Improvements To Armour And Melee Units

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

    • Improvements To Armour And Melee Units

      Hey everyone,

      Just had a suggestions to run past everyone to get your thoughts. ATM I feel like armour and melee units are at a massive disadvantage yet I still see newer players using them regularly. I have a suggestion to make them more viable as at the moment the way things stand they are incredibly expensive, especially armoured vehicles like the MBT that cost as much as a frigate and are incredibly slow get wrecked by EAA, SF and artillery.

      Perhaps they could be made either slightly cheaper or given the opportunity to capture land - as in real life if a tank rolls into a town it has captured that town...

      I understand that armour and melee units in general are fundamentally weaker against good players who use artillery and air/navy, but at least this way they can have a bit more usefulness (especially early game) and may give newer players who think tanks are great a better chance.

      What are everyone's thought on this? 8)
    • Honestly any player that rushes tanks puts any player that doesn’t at a big disadvantage. Especially if you’re strategy doesn’t revolve around good planning for such invasions. Either way. I had this ally playing as serbia do really well with just mechanized and MBts jn FP games gaining ground and crushing neighbours pretty easily.
      I do agree with you that AFVs are too expensive. But think about it this way for (MBTs), a lvl 1-3 Marty is going to take 10-12hrs to destroy a solo MBT. That is alot of time… and most player can’t afford that time. So MBTs are great tank early game units for fast early game rushes. Considering that Mid game is where artillery starts to brew to get up to numbers to affect the battlefield much.
      Even trying to destroy an MBT with SFs or Gunships in early game will pose a problem. Because you’ll need (assuming they are in stacks of 4) 12 for gunships and 4-5 for SF. Difference is that the MBT stack will be deinfrantised so it can’t capture land while the SF one will destroy the MBt and Inf much easier.
    • Mr Tactician wrote:

      Hey everyone,

      Just had a suggestions to run past everyone to get your thoughts. ATM I feel like armour and melee units are at a massive disadvantage yet I still see newer players using them regularly. I have a suggestion to make them more viable as at the moment the way things stand they are incredibly expensive, especially armoured vehicles like the MBT that cost as much as a frigate and are incredibly slow get wrecked by EAA, SF and artillery.

      Perhaps they could be made either slightly cheaper or given the opportunity to capture land - as in real life if a tank rolls into a town it has captured that town...

      I understand that armour and melee units in general are fundamentally weaker against good players who use artillery and air/navy, but at least this way they can have a bit more usefulness (especially early game) and may give newer players who think tanks are great a better chance.

      What are everyone's thought on this? 8)
      Roll into town with a tank, only a tank and zero infantry, and then tell me the results.

      spoiler: the tank wont survive, cities are about the worst possible battlefield for tanks

      As I said in the other thread about tanks/melee: the worst enemy of tanks are ironically other ground units.
      It doesnt suck because of the disadvantages against artillery or aircraft. It sucks because of the disadvantages when facing other ground unit.

      In that regard: please go and look up the other thread already talking about exactly this topic
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • japan samurai wrote:

      I mean even if you actually didn’t get that , my serbia friend by day 6 got 2 MbTs and a couple mech inf to rush your capital. So disadvantage depending on nation you choose.
      I have a 5stack EAA at that point. Or really any aircraft. 6 days are plenty of time

      If people talk about MBT rush they mean like Day 3, immediately after they are produced.
      Not waiting a couple more days until people have a decent amount of aircraft
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      If people talk about MBT rush they mean like Day 3, immediately after they are produced.
      LOL Day6 sounds more like slog than rush, indeed.

      Anyways, the fundamental weakness of the MBT is its diminished strength in cities
      (as has been pointed out here already). Against a Lvl1 bunker (45% total entrenchment bonus),
      MBT has a mere ATK=3.3! Coupled with the city bonus for defending infantry (e.g. MotInf1 gets DEF=3.125 against armored), this is fatal for the rash tank attacking.

      Consider JS' Serbian friend with the mighty 2 MBTs. A minimal defense by 4 MotInf vanquishes that.
      Add a 3rd tank, you'd say? OK, counter that with 6 MotInf - they'd be standing their ground easily,
      with no chance for the attack to break through.

      For even more fun, look at a full stack of NGs defending.
      Display Spoiler

      They vaporize 2 MBTs in just 11 combat ticks,
      with 8 of the defenders surviving...

      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Zozo001 ().

    • Zozo001 wrote:

      Hint: modern wars are waged with ranged weapons.

      Why would you want to make melee advantageous? Newer players not understanding the game is not a good reason, mind you.

      Well, tanks are ranged weapons in reality, albeit with a short range. You could argue that tanks and TDs ought to be given a little bit of range, especially given that other short-range weapons like AA guns and mortars are represented as such by the game.

      Another big problem with units like Tanks, AFVs and Mech Infantry as represented in CoN is that they are designed to complement each other (ie. be used together in a stack). But because they all use the same resource-type to build (and a lot of it, at that) you can't really afford to actually do this. On top of that, they are designed to be most effective at fighting in open terrain - not in cities, jungles or mountains. They are OK at fighting in open terrain but open terrain is not valuable to the player, so battles don't tend to take place there all that often - people don't even try to defend the spaces between their cities a lot of the time. So the main strength of those units is rendered redundant by virtue of the fact that they don't get to use it.

      This isn't the case in real modern wars (or if it is the case, it is less so). Surrounding and cutting off a city by taking all the open space around it is valuable in the real world, because you prevent supplies getting in. In CoN, there aren't any supply lines, so it doesn't work.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      Surrounding and cutting off a city by taking all the open space around it is valuable in the real world
      There's some truth to what you wrote, obviously.
      But you seem to be forgetting the all-important role airforce (and missiles) play.

      In any event, tanks in urban warfare are more of a liability than asset, either in CON or IRL.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player
    • What might be feasible is to decrease the components costs for MBTs but increase fuel costs. Fuel is rarely an issue as it is now, except if you spam cruisers, so that would help with affordability
      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.