Improvements To Armour And Melee Units

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

    • Zozo001 wrote:

      I suggest you read a bit about how meaningless the K/D is,before you suggest it as a base for grand changes in the game.

      In essence, you propose to reward senseless play by noobs. What good would that do to the game?
      You will be surprised how people are LOVE to stats shaming when they can’t argue with you.
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD
    • Zozo001 wrote:

      GraniteDust wrote:

      [armoreds] are used by newer players to substantially increase the K/D ratios of the experts.
      I suggest you read a bit about how meaningless the K/D is,before you suggest it as a base for grand changes in the game.

      In essence, you propose to reward senseless play by noobs. What good would that do to the game?

      playbabe wrote:

      Zozo001 wrote:

      I suggest you read a bit about how meaningless the K/D is,before you suggest it as a base for grand changes in the game.

      In essence, you propose to reward senseless play by noobs. What good would that do to the game?
      You will be surprised how people are LOVE to stats shaming when they can’t argue with you.
      I'm confident that GraniteDust was being sarcastic/joking.

      He was referring to how easy it is to kill noobs who are using tanks.

      He wasn't saying that it is important to kill noob who use tanks.
    • Zozo001 wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      He wasn't saying that it is important to kill noob who use tanks.
      He is saying that killing noobs should be made harder, though,regardless of them offering themselves for it.
      I think it's a fair point, though. I think most people agree that the game would be better if more players stayed active for longer. I also think it could well be the case that a lot of "noobs" go for tanks because they see the big damage stats and assume (not unreasonably) that these are one of the top in-game units.

      And then they drop out when they realise that they can't afford to build very many tanks, because of the resource balance. And also because they then they realise that the ones they have built are completely ineffective, because of the negative modifiers and the whole way that melee combat works in practice.

      So could it not be the case that making tanks, as well as other melee assault units, a bit more effective within the overall balance of the unit roster would mean that fewer players drop out and go inactive, and thereby improve the game as a whole?
    • WalterChang wrote:

      ... I think most people agree that the game would be better if more players stayed active for longer. I also think it could well be the case that a lot of "noobs" go for tanks because they see the big damage stats and assume (not unreasonably) that these are one of the top in-game units.?
      I do not think those two sentences connect with the logic you're suggesting.

      I rather think much of the inactivity is due to many casual players realizing that the game is not nearly as simple or quick as they expected when starting (typically with the mobile version, which has the added disadvantage of being a pain to play with). This would not be helped by making the game to fit their unreasonable choices less bad.

      And not noticing the malus for tanks in city terrain (and/or the bonus for defenders) in not reasonable at all.

      Also, another possible reason for quitting by so many may be the piss-poor play they see by most others (in public games). This again will not be helped by making the game reward noobs for making their mistakes.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Zozo001 ().

    • Zozo001 wrote:

      Aeneas of Troy wrote:

      making melee units better, because right now they are just targets instead of threats.
      So what?
      Because in terms of game balance, I would prefer that every unit have some viable use (besides being a target).
      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.
    • Zozo001 wrote:

      Also, another possible reason for quitting by so many may be the piss-poor play they see by most others (in public games). This again will not be helped by making the game reward noobs for making their mistakes.

      I don't think it should be regarded as a mistake to research and build any of the units that the game offers. As @Aeneas of Troy said, all units should have a purpose and a viable use within the overall balance.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      Zozo001 wrote:

      Also, another possible reason for quitting by so many may be the piss-poor play they see by most others (in public games). This again will not be helped by making the game reward noobs for making their mistakes.
      I don't think it should be regarded as a mistake to research and build any of the units that the game offers. As @Aeneas of Troy said, all units should have a purpose and a viable use within the overall balance.
      Well, you two seem to be saying that all of the myriad types of units should be similarly viable. That sounds neither feasible nor sensible. Only a handful can be really good, or else the developers would be in a futile struggle to find a perfect balance between unwieldly numerous choices (not to mention the players' trouble choosing).

      And melee units do have their particular purpose. It is just not winning the game with melee, which is what these (in my view ill considered) "improvements" aim for, apparently.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player
    • Zozo001 wrote:

      WalterChang wrote:

      Zozo001 wrote:

      Also, another possible reason for quitting by so many may be the piss-poor play they see by most others (in public games). This again will not be helped by making the game reward noobs for making their mistakes.
      I don't think it should be regarded as a mistake to research and build any of the units that the game offers. As @Aeneas of Troy said, all units should have a purpose and a viable use within the overall balance.
      Well, you two seem to be saying that all of the myriad types of units should be similarly viable. That sounds neither feasible nor sensible. Only a handful can be really good, or else the developers would be in a futile struggle to find a perfect balance between unwieldly numerous choices (not to mention the players' trouble choosing).
      And melee units do have their particular purpose. It is just not winning the game with melee, which is what these (in my view ill considered) "improvements" aim for, apparently.
      It doesn't have to be a perfect balance, but it could be a lot better than it is.

      I don't think it should come down to a choice between building one unit class instead of another: the game balance should favour building a mixture of different units that complement each other. The way the game works right now, building things like Tanks, AFVs, Mech Inf, Naval Inf (melee assault units) is just a waste of time and resources, because they don't complement anything. They don't do anything. They don't have a role.

      Ideally, I think you'd want to have it so that bringing a mixture of defensive and offensive melee units, supported by artillery and anti-air, in turn supported by air units and recon units, would be be the optimum strategy - and then different players would choose to weight those aspects differently, and from there comes the tactical exchange. For the optimum strategy to be just choosing one unit class and then not bothering with anything else at all - because you don't need to - that seems to me like the the balance is out of whack.
    • Zozo001 wrote:

      WalterChang wrote:

      Zozo001 wrote:

      Also, another possible reason for quitting by so many may be the piss-poor play they see by most others (in public games). This again will not be helped by making the game reward noobs for making their mistakes.
      I don't think it should be regarded as a mistake to research and build any of the units that the game offers. As @Aeneas of Troy said, all units should have a purpose and a viable use within the overall balance.
      Well, you two seem to be saying that all of the myriad types of units should be similarly viable. That sounds neither feasible nor sensible. Only a handful can be really good, or else the developers would be in a futile struggle to find a perfect balance between unwieldly numerous choices (not to mention the players' trouble choosing).
      And melee units do have their particular purpose. It is just not winning the game with melee, which is what these (in my view ill considered) "improvements" aim for, apparently.
      Whoa there, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about all units being equally viable, nor did I say that melee units should win the game.

      What I am saying is that currently melee units are not viable/do-not-have-value in pro-vs-pro scenarios (except for TDs to be used to prevent rogue state from spawning and early game recon vehicle rushes?). I mean, look at the MBT; why on earth would any sane player invest in them? They are expensive, slow, and are weak vs everything….at least make them cheaper or better at melee, something.

      Changing a few things on melee units is not going to affect the world of noobs, they’ll still get them no matter what happens :D
      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.
    • le mélange des troupes et une bonne chose a choisi elle apporte des points de plus chaque unité et spécifique et joue contre une notre unité exemple dca aviation voilà pour quoi c'est indispensable de mélanger les troupes ou plutôt de faire des puzzle pour assembler les pièces . de plus le nombre d'unité et moindre dans chaque catégorie le seul problème c est le terrain certaine unité on besoin d'un terrain adéquat plus ou moins approprié pour resté louable en terme de puissance de feu mais on sait que dans les terrain accidenter les les troupes aéroportées sont une bonne option mais pour le contre la dca n ait pas requis en fin et j'en termine il y a un nombre pas négligeable de terrain (foret sable plaine montagne ect........ et il y aux temps de troupe ' téléchargement.jpgPHOa466a260-c8cf-11e4-bac3-5be59eee9a01-805x453.jpgservez vous du tableau
      10 eme régiment :thumbsup:

      The post was edited 3 times, last by david roro ().

    • Oops sorry for not coming back to this thread earlier.

      The point about the top players being so much in favor of tanks and mobile anti-air units being so expensive DOES seem to be so that the top players can more effectively abuse newer players, and that most definitely includes getting a high K/D ratio, which a lot of people DO use to lord their "supremacy" over others. This board always has posts and even threads devoted to someone bragging about their high K/D ratio.

      I agree that skill should be rewarded. However, this game goes overboard in that more activity and skill (and gold) doesn't make a LITTLE difference - it makes WAY TOO MUCH difference. People on this board like to brag that they can defeat new players WITHOUT EVEN LOSING ONE UNIT.

      Then they complain that the people they are humiliating won't play until the very end.

      A huge percentage of the player base logs on once or twice a day. To get these players to continue playing, and to get SOME of them interested enough in the game to eventually invest more time in the game, they need to have a path where they can be useful, and that if they fight hard they can at least do some damage to the person or coalition taking them out. And that means having something like tanks that they can use as a method of victory if the opposition is weak enough, and to have a chance of actually defeating someone a bit better if they get a lucky break. And right now, tanks could be the best way for them to have some success. Could be - except that they are way too expensive and too weak, slow, and fragile.
    • GraniteDust wrote:

      Oops . . .
      Your argument has one big hole in it.

      There are other units already that offer exactly the opportunities for success that you describe. However, they aren't tanks.

      If you want to make Tanks more useful because people who haven't figured out the game yet are attracted to Tanks, then just say that.

      It's OK to suggest that Dorado make Tanks more useful because so many of their customers think that they will be useful. IMO the argument doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

      Dorado probably likes rewarding/encouraging those players more than they like punishing their (the players') foolishness.

      In other words, the universe doesn't demand that tanks should be ineffective in CoN, and IMO the argument simply boils down to whether Dorado wants to make them useful or not. So far, they don't.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      japan samurai wrote:

      since when was attacking person only needing 1:1 ratio. There is a 3:1 ratio for a reason. Without entrenchment any stupid MbT rush can be even more deadly.
      Stupid MBT rushes are not deadly. All you need to defeat tanks (or any melee attacks, for that matter) is favourable terrain, a bit of fortification and a few infantry. Artillery and/or airpower helps, but you can get away without it. This is exactly the problem.

      Zozo001 wrote:

      LOL no. You'd want the unrealistic change of negating the fundamental advantage of entrenchment, just to give an unrealistic boost to melee combat.

      WHY?
      I don't want to completely remove entrenchment. I think it might help if it was toned down a little, that's all.
      I think perhaps the base level of entrenchment should take some time and resources to set up. Getting 25% instant damage reduction in any region you control seems excessive to me, especially taking into account that building fortifications only gives relatively small incremental improvements on this base level while costing a relatively high amount of resources and time for what they do. Entrenchment is fine as a concept, but I think it should probably require some investment and prior planning on the part of the defender.

      As @Teburu said earlier, the combat mechanics in CoN are skewed massively against melee combat as a viable strategy - especially for attackers. This leaves several units (I'm thinking MBTs, AFVs, Mech Inf, Naval Inf in particular) without a useful role in most players' order of battle. I think this is a shame - it's a waste of a big part of the unit roster and a big misrepresentation of how real-world armies are formed. For @playbabe to be able to say things like, "I don't build anything except airpower beyond Day 3," (and for that to be true!) is surely a clear demonstration of the fact that the balance of the game is way off in this regard?

      All I'm trying to do is put out some ideas for how that might be solved. Infantry and armoured vehicles make up the vast bulk of modern militaries; that's why inexperienced players go for these units. In CoN, they barely factor into it at all, once you know how the game works. It's not just about the combat balance: the economic balance plays a big role in it as well. I don't believe it should be viable economically for experienced players to be able to skip over the bread-and-butter units entirely, and concentrate exclusively on the ultra-expensive (in the real world), high-end tech such as fighter jets, guided missiles, MRLS and huge navies.

      TLDR: attack-focused melee units are all MUCH too expensive relative to non-melee units; melee combat itself is too disadvantageous to the attacker when it comes to using supposedly purpose-built assault units.
      NO.
      Listen here , if you fight in land you are familiar with, do you have the advantage? YES. If you are defending do you have the advantage? YES.
      just look at D-Day for a good example on how defenders must have less numbers than Attackers for a good reason.
      By removing the 25% entrenchment, MBT rushes become so much harder to defend, TD rushes too. And imagine fighting a 3TD stack compared to 1MBt stack.
      You basically will have hard time destroying all those dudes without any -25% damage taken. Attacking = to you either have 3:1 number advantage or just a butt load of Arty like what russia is doing in Ukraine.


      All you need to do is make armoured units cheaper. Because they are expensive. Tank destroyers are fine because I see my homie ally having basically 11 of those TDs by day 10. Insane Spamming proves their deadliness. Because they swarm you with so much Armoured health its going to be hard to defend without inf officer
      I use a GH strat that kills all inf but hard to deal with armoured. When he stacks in MaA it becomes even tougher to kill him. And annoying. I usually get attk chopper by day 9.
    • japan samurai wrote:

      NO.
      Listen here , if you fight in land you are familiar with, do you have the advantage? YES. If you are defending do you have the advantage? YES.
      just look at D-Day for a good example on how defenders must have less numbers than Attackers for a good reason.
      By removing the 25% entrenchment, MBT rushes become so much harder to defend, TD rushes too. And imagine fighting a 3TD stack compared to 1MBt stack.
      You basically will have hard time destroying all those dudes without any -25% damage taken. Attacking = to you either have 3:1 number advantage or just a butt load of Arty like what russia is doing in Ukraine.


      All you need to do is make armoured units cheaper. Because they are expensive. Tank destroyers are fine because I see my homie ally having basically 11 of those TDs by day 10. Insane Spamming proves their deadliness. Because they swarm you with so much Armoured health its going to be hard to defend without inf officer
      I use a GH strat that kills all inf but hard to deal with armoured. When he stacks in MaA it becomes even tougher to kill him. And annoying. I usually get attk chopper by day 9.
      I'll just repost this bit:

      WalterChang wrote:

      I don't want to completely remove entrenchment. I think it might help if it was toned down a little, that's all.

      I think perhaps the base level of entrenchment should take some time and resources to set up. Getting 25% instant damage reduction in any region you control seems excessive to me, especially taking into account that building fortifications only gives relatively small incremental improvements on this base level while costing a relatively high amount of resources and time for what they do. Entrenchment is fine as a concept, but I think it should probably require some investment and prior planning on the part of the defender.
      In the examples you give - D-Day and the war in Ukraine - the 'entrenchment bonus' gained by the defenders would have taken weeks, months or years to construct, and at not insignificant expense. Bunkers, trench systems, machinegun nests, tank traps, etc. don't just appear out of nowhere the instant you arrive at a location, like they do in CoN. The game provides the defender with a way of constructing defences: they're called Combat Outposts when they're in provinces, and they're called Underground Bunkers when they're in cities. Those are fine, if a little under-utilized in my view.

      Basically, I think 25% is too much for basic entrenchment - maybe 10 or 15% would be a better balance. And I think that should take, say, an hour to kick in after the defensive stack arrives at a location - to simulate 'digging in'. If you want a bigger defensive bonus than that, I think you should have to pay for it, and wait longer before it's ready.

      What made me think of this was a situation from one of games that happened just yesterday: I was moving troops to capture an empty province, and the enemy was moving troops there at the same time to defend it. My troops arrived at the centre of the province 12 minutes before the enemy, and therefore captured it and gained the 25% entrenchment bonus. I used the 'Rush' order to make sure I got there first, and the other guy didn't. Point being, my units weren't "fighting in terrain they were familiar with", and nor would they have had time to prepare any kind of defensive position before the enemy arrived; yet, they still gained this big defensive advantage. It just seemed a bit unfair to me.

      I think entrenchment (the way it works now) is one for the major reasons why melee-only units are not really useful in combat roles in the game. I think it would help the balance and improve the utility of those melee units (especially assault units like tanks, AFVS, Mech Inf, Naval Inf) if entrenchment was reduced a bit - NOT removed completely.

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

    • @KFGauss:

      Thank you for clarifying my post and putting it in a way that I did not think about. Either way, we get to the same place. I see what you said as being an important addition to what I wrote. I apologize for not even thinking about it in that way.

      I agree 100% with your statement that Dorado has decided that tanks should be ineffective in CON. And I agree 100% that the world does not demand that tanks be effective in CON. I am trying to make the case that the game would be better if tanks were made to be less ineffective and even somewhat useful. And I am trying to make the possibly dubious case that newer players would play longer and be motivated to get better at the game if they would have some success despite only playing once or twice a day initially and not knowing the mechanics very well.

      And I stand by my idea that it would be better if weaker players had at least the appearance of a fighting chance against good players.
    • As players we think in terms of a unit’s usefulness. However, I think CoN sees things in terms of what the player base actually builds and make adjustments when a certain unit is not being used. Just because we pros recognize that tanks are weak does not change the fact that they are a fan favorite among newer players. As such, I doubt that tanks will be buffed until the noobs learn the error of their ways :D
      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.
    • je suis pas d'accord les chars utilisés dans un environnement favorable sont une très bonne défense dans un terrain propice comme en forêt ou le sable de plus si vous arrivez à les développer il gagne en vitesse et en blindage associé à l'infanterie on arrive a des indice de plus de 100 facilement se qui implique de moins développer les unités pour avoir un indice fort c est vrais pour un environnement éloigné les char sont moins porteurs mais toute la et de allié lourde unité avec unité légère ou on sait sans unité lourde l'unité légère sur moins d'impact ou alors il faut des quantités énormes d'infanterie et véhicule blindé léger seulement les petits pays sont désavantagés au point vue population et qui dit petite population petite infanterie voilà pourquoi les chars sont indispensables pour les petit pays . ............PHOa466a260-c8cf-11e4-bac3-5be59eee9a01-805x453.jpgPHOa466a260-c8cf-11e4-bac3-5be59eee9a01-805x453.jpg :P
      10 eme régiment :thumbsup:

      The post was edited 2 times, last by david roro ().

    • Okie, so I see a whole lotta back and forth which I tried to read but just confuses me, so I'll take an example.

      In CoW, doctrines are way different than in CON. They change the balance of all units. For example, Axis doctrine has higher damage and HP (+10% or 15%), but units cost more to produce (meaning, you can't produce a lot, but have high-quality troops). Also, specific units are still better in Axis (like Mot. Inf, At. Bombers, Subs and MTs). For Pan-Asian, its speed, increased sight range, and a total +20% terrain bonus (if the terrain modifier is applicable), but have less HP (meaning more vulnerable in melee combat). Their go-to units are ACs, Inf, Artillery, and Interceptors). Obviously, same for other doctrines (Comintern has cheap units and less upkeep, but they do less damage overall, while Allied has research, upgrade, and production buffs, with -10% speed).

      This may seem unbalanced to the average person's eye, but it actually makes it so all units can be used by different doctrines, and that doctrine type must be factored in when starting a battle (you wouldn't want to rush into battle as Comintern against Axis). Likewise, specific doctrines are favoured by different players, with there being no "best" doctrine (Pan-Asian is usually a favourite, but a lot of activity is required; Axis is good for players who can't be very active, etc.)

      Now, am I saying this should be applied to CON? No, because simply put; CoW has been so finely balanced that honestly, it's not fun anymore (for me at least). However, I do support a change regarding the damage done by air/ranged units being slightly less (as Playbabe's solution was, reduce damage by 20(ish?)% and need scouts to do full damage. It's currently the best solution I see that has been put forth.
      "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.