Melee issue in the new perspective of 'Dependency' and my suggestion

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

    • Melee issue in the new perspective of 'Dependency' and my suggestion

      idea of "Dependency''

      so, to say a unit is good or bad with this 'dependency' idea, let put some groundwork in.
      Unit may have multiple dependency, each with different degree of dependency. Here some examples.

      A) You need infantry to expand, so your expansion is highly dependent on infantry.
      B) Strike fighter is for kill ground unit with minimal resistant, but what counter strike fighter?
      - SAM: so what counter SAM?
      ---- Artillery
      ---- Attack heli
      - ASF, what counter ASF?
      ---- SAM
      ---- ASF

      SO strike fighter on itself is good enough BUT if enemy have SAM, now your SF is having dependent on Artillery or Attack heli

      As you can see this is similar to idea of "counter vs counter of counter" and so on.
      so now let look at what melee unit is dependent on.

      - something to kill fixed wing
      - something to kill heli
      - something to kill arti
      - something to kill melee

      How much they can work if they don't have counter to those?
      - melee is helpless against fixed wing
      - melee is helpless against heli
      - melee is helpless against arti
      - melee is tolerable against melee in preferred set up

      in short, melee unit is highly dependent on another unit, and other unit is less dependent compared to melee
      what is the purpose of melee to begin with? their main task is to, cough, melee enemy melee..... sounds weird i know.
      so my suggestion to improve them will start with the famous idea that everyone will be against with...

      Suggestion Section

      A) nerf base damage to all range unit against melee.
      B) range unit will apply 'disorganized point' to enemy ground unit. which in melee combat, they will take extra damage from melee.

      image.1
      - disorganized point is removed after 30 min because this would create a gab for timing and skill play.
      - as a compensation for range nerf, disorganized point is 1:1 ratio to damage it give.
      ---- for example, if SF deal 10 damage to ground stack, that ground stack now has 10 disorganized point.
      Picture1.png


      image.2
      Melee unit will double its damage in the spent of disorganized point.
      Picture3.png

      What would this mechanic achieve?
      It turn range unit into actual support unit. and some degree of dependent to melee unit to not waste the damage you could have.
      but wait? aren't this also create melee's dependent on range unit too? Yes and No.

      Melee unit already dependent on range unit to kill or badly injured enemy melee.
      This mechanic will offer your melee unit a big boost fighting enemy melee.
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD

    • I'm incredibly impressed with the graphical illustrations! How long did they take to cook up? I'm a little bit confused with the description/numbers though. I'll study it a bit more.

      I like the idea (I'm not sure if this was part of your suggestion?) that bombardment cannot completely eliminate an infantry unit - only damage/disorganise it. You would need a melee unit to finish them off, especially if they've got bunkers/fortified positions to shelter in.

    • I find the underlying thought extremely clever.

      However, i would make disorganised state last "longer" as per to emulate rotation needs.

      But you basically propose a very consistant "not morale system but morale system anyway" that actually works with the gameplay loop. Artillery disorganises quickly, but deals little "direct damage". Melee units disorganise little, but deal very competitive direct damage if "hitting disorganised units"
      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.

    • Honestly I kinda love this new thing. Considering how TD spammers really are more deadly than MBT early game spammers, causing this disorganisation for a double damage against would be really really nice. (TD’s are ridiculously high in HP and inf damage for a “lightly armoured vehicle”)

      This would be great as it means that artillery can have more use earlier on in game say day 23 as during those times (they do very little damage) but would do well to disorganise units.
      One thing I would like to say is that when engaging in melee combat, units on the losing end should increase in its disorgainsation point lost.


      Instead of having disorganisation, perhaps we could have MORALE ISSUES:
      this would mean that when engaging in fights, if their morale point is zero (basically some what like a second HP thing) , the unit will break and route from the battlefield, immediately retreating back to the nearest friendly territory without taking damage.
      This morale bar would affect the amount of damage the units will do along the damage it will receive. the morale bar would always run out before the Unit has no more HP and gets annihilated. (Though there will be instances where they will get annihilated)
      Morale will be slowly regained at a percentage of 10-20% per 30mins after being no longer in battles.

      when a unit is being shelled, the unit will not leave the city however when engaged by a follow up attack, it will be pushed back to the outskirts of the city places.


      This may not be a very good idea so perhaps adding the retreat when disorganisation point is “0” without player’s orders a thing inside would be the right play.

    • playbabe wrote:

      image.2
      Melee unit will double its damage in the spent of disorganized point.
      Picture3.png
      I've got some questions about this bit, just to clarify I'm understanding it correctly. Sorry if I'm being dim.

      B is the defending army, yes? Infantry and armour mixed stack?
      A is the attacking army, also infantry/armour mix?

      Where does the 'disorganised' value of 16 come from for stack B?
      Has B got hit by an airstrike or artillery with an attack value of 16 before the melee battle has started? So it's already lost 16 HP, and has potential to lose another 16HP if it is attacked by a melee unit in the next 30 minutes?
      So then A attacks during the 30 minute 'disorganised' phase, dealing 12 damage + an extra 12 from the 16 'disorganised' potential?
      So now it's lost 40HP total?

      If this is correct, at which point does B apply its defensive damage to A? Is it before or after the extra 'disorganised' damage is applied? Because that will make a big difference.
      16 + 12 = 28, so that could be one unit down already;
      16 + 12 +12 = 40, so that could be 2 units down (though, in a mixed inf/armour stack maybe not).

      In this case, why is the 'disorganised' value of 4 carried over to the next round? If the initial attack that caused the disorganised state was before the melee combat started, then the disorganised state of 30 minutes would have expired long before the second combat round? Or does the disorganised state continue for all the time that unit is in melee?

      If the disorganised state persists throughout the melee combat, that's going to make air/arty support even more powerful. Even having 1 single TA bombarding a melee battle will make a huge difference, because it will do double damage each time. If you've got melee battles where both sides are supported by large numbers of artillery and/or airstrikes, won't that mean the melee units on both sides are going to be decimated in no time at all?

      Sorry if I've completely got the wrong end of the stick here.

    • WalterChang wrote:

      Where does the 'disorganised' value of 16 come from for stack B?
      Has B got hit by an airstrike or artillery with an attack value of 16 before the melee battle has started? So it's already lost 16 HP, and has potential to lose another 16HP if it is attacked by a melee unit in the next 30 minutes?
      So then A attacks during the 30 minute 'disorganised' phase, dealing 12 damage + an extra 12 from the 16 'disorganised' potential?
      So now it's lost 40HP total?
      it was just imaginary example, but you are Correct

      WalterChang wrote:

      If this is correct, at which point does B apply its defensive damage to A? Is it before or after the extra 'disorganised' damage is applied? Because that will make a big difference.
      16 + 12 = 28, so that could be one unit down already;
      16 + 12 +12 = 40, so that could be 2 units down (though, in a mixed inf/armour stack maybe not).
      The ratio is debatable, how much % of range damage will be converted to disorganised value? how much melee damage get a boost?
      anyway by current combat tick, both side exchange engagement before recalculating their strength:HP

      WalterChang wrote:

      If the disorganised state persists throughout the melee combat, that's going to make air/arty support even more powerful.
      Yes, but you need competent melee unit to be exposed too to gain benefit of this mechanic.
      reason that it gets reset if not in melee combat is to avoid people stacking the debuff to certain degree.

      WalterChang wrote:

      If you've got melee battles where both sides are supported by large numbers of artillery and/or airstrikes, won't that mean the melee units on both sides are going to be decimated in no time at all?
      even in current game, any mirror match scenario would resulting in the same issue.
      originally this idea is to promote melee unit usage and nerf range unit in small degree. but yes, the tipping point still exist but get pushed away

      As Opulon point out that this idea actually similar to Troop morale in supreme1914 where troops deal lower damage when it has low morale due to being hit by range unit
      and different unit have different damage to morale.

      Maybe this can be spined into CoN where some unit have low damage but deal higher disorganised value, and the opposite.
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD

    • playbabe wrote:

      Maybe this can be spined into CoN where some unit have low damage but deal higher disorganised value, and the opposite.
      Maybe stealth units could deal lower overall but as compensation deal higher and longer lasting disorganised value? Since SFS could then be used to attack small melee stacks, deal the required "disorganised" value, then retreat, allowing actual melee troops to arrive and totally destroy them. And perhaps stealth planes can be made to deal both high damage (relatively) and high disorganised value.

      Another idea: choppers do lower disorganised value while strikers deal higher DV (its getting pain to type disorganised NGL). And meanwhile choppers can deal higher regular dmg and strikers lower.

      IDK just a thought ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
      "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.

    • playbabe wrote:

      it was just imaginary example, but you are Correct

      The ratio is debatable, how much % of range damage will be converted to disorganised value? how much melee damage get a boost? anyway by current combat tick, both side exchange engagement before recalculating their strength:HP


      Yes, but you need competent melee unit to be exposed too to gain benefit of this mechanic.reason that it gets reset if not in melee combat is to avoid people stacking the debuff to certain degree.


      even in current game, any mirror match scenario would resulting in the same issue.originally this idea is to promote melee unit usage and nerf range unit in small degree. but yes, the tipping point still exist but get pushed away

      As Opulon point out that this idea actually similar to Troop morale in supreme1914 where troops deal lower damage when it has low morale due to being hit by range unit
      and different unit have different damage to morale.

      Maybe this can be spined into CoN where some unit have low damage but deal higher disorganised value, and the opposite.
      Thanks for the answers. I think it's a really interesting idea to use artillery and airstrikes less for destroying ground units outright, but instead for weakening their ability to fight back against melee attacks - so that they become 'melee-support' weapons instead of 'melee-replacement' weapons.

      What your suggestion effectively does is reduce the defender's HP potential in the melee fight. What would you think about a slightly different approach, so that instead of having an HP-effect, bombardment reduced the defensive combat values and/or entrenchment bonuses of the target? That might be simpler to understand, and require fewer extra calculations?

    • Thinking back, I feel that this makes artillery a lot much better, not because it does more damage to the enemy, but because it disorganises the enemy’s troops. Which in turn allows one to defend much better. This means that The problem of getting melee is still there because even before they reach their target they could run out of organisation points and well… god knows what will happen next? Perhaps they retreat back to the nearest place or they just get annhiliated.


      This would partially fix the problem to a certain extent but one has to, and must reduce the cost of armoured units. One must balance the damage each armoured unit does so as to not make one of them so OP that the others aren’t worth getting anymore. That, coupled with this, would be quite the fix for armoured and melee problems.

    • japan samurai wrote:

      Thinking back, I feel that this makes artillery a lot much better, not because it does more damage to the enemy, but because it disorganises the enemy’s troops. Which in turn allows one to defend much better. This means that The problem of getting melee is still there because even before they reach their target they could run out of organisation points and well… god knows what will happen next? Perhaps they retreat back to the nearest place or they just get annhiliated.


      This would partially fix the problem to a certain extent but one has to, and must reduce the cost of armoured units. One must balance the damage each armoured unit does so as to not make one of them so OP that the others aren’t worth getting anymore. That, coupled with this      ,       would be quite the fix for armoured and melee problems.
      I don't think there is a problem, don't melee.
      *** 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

    • playbabe wrote:

      idea of "Dependency''

      so, to say a unit is good or bad with this 'dependency' idea, let put some groundwork in.
      Unit may have multiple dependency, each with different degree of dependency. Here some examples.

      A) You need infantry to expand, so your expansion is highly dependent on infantry.
      B) Strike fighter is for kill ground unit with minimal resistant, but what counter strike fighter?
      - SAM: so what counter SAM?
      ---- Artillery
      ---- Attack heli
      - ASF, what counter ASF?
      ---- SAM
      ---- ASF

      SO strike fighter on itself is good enough BUT if enemy have SAM, now your SF is having dependent on Artillery or Attack heli

      As you can see this is similar to idea of "counter vs counter of counter" and so on.
      so now let look at what melee unit is dependent on.

      - something to kill fixed wing
      - something to kill heli
      - something to kill arti
      - something to kill melee

      How much they can work if they don't have counter to those?
      - melee is helpless against fixed wing
      - melee is helpless against heli
      - melee is helpless against arti
      - melee is tolerable against melee in preferred set up

      in short, melee unit is highly dependent on another unit, and other unit is less dependent compared to melee
      what is the purpose of melee to begin with? their main task is to, cough, melee enemy melee..... sounds weird i know.
      so my suggestion to improve them will start with the famous idea that everyone will be against with...

      Suggestion Section

      A) nerf base damage to all range unit against melee.
      B) range unit will apply 'disorganized point' to enemy ground unit. which in melee combat, they will take extra damage from melee.

      image.1
      - disorganized point is removed after 30 min because this would create a gab for timing and skill play.
      - as a compensation for range nerf, disorganized point is 1:1 ratio to damage it give.
      ---- for example, if SF deal 10 damage to ground stack, that ground stack now has 10 disorganized point.
      Picture1.png


      image.2
      Melee unit will double its damage in the spent of disorganized point.
      Picture3.png

      What would this mechanic achieve?
      It turn range unit into actual support unit. and some degree of dependent to melee unit to not waste the damage you could have.
      but wait? aren't this also create melee's dependent on range unit too? Yes and No.

      Melee unit already dependent on range unit to kill or badly injured enemy melee.
      This mechanic will offer your melee unit a big boost fighting enemy melee.
      so your saying certain units can't reach their full potentail without certain other units?

      you will never get "perfect opponent" thats why you have to make diverse stacks that can handle any type of unit
      "El experto en todos fue una vez un bêginara"

      "You didn't see me sneak under the door" :evil: :evil: