Radar Rework, Artillery Nerf

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

    • Radar Rework, Artillery Nerf

      This suggestion is part of an effort to make the game more realistic and balanced

      No radars can detect ground units anymore
      Except for T3 AWACS, which can detect HIGH signatures
      Mobile Radar can detect helicopters and planes more effectively. SAM and TDS may receive + 25 range when stacked with MR

      Realism Reasoning:
      - No Mobile Radar is designed to detect ground units at all
      - Tier 3 AWACS can detect armor IRL
      - Ship Radar cannot detect things moving on land. They can bombard a city and happen to hit a land unit, but in order to actually target the units themselves there must be a scout of some sort
      - IRL, artillery such as MRL do not track enemy units with a radar. They receive reports of the enemy positions via UAVs, scouts, or line forces. That is my intention with this rework

      Gameplay Reasoning:

      This would cause a change in meta that would make artillery less viable compared to melee and air. Having to rely on actual scouting units such as CRV, UAV, or your typical ground units instead of the same old Mobile Radar would add more risk to artillery and make the gameplay more interesting, rather then just having an all-seeing doom stack mow down the opposition. You could still achieve a similar MR effect with the T3 AWACS, but it would require more investment. In the end, you would have to pick from a variety of potential scouts, each with pros and cons:
      CRV - Vulnerable, but hard to detect
      UAV - Vulnerable to AA, but untouchable by ground
      Spec Ops - Able to scout without the enemy knowing, but expensive
      ASF - Scouts well and is resistant to enemy ASF, but cannot identify stack composition
      AWACS - The most powerful of the scouts, but requires a lot of investment to be used for this purpose

      Rather than Mobile Radar just being the superior option. To keep Mobile Radar relevant, it would receive a major buff that allows it to contribute to Anti-Air, which would help to balance EAA.
      Yee Haw

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

    • Overall, I quite like this.

      What major buff would MRs get to allow them to contribute to AA, though?

      EDIT:

      Ground units that themselves have radar (in CoN, that's MRs, SAMs, TDSs, Inf Officer) can be detected by other radars, no? So ASFs, SFs, AttHelis, etc. would still be able to detect those units, in your suggestion? Or not?

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

    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      This suggestion is part of an effort to make the game more realistic and balanced

      No radars can detect ground units anymore
      Except for T3 AWACS, which can detect HIGH signatures
      Mobile Radar can detect helicopters and planes more effectively. SAM and TDS may receive + 25 range when stacked with MR

      Realism Reasoning:
      - No Mobile Radar is designed to detect ground units at all
      - Tier 3 AWACS can detect armor IRL
      - Ship Radar cannot detect things moving on land. They can bombard a city and happen to hit a land unit, but in order to actually target the units themselves there must be a scout of some sort
      - IRL, artillery such as MRL do not track enemy units with a radar. They receive reports of the enemy positions via UAVs, scouts, or line forces. That is my intention with this rework

      Gameplay Reasoning:

      This would cause a change in meta that would make artillery less viable compared to melee and air. Having to rely on actual scouting units such as CRV, UAV, or your typically ground units instead of the same old Mobile Radar would add more risk to artillery and make the gameplay more interesting, rather then just having an all-seeing doom stack mow down the opposition. You could still achieve a similar MR effect with the T3 AWACS, but it would require more investment. In the end, you would have to pick from a variety of potential scouts, each with pros and cons:
      CRV - Vulnerable, but hard to detect
      UAV - Vulnerable to AA, but untouchable by ground
      Spec Ops - Able to scout without the enemy knowing, but expensive
      ASF - Scouts well and is resistant to enemy ASF, but cannot identify stack composition
      AWACS - The most powerful of the scouts, but requires a lot of investment to be used for this purpose

      Rather than Mobile Radar just being the superior option. To keep Mobile Radar relevant, it would receive a major buff that allows it to contribute to Anti-Air, which would help to balance EAA.
      I think we are on to something here.
      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.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      Overall, I quite like this.

      What major buff would MRs get to allow them to contribute to AA, though?

      EDIT:

      Ground units that themselves have radar (in CoN, that's MRs, SAMs, TDSs, Inf Officer) can be detected by other radars, no? So ASFs, SFs, AttHelis, etc. would still be able to detect those units, in your suggestion? Or not?
      Well, realistically speaking, planes would be able to detect a radar which scans the air. So flying in within the radar range of a SAM or Mobile Radar would reveal the location of that unit. As far as implementation goes, I think Legacy Code would make it difficult for only certain units to show. The compromise would be to make it so that SAM, Mobile Radar, and other radar equipped ground units are considered to be “HIGH” signals, with the rest being LOW signals which AWACS can detect

      I also considered Attack Heli and Tank Destroyer having a ground detect radar too, since they have similar capabilities IRL
      Yee Haw
    • Well I hate it, and feel zero regret in telling you, I like playing THIS game and not one of your design. Head buried in minutia realism details but plays the game ... well, so, ... the Dallas Cowboys suck, er some weather, huh?
      *** 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
    • Counterpoints :

      - Radars, being ground, air, or sea, work in coordinated systems. No Radar on the ground is designed to spot ground units alone, while arrays of said radars usually have this goal. Current trend goes toward heavily coordinated systems (AESA). Of course, we are speaking of a technology that improved throughout 80 years.

      What it may mean IG, pertaining to your proposal (Please note it's not a proposal nor a good balance. I just indulge in the "realism infusion") :

      Mobile Radar T1 can't spot high signature ground, only high signature air : Early Cold War System
      Mobile Radar T2 can spot high signature ground : Late cold war system.
      Mobile Radar T3 can spot high and low signature ground : Post Cold war system.


      - State of the art Awacs can detect armor... within coordinated systems, again. In that regard, AWACS are closer to the super computers that can coordinate the data gathered by all the systems and array them into a "super view". Hence the "command" in the name. The Awacs radar system itself is aimed at air targets.


      What it may mean IG, pertaining to your proposal (Please note it's not a proposal nor a good balance. I just indulge in the "realism infusion") :

      Awacs T1 can't spot high signature ground, only high signature air and high signature helicopters : Early Cold War System
      Awacs T2 can spot high signature ground : Late cold war system.
      Awacs T3 enhances any ground/sea radar system it has in its radar range with ability to spot low air signature and helicopter signatures: Post Cold war system.



      - Ships follow the same reasoning.

      - About Artillery not being guided by radars or satellite, it's a bit more complicated.
      Early cold war systems ? yeah.
      Late Cold war systems ? Counter-Battery radars are numerous : Artillery shoots, radar spots shells/rockets in the air, calculates vectors, transmis vectors, artillery shoots on point of origin through radar spotting.
      Post Cold war systems ? Counter Battery radars integrated to artillery systems directly, for concealment and mobility. The artillery system effectively "spots" its own target, of course integratred to the whole ecosystem. Shells are often guided throughout their flight by satellite.


      I have a bit of trouble to see how it would impact IG, though, and i suppose that it would be more clever to integrate this development through the radars, than the artillery itself in the game.

      In other words, rebalance the artillery through radar.


      =============================


      Now, i disagree that your general proposal would nerf the artillery. In my opinion, it would nerf ANY kind of reckless offensive playstyle.

      Ironically, this would also make melee a marginally more useful playstyle because it has more HP hence more tolerance for blind attacks. It would however not really change the predominance of artillery, for human reasons.

      - The guys who play artillery well didn't need such a change to already conduct extensive spotting. CRV, UAV, Special Forces, are already very popular for those players, but it's also because when you are hyper active, you want to agressively get intel in order to know what should be shot, in what order.
      - It's about attrition and forcing the other side (the one without artillery) to come expose itself, where you can see him without the need for advanced spotting.


      I however like a lot your UAV proposal because yeah, i would like to see more interesting gameplay for artillery vs artillery spotting, for the early to mid game.

      ============================

      Ultimately, your series of proposal is cool for high skill competition because it adds layers of complexity, to which competitive players are addicted.

      However, for the general public, i have the following worry :

      People already don't know that radar are useful.
      Scouting is beyond their knowledge reach, since the average user uses his ASF(s) to attack ground targets or cities.
      They don't know AWACS exist because it's hidden behind a airbase lvl 4. Air base lvl 4 requires thinking ahead by 72 hours ( "i will make a airbase 2, then a airbase 3, then a airbase 4") which is beyond the cognitive capacities of half of the players.


      And when you add subtleties and complexities on top of a gameplay that is already vastly misunderstood by the majority of players, you only increase the skill gap.


      Summary : I want a Con "realism" mode with your kind of proposal implemented, for the sake of long time players to fight in increasingly complex (realistic) settings.
      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.
    • Opulon wrote:

      - State of the art Awacs can detect armor... within coordinated systems, again. In that regard, AWACS are closer to the super computers that can coordinate the data gathered by all the systems and array them into a "super view". Hence the "command" in the name. The Awacs radar system itself is aimed at air targets.


      What it may mean IG, pertaining to your proposal (Please note it's not a proposal nor a good balance. I just indulge in the "realism infusion") :

      Awacs T1 can't spot high signature ground, only high signature air and high signature helicopters : Early Cold War System
      Awacs T2 can spot high signature ground : Late cold war system.
      Awacs T3 enhances any ground/sea radar system it has in its radar range with ability to spot low air signature and helicopter signatures: Post Cold war system.



      - Ships follow the same reasoning.

      - About Artillery not being guided by radars or satellite, it's a bit more complicated.
      Early cold war systems ? yeah.
      Late Cold war systems ? Counter-Battery radars are numerous : Artillery shoots, radar spots shells/rockets in the air, calculates vectors, transmis vectors, artillery shoots on point of origin through radar spotting.
      Post Cold war systems ? Counter Battery radars integrated to artillery systems directly, for concealment and mobility. The artillery system effectively "spots" its own target, of course integratred to the whole ecosystem. Shells are often guided throughout their flight by satellite.
      To elaborate on my thought process here

      To my knowledge, Mobile Radars designed for air detection, such as the KASTA, cannot contribute to the detection of ground units at all, with the exception of counter-battery radars
      However, the current MR doesn’t really act as a counter battery Radar, just a radar. It would be cool to have a counter-battery detection system, as a way to narrow down the enemy artillery’s location in an Arty v Arty fight.

      For T3 AWACS, I didn’t just mean them as a command center for the purpose of solving the puzzle. The Tier 3 Western AWACS (JSTARS) can quite literally detect ground units, with its synthetic aperture radar. In fact, it’s more specialized in this role than it is for detecting air targets, so a model-accurate AWACS unit would lose most of its air detection capabilities in favor of ground detection.

      I have mixed feelings in regards to the casual players you describe. On one hand, it would be nice for the game to accommodate all kinds of players of all skill levels. On the other hand, I don’t think players that won’t even bother to read descriptions and understand basic unit roles deserve any crutches to stand with.
      It’s one thing to be a newbie at the game and learn as they go, it’s another thing to just be a complete noob with no interest in understanding the game and getting better. If they already get steamrolled by better players in the current meta, I don’t think adding a layer of complexity to artillery will affect their gameplay. After all, Hit-and-run is still a mechanic that transcends the skill level in public games.
      Yee Haw
    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      This suggestion is part of an effort to make the game more realistic and balanced

      No radars can detect ground units anymore
      Except for T3 AWACS, which can detect HIGH signatures
      Mobile Radar can detect helicopters and planes more effectively. SAM and TDS may receive + 25 range when stacked with MR

      Realism Reasoning:
      - No Mobile Radar is designed to detect ground units at all
      - Tier 3 AWACS can detect armor IRL
      - Ship Radar cannot detect things moving on land. They can bombard a city and happen to hit a land unit, but in order to actually target the units themselves there must be a scout of some sort
      - IRL, artillery such as MRL do not track enemy units with a radar. They receive reports of the enemy positions via UAVs, scouts, or line forces. That is my intention with this rework

      Gameplay Reasoning:

      This would cause a change in meta that would make artillery less viable compared to melee and air. Having to rely on actual scouting units such as CRV, UAV, or your typical ground units instead of the same old Mobile Radar would add more risk to artillery and make the gameplay more interesting, rather then just having an all-seeing doom stack mow down the opposition. You could still achieve a similar MR effect with the T3 AWACS, but it would require more investment. In the end, you would have to pick from a variety of potential scouts, each with pros and cons:
      CRV - Vulnerable, but hard to detect
      UAV - Vulnerable to AA, but untouchable by ground
      Spec Ops - Able to scout without the enemy knowing, but expensive
      ASF - Scouts well and is resistant to enemy ASF, but cannot identify stack composition
      AWACS - The most powerful of the scouts, but requires a lot of investment to be used for this purpose

      Rather than Mobile Radar just being the superior option. To keep Mobile Radar relevant, it would receive a major buff that allows it to contribute to Anti-Air, which would help to balance EAA.
      You should be hired to the dev team like holy shit what a great suggestion!
    • The big thing that gonna be gone in your suggestion is early warning system. (aka when you spread a bunch of radar all over your territory edge). it is very important feature of current radar system so i doesn’t have to be on screen all the time to see if im getting invaded.

      or if you simply move this feature to late game.. eh not a fan because in early game we are all very blinded.

      on realistic node: bruh just give extra damage when unit is revealed and make it so that event won’t report a hit from the blinds shot.

      What kind of radar nerf i would suggest? how about entrenchment will conceal signatures by one level.
      or radar work on schedule every 30min so there is no live update. (but this gonna put a huge load on server)
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD
    • Terrible change because it strongly favours the defender. The defending player doesn't need radar, he just sits n waits until the opponent moves his stacks into his best own radar: his own territory. Whats the opponent gonna do? Invest in special forces to be at a resource deficit? Attack blind and have a gigantic tactical disadvantage? No, he will either lose or sit in his own territory too. Result: Two parties just sit n wait and nothing happens.
    • Mc_Johnsen wrote:

      Terrible change because it strongly favours the defender. The defending player doesn't need radar, he just sits n waits until the opponent moves his stacks into his best own radar: his own territory.
      1. you never use radar to defend? cough, the damn sea
      2. do you realize you lose land in the invasion? those land are used up and enemy can change in direct, swap unit or do all fancy things without you know.
      3. it is not feasible to have your suited defense everywhere, time is very sensitive and radar offer you more time to respond and adjusted to best the situations.
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD
    • Let me reformulate:

      The defending player doesn't need extensive use of intel gathering as opposed to the attacking player. The sea is managed by a naval player, independent of the ground player (since we are speaking about skilled level of play). For the defender to gain vision on the attacker, he merely waits until the attacker moves into his territory.

      2. The enemy runs out of units significantly faster than you run out of territory. You strongly underrestimate the time it takes to push back the enemy with meele, especially throguh difficult terrain. Unless you are playing a tiny country you have plenty of space to kite back. The enemy can try to abuse the fog of war and do things. But how do these matter? In the end he will always have to walk onto my territory illuminating himself while I can hide my artillery in darkness. Why don't you try building bunch of tanks and use them to run at the enemy artillery and see how far you go? You may go deep but once you depleted your resources and your army is dead you have nothing to stop the counter attack.

      3. Oh yes it is absolutely suitable, chose your defending positions wisely, build logistics to improve rotation time :) Yes radar is good but we are talking about a scenario where radar doesn't detect ground thats when radar is useless.