armor smote aircraft in the first 5 days of a campaign. If they wanted to bring air rush to heel they could simply make a building to provide cities with SAM coverage and start the capitals with it. Make it a hidden building for good measure.

      I took this thread to talk about why armor is not even used later in the game once the initial rushes are over.

      Just a thought to add, if cities had an AA building you could make heavy bombers immune to it (flying high) to add a layer of usefulness to the bombers.

    • "armour is useless, since it is very vulnerable to both air and ranged attacks, and means fighting melee"

      Don't you try to solving 2 issue? and also having impossible condition, nothing to nerf one particular side.

      1. "armour is very vulnerable to both air and ranged attacks" only way I see to solve this issue is to create more dependency in some form.
      as in my previous suggestion is how you can use melee to melee enemy to reveal them to get full damage of your aircraft and arti.
      but let me change details up and let go with

      every level of detection will deal 100% damage BUT if enemy is fully revealed, your aircraft and arti will deal +15% damage to ground target.

      This would not be a super-duper complex because beginner can understand it in a short phase, "revealed = more damage"
      which now will give u a question that will branch off the unit diversity. "what is the alternative giving out of this mechanic?"

      - use radar unit to ping them but no damage boost.
      - use UAV to spot ground target, High risk, a bit of reward but cheap.
      - use high HP melee unit to stay in the melee very long time to use aircraft or arti to be primary sources of damage.
      - use OK HP melee unit that also better at melee damage so you shifted damage from aircraft/arti to melee
      - accept the lack of damage bonus due to whatever reason, still viable enough to kill.

      BUT WAIT! isn't going melee also make my own unit revealed to enemy? YES LMAO and that's quite neat balance i would say.
      You still can not go 100% melee and stomped decent aircraft/arti player, They can just chunk a bunch of NG in your way then tear you up with aircraft/arti.
      and your melee stack is still have some dependency on other, You need AA or ASF to take down UAV. You need aircraft/arti to quicky deal more damage to enemy melee so you will no longer exposed and etc.

      BUT WAIT AGAIN! This +15% to whole branch would really unbalance shit so here come to impossible condition, with this idea i would nerf all of then around 8-10% ground damage.

      2. "Armor is useless in melee" eh I agree with teb that armor among them is really fine. if you try melee vs melee only it would have it own range of balanced meta with really no one out shine other. except late game recon need more love. but if you really insisted it, I would shifted all melee unit's damage reduction of HP relative from 40% to 60% minimum damage. this should do a trick.
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD

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