Armour Rebalancing

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

    • you can't compare units like that and call one useless because they have weaknesses. Every unit has a weakness but also strengths. Armoured units are designed to go against infantry and other armoured units. "They are easily destroyed with proper air and support units". Then they can also be easily protected by proper air and support units. Armoured units main resource requirement is components. That gives you plenty of supplies to build support units.

      I know armoured units get bashed a lot on this forum by experienced players but you can't think of them as forming the entirety of an army. ASF without other units are useless because Anti air will eat them up. Strike fighters without other units are useless because ASF and SAM will eat them up. Armoured units are just not popular to use because they sink a lot of resources if they die. New players send their infantry with MBT with no other units to invade countries but you don't see experienced players doing that.

      I use armoured units for about half my games, a quarter of the games I use artillery, some I use both and some I use neither. There is an endless combination of army builts. Just my 2 cents
    • sounds like you are the one forget what originally this thread is. I quoted from OG post.

      And the ‘every unit have weakness’ is exactly a way you create dependency, that’s how many units is currently ‘balanced’. they don’t have too low or too much dependency on other unit. whay i suggest is to give aircraft and arti dependency to melee unit.
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD
    • playbabe wrote:

      sounds like you are the one forget what originally this thread is. I quoted from OG post.

      And the ‘every unit have weakness’ is exactly a way you create dependency, that’s how many units is currently ‘balanced’. they don’t have too low or too much dependency on other unit. whay i suggest is to give aircraft and arti dependency to melee unit.
      I don't really understand if you're responding to me or arguing against my point or agreeing.
      To your last point, artillery already can be dependant on armoured units. Most obvious way is to lead and rank enemy artillery hits. Not really sure how airforce would be dependant on armoured units but you can even argue they already do. You can find and engage land units to lock them in place for your airforce, not the best but it is used that way sometimes. You can also lure strike fighters and EAA by sending armoured units. You can find out which airfield enemy airforce uses and nuke it or send your own strike fighters/EAA
    • armoured is a pretty fine weapon. But if you don’t know how to use it properly or give it support, than you aren’t really going to do too well
      It’s just like how using SFs without any skill means that SAMs would most likely cause havoc among ur Air Force. But if you do know how to use them and time them using CMs, and remeber the timing, you will always avoid aa fire before you strike the stack.
      only thing go would like is for certain Armoured to be cheaper. Such as Eastern doctrine MBTs taking less on electronics while western uses more electronics.
    • I don't see melee as a problem by itself since ranged attacks are not as op as it seems. Aircraft always take damage back so it's sort off like melee, since both units are taking damage, albit much less to one of them, and arty well i usually do a advanced tactic called "retreat"... or maybe go full speed to catch those shitheads (excuse my language). But here's the thing: if you are entrenched and are defensive and have defensive bonuses...even if the other guy has more units you will probably lose 2 or 3 while him will lose the entire stack. So not as bad as people think. Too me i wouldn't mind losing a couple of tanks or armored units in melee if the costs weren't so goddamn high. Like it's ridiculous that a afv costs almost as much as a frigate. So my proposal is very simple: bring the costs down way down. Like for example a mbt only costing 1200 components and maybe 1500 research. Maybe too op, idk, i'm not a game designer but to me if they were cheaper it'd only incentivize players to reaserch and build more units. They think the tank is hotshit maybe by it's price. Or maybe becaause it's tank but whatever... my point is just bring down the costs so i can use them as cannon fodder/ last resort when somehow my entire airforce was vanished
    • If MBTs cost 20 components and 10 electronics and 100 dollars, they are all everyone would make. Nothing else would matter.

      They cost WAY too much. Their research costs are WAY too high. Same with the other armored units.

      As stated many times, Mobile Anti Air units also have to be cheaper or stronger, pick one, as they are not cost effective at their current costs.

      Making artillery go slower, or armor units go faster speeding up infantry units stacked with it, would give armor stacks a chance to chase down artillery units.
    • General consensus seems to be that armor of all types basically needs to be cheaper to be useful. I agree with this sentiment. Why do people build NG instead of inf? Because it's cheaper and faster and at the end of the day other units can do the job of killing way better. Amor loses all these benefits NG has including capturing territory to do the same job basically at a way higher price tag.
    • Teburu wrote:

      Its not AFV or MBTs or even Armor in particular thats bad.

      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.


      >MBTs are fine if supported by SAMs and Artillery
      lmao, no they aren’t.
      I agree, No Buff required.
      Tanks are usually used by players who set big stacks on long waypoints and go offline. IF you play actively then use aircrafts and artiller.
      I am the best player of this game that was and ever will be