DEVELOPER DIARY 22: HIGH TIDES, MEASURED RIDES

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

    • DEVELOPER DIARY 22: HIGH TIDES, MEASURED RIDES


      + + + + DEV LOG: 22 + + + +
      Commanders!
      It's your local friendly Community lead here - Yak. When I'm no where to be found on our platforms, it's safe to say we're all giving headaches to the developers and producers! (They are happy to oblige) Why you might ask? Well! The designers are cooking up quite some spicy dishes, with an entree of assorted (and exquisite) taste breakers; I'm excited to disclose what's on the menu for the coming months from the rag tag bunch over at Dorado. Without further ado, let's get cracking.
      • Amphibious Fighting Vehicle:
        • After looking at the stats behind Amphibious Fighting Vehicle, the general consensus was that they are relatively underused, but not exceptionally so. We suspect that the research tree path might be an influence here, and for a first iteration we are updating the Amphibious Fighting Vehicle to be separated from the Armored Fighting Vehicle research path, along with all the respective upgrades irrespective of each other. This is coming very soon.
      • Air-Assault can use Carriers:
        • In real world scenarios, carriers are used to launch air-assault operations regularly. A function absent from the current implementation of CoN, adding this change is an interesting proposition given that Air Assault can definitely benefit from it along with Naval skirmishes.

          Thus, changes to Air-assault units are coming! We will soon allow Air-Assault able units to use carriers as launch points, extending the range they can use to Air-assault. We anticipate this to be available before the release of Season 9.
      • Helicopter Carrier:
        • The aircraft carrier is pretty expensive, and serves a pretty important role. We want to emphasize that. As a naval player, this is your capital ship. However, there's some aspects of the aircraft carrier which the Heli Carrier should be able to handle in the early game, or at least serve as a way for naval players to put pressure on their foes beyond their coastal cities. Moreover, this helps make helicopters more attractive as an option.

          With the current implementation of Carriers, it is a more attractive choice to focus on aircraft rather than helicopters (at least in some instances. In light of this, we are working on a new unit that will act as a cheaper-costing variant of the Aircraft Carrier. The Helicopter Carrier is able to carry helicopters and act as an HQ (base of operations) for the helicopters, like any other airport would. This unit will not be a seasonal unit. This update is also expected sometime after Season 9.
      • Ship carry-capacity
        • Carry-capacity is something that we haven't really touched in CON previously. Transport ships fill that role. But units like the Heli Carrier and Aircraft Carrier regularly carry compliments of troops to engage in ground operations. This is the most experimental feature/idea until now, and as it stands we are exploring options and brainstorming ideas on expanding gameplay in this domain. We don't have a lot of specifics here as the feature is in it's infancy production-wise. The general idea is to give ships the ability to utilize carry-capacity for units. This will allow them to transport units faster than if they were transport ships. Eventually, it will allow units like the Airborne infantry to 'ferry' to the aircraft carrier. This will require a fair bit of development, definitely will be after Season 9.
      --

      In other news, just in case you missed our last Dev log, we officially announced our plans to give a much needed facelift to the Desktop client of the game, updating the user interface and graphics style. You can see previews and ask questions here.
      Since our last log, players have come forward with some questions which I am going to be sharing here as well for everyone.

      Player question: Does this mean that the Desktop client (conflictnations.com) will become like the Mobile (Android/iPhone) client?
      Answer: Not exactly, no. We will be updating the graphics (Sea, provinces, user interface art style) to look much closer to mobile. But, we will be doing more work to make sure that user interface and experience is adapted and reworked to keep desktop in mind. This means widgets such as the command dial, will not be on the new client.

      Player question: Are the User Interface differences between Desktop and Mobile going to preserve the best elements of both?
      Answer: That is the best case scenario, yes. Truthfully though, on launch there won't be all the features/implementations done yet. It will be a tiered approach, of course, keeping in mind community/player feedback. As I said in my original post. Players, have the option to opt out of the new client for months (if not year) after Beta launch, so you will be in a position to voice your feedback while being relatively unaffected using the 'classic' client.

      Player question: Do our accounts reset to level 1?
      Answer: No. Your account will remain untouched and fully functional without losing anything.

      Player question: Will this change game mechanics?
      Answer: No. The base game remains exactly the same, unless an update states otherwise to improve the game.

      And with that, this log is at an end. Until the next one! GLHF!
      Dorado Games
      Conflict Of Nations

    • I myself remember suggesting air-assault via Aircraft Carrier awhile back. It will certainly make air-assault units a bit more attractive.

      This troop transport idea is interesting. Maybe allow destroyers and cruisers to transport Marines and Amphibious Fighting Vehicles?

      I am Aeneas of Troy and I approve this update.
      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:

      I myself remember suggesting air-assault via Aircraft Carrier awhile back. It will certainly make air-assault units a bit more attractive.

      This troop transport idea is interesting. Maybe allow destroyers and cruisers to transport Marines and Amphibious Fighting Vehicles?

      I am Aeneas of Troy and I approve this update.
      Yes. Considering no naval ship deploys without marines, as they are basically boat soldiers this would only make sense.
      CDR Crimson
      Founder of The Militia Collective

      Training and Screening Hub, New Players or Existing: Come Find your perfect Alliance here!

      Join Our Discord !

    • Hey, I'm not sure where to post this so please move it if it needs to be somewhere else. But first, let me say that I like the proposed troop enhancements. Except for the amphibious assault vehicle - I still don't see the advantage of them (I also am not a fighting vehicle user when armor gives you more power on average and more hit points).

      But, I have a recommendation - could you build into the game some sort of 'ruler' or 'measurement' tool? I am often left using my fingers held up to the screen to see the distances on the map. This would help plan the placement of air strips at the least but I would imagine there would be other uses too... Thanks.

    • I think the concept of the vehicles for air assault are incorporated in the unit's attack value.

      Special forces and Airborne, get the Air assault option and their attack is treated as if it were from rotary wing aircraft, even though there is no additional vehicle made or present.

      This is because if they went down that road, you wouldn't be able to apply air assault, without having transport helicopters etc.

      Now, if they want to go down that rabbit hole, that would add Strategic depth to the game. You would need transport ships to conduct landings, transport planes to move units via air transport and helicopters to conduct insertions and air assault missions.

      I say go for it!

      But as it is now, it is simplified, by adding attack values and granting the air assault, or amphibious assault options to specialized units.

    • Heckbert wrote:

      Hey, I'm not sure where to post this so please move it if it needs to be somewhere else. But first, let me say that I like the proposed troop enhancements. Except for the amphibious assault vehicle - I still don't see the advantage of them (I also am not a fighting vehicle user when armor gives you more power on average and more hit points).

      But, I have a recommendation - could you build into the game some sort of 'ruler' or 'measurement' tool? I am often left using my fingers held up to the screen to see the distances on the map. This would help plan the placement of air strips at the least but I would imagine there would be other uses too... Thanks.
      With every unit, the bonuses for terrain are the biggest reason to consider using them. With Fighting Vehicles and Amphibious Combat Vehicles, this is also true.

      In Urban and Suburban terrains Armor performs about as good as AFVs, and AFVs have a decisive advantage in Mountain and Frozen terrain and Armor is completely defenseless against Fixed wing aircraft. ( I have wiped out entire Armor divisions with "A" drone...)


      Amphibious Combat Vehicles add Reveal Stealth to amphibious units and the recon is also a bonus, as opposed to using a weaker Recon vehicle that cannot amphibious assault. Very useful for an Island Nation.

      So it just depends on which Nation you're playing and your strategy.

    • colonel ace wrote:

      do you think air assault should have vehicles when landed like special forces? I do because in real life they do

      KFGauss wrote:

      I'm skeptical that enough large vehicles (and fuel) to carry all the troops and their equipment long distances gets air-dropped along with the soldiers, their light weapons, and other equipment.

      Do you have first-hand experience that backs up that claim?

    • KFGauss wrote:

      I'm skeptical that enough large vehicles (and fuel) to carry all the troops and their equipment long distances gets air-dropped along with the soldiers, their light weapons, and other equipment.

      Do you have first-hand experience that backs up that claim?


      A good compromise might be to allow Airborne Inf to 'use vehicles' (ie. travel at speeds of 1.00+ overland) on friendly territory only?

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