Armour Rebalancing

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

    • Armour Rebalancing

      So we all know that for the most part, armour is useless, since it is very vulnerable to both air and ranged attacks, and means fighting melee, which reduces the SBDE of units in general.

      I suggest we, as a community, think of a solution to this conundrum without needing a nerf for all other units. I will be suggesting some ideas, but please do note that these are not the final solution, basically its just be tryna wrap my head around this and see if there really is a solution. :/

      First off, there needs to be some sort of rebalancing for MBTs and AFVs. These units are way too easily destroyed with proper air and support units, with MBTs not even having any fixed-wing defensive damage. Tank Destroyers do have a use, but it is extremely niche and not necessary at all to fight within the game. Maybe the MBT and TD debuffs in harsh terrain should be reduced, maybe to 35%? Since another big disadvantage of MBTs is that they can't be used effectively in terrain like jungle and mountains, and when caught alone, are big lumbering targets. TDs only have buffs in cities and suburban, which makes sense, but why the defensive debuff in mountains and tundra? I think the attack debuff should be kept within those terrains, with the defensive debuff removed. (Also just realized TDs don't have any AA, maybe some is necessary, like 0.3 or something). CRV's are probably the only armoured unit I use, and that's just in the early game. After that, they're just cannon-fodder. Don't have the experience with ACV, but it seems to be a scout (better that CRV in that sense I suppose?) and amphibious (which is useless, since any time you need amphibious units you need a navy to bombard coast as well). It seems to be very good in jungle (i.e. very good in SE Asia, Central Africa, and the Amazon.) Everywhere else it just seems not worth, especially since it's worth nearly as much as a MBT.

      Would like to hear others' thought on this ^^
      Greetings from the underworld ;)
    • Im into idea of level of information dictated the damage.

      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

      or if you not into the idea of lowering damage, it can be spined into another way.
      nerf all arti and aircraft damage then make the %above be bonus damage instead

      then we can add a feature to BM and ICBM “mass destruction” to always deal 100% damage regardless.
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD
    • I don’t quite like the idea of how if we don’t see the target we don’t hit it as hard as before… this would put a lot of emphasis on scout units such as CRV, SPF, UAVs.
      Instead, I prefer that perhaps AFVs have more defence damage against heli’s and aircraft? Because if you stack them really really big, they just have too much damage against your heli’s that you might not be able to sustain this type of rushes too many times a day or so. Besides in almost any doctrine, there is always a need for anti air and air coverage.
      It is in my opinion a relatively fair trade since it shows how weak not having air supperiority or anti air can get.


      —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.

      —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

      overall, armoured is seen as weak between 6-15 days where SAMs are in not so much of an availability and late game seems not too great because of most skilled players spamming MRLs, or simply because of EAA (max20units)

      One thing that I would probably add to Armoured units that don’t need to make other units stronger is the addition of anti air range.
      Addition of certain chosen units in game that have APS should get significant boost in hp ( easier mechanic than making first damage hit less etc.)
      — 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.
      ACV more useful than recon for reconascienxe and feels like it fulfils CRVs role much better.. being able of engaging combat well and giving intel at same time.
      I feel like by doing this we might need to buff SPF …
    • another point I will add is the possibility of how if there are only 3 armoured units in push, than their damage received is increased because easier to ambush without infrantry support.
      Cool feature would be the ability to arrange how units go into battle, like infrantry first in urban. That way the armoured units don’t take too much damage and don’t get flanked easily.

      The best option in my opinion is to just make certain units cheaper to make. And certain units cheaper because AFV research amount…must as well wait for another 100 rares than research MbT
      But then comes the cost, the worst factor of any armoured unit
    • japan samurai wrote:

      The best option in my opinion is to just make certain units cheaper to make. And certain units cheaper because AFV research amount…must as well wait for another 100 rares than research MbT

      But then comes the cost, the worst factor of any armoured unit
      I think this is the main point: they are much too expensive. If MBTs had comparable mobilization and research costs to planes, and AFVs to helicopters, it would make them more appealing.

      A lot of players still wouldn't use them, though, because melee combat costs you units: some inevitably get killed, even if you win the battle. In ranged combat you can manage things so that you withdraw damaged units and replace them with fresh ones, thereby avoiding whole-unit losses. They could consider altering the "retreat" function for melee combat to allow players to manage those battles more carefully and withdraw individual units from the fray. And/Or, they could perhaps give armoured units a small amount of range combat ability (to match the mortar range of L6 Infantry), so that you could avoid melee combat in the first place.
    • playbabe wrote:

      Im into idea of level of information dictated the damage.

      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
      I really like this idea. I think the whole stealth/scout/camouflage/radar system could do with some attention, to be honest, but this would be a good start.

      It would help protect armoured and other ground units from artillery and air attacks little bit, and it would give greater value to reconnaissance. I think both of these would be a good thing for overall balance.
    • 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 am The Baseline for opinions
    • 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.
      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:

      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.
      Giving Units range doesnt solve how shit Melee is tho. It doesnt even solve that problem of them being bad because by giving them range you just enter the territory of „why built it instead of dedicated artillery?“
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      It doesnt even solve that problem of them being bad because by giving them range you just enter the territory of „why built it instead of dedicated artillery?“
      Yeah. To me, it shouldn't be a case of 'build X unit or Y unit'. The game balance should ideally encourage players to build both, and use their mixture tactically. The current balance seems to favour players who focus on a small number of unit types and ignore most of the rest of them. I think this is a shame, and a waste of the potential in the unit roster.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      It doesnt even solve that problem of them being bad because by giving them range you just enter the territory of „why built it instead of dedicated artillery?“
      Yeah. To me, it shouldn't be a case of 'build X unit or Y unit'. The game balance should ideally encourage players to build both, and use their mixture tactically. The current balance seems to favour players who focus on a small number of unit types and ignore most of the rest of them. I think this is a shame, and a waste of the potential in the unit roster.
      To be fair tho, from what I recall Dorado does not care overly about the balance in public matches.
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Theoretically speaking, how could the current melee system be reworked, taking into account the free damage that range gives?
      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:

      Theoretically speaking, how could the current melee system be reworked, taking into account the free damage that range gives?
      With taking Artillery into account? I'm not too sure.

      But in general, specializing units more for more decisive engagements.
      Maybe giving them more "special" abilities/attributes, having Officer attributes apply to the whole stack.
      For example dividing Melee units into "Offensive" and "Defensive" ones; they have respectively higher attack/defense stats and attributes helping with their roles. "Offensive" ones could maybe get a "first hit" or "ignore entrenchment" tho that one is questionable because it risks completely invalidating entrenchment in general.

      Another big factor is replenishment. Units that take damage deal less damage and eventually die, Artillery doesn't really have to care about this and Aircraft are fast and flexible enough that they can heal fairly easily.
      Melee units? Yeah sucks to be them.
      An option would be to take an already existing mechanic and apply it to all ("Offensive"?) Melee units in the game: The ability that NG has to fully heal upon killing a Stack when being the attacker
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • 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: )
      Greetings from the underworld ;)
    • playbabe wrote:

      No? it not a normal nerf, it create a reliability.
      now arti and aircraft need something to spot them for best damage.
      it can be, uav? that can’t stay on target very long
      other aircraft? same.

      a good ground unit? yes.
      I didn't disagree with your solution; I disagree with the thought process behind it.

      We should focus on finding a way to make melee relevant. Your idea can also be implemented alongside it, but 80% damage won't change much (still substantial, so SPS would be extremely helpful since it could hide near the enemy stack and scout, and still be stealthy so it wouldn't get caught). Essentially, your idea is nice, but it doesn't really add anything to the "armour is useless" front. It does, however, address the "air and ranged attacks are OP" front. :thumbsup:
      Greetings from the underworld ;)
    • Initiative
      The computer assigns each unit in a given melee a random Initiative number.

      Firing Priority
      All armor units fire first in melee, resolving their attacks before other units do so.
      When armor units fire, MBT/TD fire first, followed by remaining armor.
      When firing, each unit attacks individually in Initiative order, resolving that attack before the next unit in Initiative order fires.

      Targeting Priority
      Units target first those who are in the same class (Armor, Infantry, etc.) as the firing unit, then randomly at remaining target classes.

      Veterans
      Those units that have racked up kill counts have a chance to evade an attack.
      Divide the number of kills a unit has made by half (round up), and that is the percentage chance that a given attack on that unit will miss.
      Thus if a unit hasten kills to its credit, each attack on that unit has a five percent chance to miss.
    • Nobody here is actually fixing the problem lol, they are adding multiple buff debuff that might imbalance the game or make it way more complex.

      Simple way to buff armor -> Make it cheaper. It's that simple. Make it so cheap that it is worth it just for that extra HP.

      Armor's job is to tank primarily. Make it so that when an artillery or infantry is stacked with armor, the armor will take all the damage / most of the damage done to the stack. This would make armor meta.


      japan samurai wrote:

      AA range of 25 is useless. Irl MBTs are expensive as well, no need to make them less (would still be useless either way).
      IRL you don't send single stack of infantry to capture provinces and after you capture provinces you keep the infantry there to hold it. Neither do countries have mere 10-12 MBT in entirety. We don't know what kind of damage a jet does to MBT IRL vs in game hence it is useless to model the cost after real life.
    • Incrium wrote:

      Nobody here is actually fixing the problem lol, they are adding multiple buff debuff that might imbalance the game or make it way more complex.

      Simple way to buff armor -> Make it cheaper. It's that simple. Make it so cheap that it is worth it just for that extra HP.

      Armor's job is to tank primarily. Make it so that when an artillery or infantry is stacked with armor, the armor will take all the damage / most of the damage done to the stack. This would make armor meta.
      I think it comes down to speed, actually. If MBTs, AFVs and Mech Infantry were significantly faster than any and all artillery units, level-for-level, then you would be able to charge at and catch an artillery stack in close-quarters, where you would wreck them. Then your artillery player would need to bring some armour of their own along to the fight, in order to form a protective barrier in front of their artillery. That's how you make melee units relevant, in my view.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      Incrium wrote:

      Nobody here is actually fixing the problem lol, they are adding multiple buff debuff that might imbalance the game or make it way more complex.

      Simple way to buff armor -> Make it cheaper. It's that simple. Make it so cheap that it is worth it just for that extra HP.

      Armor's job is to tank primarily. Make it so that when an artillery or infantry is stacked with armor, the armor will take all the damage / most of the damage done to the stack. This would make armor meta.
      I think it comes down to speed, actually. If MBTs, AFVs and Mech Infantry were significantly faster than any and all artillery units, level-for-level, then you would be able to charge at and catch an artillery stack in close-quarters, where you would wreck them. Then your artillery player would need to bring some armour of their own along to the fight, in order to form a protective barrier in front of their artillery. That's how you make melee units relevant, in my view.
      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 am The Baseline for opinions