Improvements To Armour And Melee Units

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

    • WalterChang wrote:

      Well, tanks are ranged weapons in reality, albeit with a short range.
      No, in the sense I'm about to explain, they aren't.

      What you are trying to claim here is that Tanks are "indirect fire" weapons (that's the correct term in military discussions).

      Game players confuse indirect fire weapons with the game notion of "ranged weapons". Game rules frequently call anything that has effects farther away than the imaginary user's arm can reach, a "ranged" weapon.

      That's fine if you're playing D&D and rolling dice to see if a Hobbit's rock hurt an Orc, but it doesn't turn a tank into an Artillery piece.

      Shooting a long distance (with a tank or an infantry rifle) does make the shooter into an indirect fire source, and that's what matters in this conversation.

      Forget the game-player term "ranged weapon" in this conversation. It's entirely the wrong idea.
    • KFGauss wrote:

      No, in the sense I'm about to explain, they aren't.

      What you are trying to claim here is that Tanks are "indirect fire" weapons (that's the correct term in military discussions).

      Game players confuse indirect fire weapons with the game notion of "ranged weapons". Game rules frequently call anything that has effects farther away than the imaginary user's arm can reach, a "ranged" weapon.

      That's fine if you're playing D&D and rolling dice to see if a Hobbit's rock hurt an Orc, but it doesn't turn a tank into an Artillery piece.

      Shooting a long distance (with a tank or an infantry rifle) does make the shooter into an indirect fire source, and that's what matters in this conversation.

      Forget the game-player term "ranged weapon" in this conversation. It's entirely the wrong idea.
      Well, from having read a lot of your previous posts on this sort of topic, I'm not going to try and contradict you here, as you obviously know a lot more about it than I do. But I think there is a caveat to it, which I'd put to you for your opinion:

      I believe tanks can sometimes used for indirect fire or bombardment roles. It's not their primary purpose, but they can do it. The Turkish army used tanks (as well as artillery) to bombard ISIS-held Idlib in (I think) 2019, and there is apparently evidence that the Russian army is doing similar at the moment in Ukraine (firing from elevated ground and/or simply pointing the guns in the air so as to extend their range at the cost of accuracy - in order to be able to keep the tanks more out of harms way and still use them for something, presumably?)

      I also still think it'd be valid to give tanks and TDs a little bit of range for the purposes of the gameplay: Tanks, because it would give them some utility, which they badly need; and TDs in order to maintain effective their counter-ability towards tanks.
    • Thanks - I think.

      Embrace that a typical tank shoots "directly" at targets it can see (in it's line-of-sight), and the itch to have them behave like artillery/mortar pieces (over the ranges shown in CoN maps) should fade.

      Giving them some non-melee "range" is something you might say would make the game mechanics more interesting/fun, but it's not something that would add realism to a game that is wholly unrealistic in the first place.

      And, every time you see folks here, or in CoN's discord, or in any other place, separate artillery from tanks & infantry by saying the artillery are ranged weapons and the tanks aren't, cringe and die a little bit inside.
    • Fair enough. I've think I've changed my mind about its merit as a gameplay balance, actually. The idea would have been to give them an "Attack Range" of 20, in order to counter L6 Mot Inf and give them a limited bombardment role option when they attack. But I think it would unbalanced the game if tanks and TDs could do this from L1. It would make all other melee units pretty much useless, especially in terms of their defensive values.

      I still maintain that melee units like tanks and mech inf need something, though. Speed boost and a price cut seem like the most obvious things.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      Fair enough. I've think I've changed my mind about its merit as a gameplay balance, actually. The idea would have been to give them an "Attack Range" of 20, in order to counter L6 Mot Inf and give them a limited bombardment role option when they attack. But I think it would unbalanced the game if tanks and TDs could do this from L1. It would make all other melee units pretty much useless, especially in terms of their defensive values.

      I still maintain that melee units like tanks and mech inf need something, though. Speed boost and a price cut seem like the most obvious things.
      Speedboost and Price Change dont change the fundamental issue.
      People don't build them not because they are bad against Artillery or Aircraft. But Because they are bad against other Ground Units.
      The very Mechanics of CON are skewed in a way that completely screws over Melee.
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      Speedboost and Price Change dont change the fundamental issue. People don't build them not because they are bad against Artillery or Aircraft. But Because they are bad against other Ground Units.
      The very Mechanics of CON are skewed in a way that completely screws over Melee.
      Yeah. Perhaps entrenchment is OP? Maybe 10% damage reduction instead of 25% would be fairer? Or zero? Maybe entrenchment should only count in the first combat tick off a melee battle and not afterwards?
    • Teburu wrote:

      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
      Sry i forgot to say for the future. In the future EAA gets nerfed and i won’t have accesed to it. So im talking about this topic from the perspective of a dude who doesn’t have SC
    • WalterChang wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Speedboost and Price Change dont change the fundamental issue. People don't build them not because they are bad against Artillery or Aircraft. But Because they are bad against other Ground Units.
      The very Mechanics of CON are skewed in a way that completely screws over Melee.
      Yeah. Perhaps entrenchment is OP? Maybe 10% damage reduction instead of 25% would be fairer? Or zero? Maybe entrenchment should only count in the first combat tick off a melee battle and not afterwards?
      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.
    • japan samurai wrote:

      Sry i forgot to say for the future. In the future EAA gets nerfed and i won’t have accesed to it. So im talking about this topic from the perspective of a dude who doesn’t have SC
      Doesn't a 5-stack of SF destroy 1/2 of an MBT each time the 5-stack attacks?

      @Teb can kill several MBT (plus support units) using ordinary SF & ASF (or nerfed EAA)

      Lemme ask you this. What day do you think a MBT rusher launches their attack? What units do they send when they attack? And what do you think is the strongest defense against those rushing MBTs?
    • 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.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      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.
      Yes, so? You have yet to make a case for changing this to be good for the game.

      Note that CON is a game for modern warfare, not for the bygone era when melee was the way to fight.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player
    • WalterChang wrote:

      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?
      I think its more accurate to say "I focus only on airpower beyond Day 3". And theoretically, this should be the case. But only if you don't lose any NG whatsoever (which can be hard if you can't be super active), don't get any ships (which, is dumb), and don't bother with artillery (which theoretically has better SBDE, but requires more activity), can this be truly achieved.

      Doesn't mean I don't see your point tho :thumbup:
      "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.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      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.
      I think you misunderstand. You will most definitely need infantry, but only for one reason; to capture and hold territory. That's it. Armour is useless in that regard (another point of weakness).

      WalterChang wrote:

      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.
      This is why experienced and smart players go fo NG instead of Mot. or Mech. Inf :thumbsup:
      "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.
    • Zozo001 wrote:

      Yes, so? You have yet to make a case for changing this to be good for the game.
      Haven't I? Sorry about that. I thought the point about making MBTs, AFVs, Mech Inf and Naval Inf not completely useless would be good for the game?

      Zozo001 wrote:

      Note that CON is a game for modern warfare, not for the bygone era when melee was the way to fight.
      But... infantry and armoured vehicles do fight in modern warfare? Don't they?
    • Ok here is the conundrum about comparing CoN with real life…in CoN, war is an all out Armageddon war-total destruction of the enemy without any regard for civilians, infrastructure, prisoners, resources, or anything. As such, units that cause more destruction are just better.

      In real life (at least currently), war is generally fought in a far more controlled manner. Precision weapons are favored over mass destruction weapons, with the general principle of using enough force to win while causing as little destruction as possible. Instead of razing a town to dust with MRLS, the town is cleared methodically, with tanks and infantry being sent in to secure the streets.

      I’m sure if an Armageddon-type conflict occurred (with no thought of civilian casualties), tanks would become obsolete…it’s just easier drop all kinds of chemicals and bio-weapons over an area, nuke a city, bombard an area indiscriminately, whatever it takes to send the enemy into oblivion.

      This inherent difference between CoN and RL at present should not be overlooked. CoN is in fact a game about WWIII…who knows how desperate things get in such a war…




      That said, I wouldn’t be opposed to some way of making melee units better, because right now they are just targets instead of threats.
      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.
    • The benefit to reducing the costs of all armored units (and also mobile anti-air units) by quite a bit is to make them useful and not so useless for their price.

      Right now they are used by newer players to substantially increase the K/D ratios of the experts, and to minimize the cost of defeating them. My opinion is that the K/D ratios of the experts is high enough already, and that the game would be improved by rules changes that made it possible for newer players to at least slow the experts down a little bit.

      Rewarding good play is a good thing - it's just overdone in this game.

      Furthermore, making tanks more valuable gives newer players an ability to play longer and try harder - and oh yeah spend more money on more tanks. Now many people get killed before they even have the thought of spending gold.