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.

    • That would let melee boost artillery/air.

      Artillery/air would still be (too?) good without melee.

      I would not need to change my air-spamming in typical public WW3 games

      If they want to motivate me (and Xovault and ...) to play differently, the next change might need to be reducing artillery/air effectiveness enough to make a melee-lock necessary for good results, instead of having melee-lock supplying a (optional) bonus.

    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      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.
      Ehmm... at least in CoN, strikers, helos and ASF do "melee", so, they must not be used, in this logic.

    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      It sounds like complicating a game that needs to be simpler. Just remove the stupid melee from ww2. This is ww3. Or make it so that artillery has a chance to miss lol.
      If ww3 start today, melee would be the primary way to do the war IF anyone survives the nukes of if no nuke is launched.

      In real life, artillery don't kill a battalion.

      Strikers don't kill battalions.

      We can see this in the Ukraine scenario today or better, the operation Allied Force.

      But, this idea is very good, because in real life, artillery cause disorder and forces the enemy to disperse or reduce his capacity to fight. Strikers do the same if they do "carpet bombing", and very límited, because the Nature of strikers is the precision attack.

    • Kaiservar wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      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.
      Ehmm... at least in CoN, strikers, helos and ASF do "melee", so, they must not be used, in this logic.
      No, your definition is too broad. You are including results that are slightly similar to melee as being melee, which is untrue. Airstrikes are not melee, regardless of the outcome.
      *** 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

    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Kaiservar wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      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.
      Ehmm... at least in CoN, strikers, helos and ASF do "melee", so, they must not be used, in this logic.
      No, your definition is too broad. You are including results that are slightly similar to melee as being melee, which is untrue. Airstrikes are not melee, regardless of the outcome.
      Let's talk in the game mechanics.

      Melee: close quarters.
      Ranged: long range, of course.

      Arty and Anti air defenses are the only units that can do damage without receive in return. Well... infantry lv5 too and naval vessels.

      All other units when attacks receive damage, except air units attacking TD alone.

      All air units, unless they use CM must be over Target, they exchange damage as ground/ground units does

      So, what the difference? Aircraft attack and return to base to rearm and then, return to battle until the objective is destroyed.

      Ground units attacks per hour; a similar effect to aircraft, but they remains in place.

      At the end of the road, air units and ground units has similar behavior. In fact, air units are efficient because they could be deployed from far airbases to the objective, but ever receive damage. If not because they could fly to an hospital, the attrition would be similar to ground melee units.

      Anyway, air units IN CoN are not ranged, but in real life, air units have this behavior.

    • Kaiservar wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Kaiservar wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      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.
      Ehmm... at least in CoN, strikers, helos and ASF do "melee", so, they must not be used, in this logic.
      No, your definition is too broad. You are including results that are slightly similar to melee as being melee, which is untrue. Airstrikes are not melee, regardless of the outcome.
      Let's talk in the game mechanics.
      Melee: close quarters.
      Ranged: long range, of course.

      Arty and Anti air defenses are the only units that can do damage without receive in return. Well... infantry lv5 too and naval vessels.

      All other units when attacks receive damage, except air units attacking TD alone.

      All air units, unless they use CM must be over Target, they exchange damage as ground/ground units does

      So, what the difference? Aircraft attack and return to base to rearm and then, return to battle until the objective is destroyed.

      Ground units attacks per hour; a similar effect to aircraft, but they remains in place.

      At the end of the road, air units and ground units has similar behavior. In fact, air units are efficient because they could be deployed from far airbases to the objective, but ever receive damage. If not because they could fly to an hospital, the attrition would be similar to ground melee units.

      Anyway, air units IN CoN are not ranged, but in real life, air units have this behavior.
      The difference is, melee is melee, not melee is surprisingly, not melee. But there are Many differences, such as damage ratios, not "locking horns"*, attacks/hr etc. All those things vastly skew the advantages of the air units over ground, to such a cumulative effect, that air attacks by comparison ARE more akin to artillery attacks than ground attacks.

      *- being stuck in combat unless employing the retreat mechanic
      *** 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

    • Kaiservar wrote:

      Let's talk in the game mechanics.
      Melee: close quarters.
      Ranged: long range, of course.

      . . .

      Anyway, air units IN CoN are not ranged, but in real life, air units have this behavior.
      In real life the following are "ranged".
      • Rocks (when thrown)
      • Spears (especially when thrown)
      • Bow & Arrow
      • Catapults/Trebuchets
      • Guns (all sizes, rifled and smoothbore)
      • Bombs
      • Torpedoes
      • Non-rocket Missiles
      • Rockets (all sizes)
      So, I generally think that saying an item in a game should or shouldn't be a "ranged" item because its real life counterpart is or isn't a "ranged" weapon, is not very useful.

      Aside from trivial examples, every weapon I can think of is used to extend the users' reach/range.

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

    • In hard terms, melee is all combat that include close quarters, using weapons that requires direct contact, this includes any sort of cutting weapon, poles.

      A sling is not a melee weapon because you don't need direct contact, you can hit and could not receive any hits in return.

      Now, in CoN mechanics, the ranged units are these that "throw" something, because it is not in direct combat. Airplanes don't "throw" anything in the game, except CM, but this is a feature that is not natural from the unit, so, these airplanes are, in fact, melee units in CoN.

      The point is that i imagine a combat from a striker or a ASF, or even helos as a real close quarters but using ranged weapons, for example, a striker launching rockets at low level flight. The infantry and even armored is the same, and of course, although they are using "ranged" weapons the short distances makes possible for the ground units to answer with machíne guns.

      Ground units is the same, MBT shoot at 2 km of a target, infantry shoot at 300 meters, but in CoN we see this as "melee" because there is direct contact. Well, airplanes do direct contact, so, they do melee.

    • Kaiservar wrote:

      In hard terms, melee is all combat that include close quarters, using weapons that requires direct contact, this includes any sort of cutting weapon, poles.

      A sling is not a melee weapon because you don't need direct contact, you can hit and could not receive any hits in return.

      Now, in CoN mechanics, the ranged units are these that "throw" something, because it is not in direct combat. Airplanes don't "throw" anything in the game, except CM, but this is a feature that is not natural from the unit, so, these airplanes are, in fact, melee units in CoN.

      The point is that i imagine a combat from a striker or a ASF, or even helos as a real close quarters but using ranged weapons, for example, a striker launching rockets at low level flight. The infantry and even armored is the same, and of course, although they are using "ranged" weapons the short distances makes possible for the ground units to answer with machíne guns.

      Ground units is the same, MBT shoot at 2 km of a target, infantry shoot at 300 meters, but in CoN we see this as "melee" because there is direct contact. Well, airplanes do direct contact, so, they do melee.
      I'm sorry, you are inappropriately over broadening the definition.
      *** 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