Ideas/Changes

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

    • Ideas/Changes

      Research tree unit level

      There is never really enough time or resources to research a variety of units and so players usually just invest in one type of inf unit / armored unit which are always motorized infantry and MBT's because of how good they are in every situation. This doesn't allow players to be more tactical and use a variety of different unit types and even if they tried they would get crushed by players who have only have one type of unit but is much more advanced. I feel like there should be changes to the research tree which would allow players to more easily research multiple unit types by removing the advanced/modern unit upgrades as well as changing some other upgrades . It would look something like this:

      |→Airborne Infantry→|
      ||→Special Forces
      Motorized infantry→|→Naval Infantry→|
      |→Mechanized Infantry
      |→National Guard

      Infantry Traininglv1lv2lv3lv4lv5lv6


      There would still be some of the smaller upgrades to research for each type of unit but will only improves its useability instead of improving its general combat/ health stats, such as mortar upgrade for motorized inf, engine upgrade that will only improve the speed of the unit, NBC protection, woodland warfare taring, air defense that will only improve defense stats against air units, etc.. Because these upgrade will not improve general stats to the unit and won't advance it to the next level they would be made cheaper. These upgrades will not be in-between the unit types in the tech tree so that you won't have to research them before you can research a new infantry type.
      The tech trees will differ for each unit category (i.e. towed artillery unlocking mobile artillery, armored fighting vehicle unlocking amphibious combat vehicle).
      There would be a new feature, training level which when researched will improve the attack/defense, health stats and level of all the units as well as all types in the category (i.e. support, armored, helicopters) . This however would be researched not with rare materials but with a new type of resource called experience, there will be experience for each different unit category . This resource would be gained through making units do things like combat which will offer the most experience but experience can also be earned through occupying provinces/cities, moving, patrolling or even not doing anything (stationary in the province/city center-point) but this will only produce small amounts of experience. Each unit will produce experience and will be a part of the corresponding experience resource category (i.e. support, armored, helicopters). Some units will produce slightly more doing certain things compared to other units due to them being less likely to see combat/occupying cities such as mobile radar/ AWACS since they will never usually be used in combat or any air/armored units as they cannot occupy territory. This is so that experienced gained will be more balanced for all unit category's.

      Province army base, air base and harbors

      Cities seem to be the only place of importance and are always the place for enemies to attack making wars seem less strategic due to the very limited amount of places to occupy that have actual significance. Which is why there could be some changes on how resource are gathered, where units are mobilized and also new types of province constructions.
      I feel like it would make more sense for army bases to be built and units to be mobilized in provinces rather than cities. Army bases could be a province construction where units will be mobilized wherever the army base is located, the army base will be linked to the city which will construct it however, and will be able to build units depending on what buildings the city it is linked to has i.e. arms industries, recruitment office, etc... This could also be done for airbases and harbors. When selecting a city and selecting to construct an army/air base or harbor you'll be asked to choose which province you want it to be built in. If the army/air base or harbor is occupied by enemy forces it will be unable to mobilize the corresponding type of unit even if the city is not occupied. If the city is occupied, air/army bases and harbors will be unable to mobilize. However there could be a way in which army/air bases and harbors would be linked to multiple cities so that they could still mobilize incase a city that it is linked to gets occupied. This change would make it so that airfields and airbases swap places where airfields act like airbases in which they are built in cities but cannot be upgraded. There would be an option however where army/air bases and harbors could be built in the city. There would also be an option to build air fields in provinces like usual. The change would make it more realistic since military bases are not located in cities and are in more secluded places.

      Province resource

      Resources seem to be quite vulnerable as they are mainly produced in cities and the occupation of any homeland city can have massive effects. This is why I think it would be nice if cities are not the main producers of resources and instead provinces would be, where they would produce much more resources. Local industries will have their resource production speed reduced like arms industries to balance out the increased production of the provinces resources. Province resources will also be much more common and can have varying quality, most producing small amounts but some producing possibly 3 times as more. This will allow for better strategic conquest because provinces now serve as the main component for resource production and will significantly improve their importance. Because of this cities resource production will be changed so that now it will increase one type of the total resources produced by provinces (i.e. supplies, components, fuel) by a small percentage which can be increased by building and upgrading arms industries. Manpower and money will still be produced they same way.

      Supply Routes

      Supply routes would allow for more tactical situation where units would need to stay supplied through a supply route which would be an unobstructed line through occupied provinces as well as ocean routes to any of the homeland or annexed cities acting as the source. The line can be severed by enemy forces occupying territory that was part of your supply route or having naval/ground units blockade the route. There could be supply hubs which can be built in provinces that increase the distance of supply routes from cities and they could create air supply routes that are linked to the cities which can only be obstructed by patrolling enemy fighters. If a units supply route is obstructed it will start losing hit points and DEF/ATK stats until the route is fixed.

      New province construction ideas

      There could be new types of constructions to build in provinces such as SAM sites, radar installations, theater defense systems which would have the same effect as the unit version but will be immobile, they would also need to be supplied through supply routes and will be inactive if the route is obstructed . Minefields could also be something that can be constructed along certain routes in provinces which deal damage to units moving across it including your own and allies.

      Unit sub-classes

      Sub-classes for units, mainly infantry types. For example, anti-tank motorized inf which deal more damage to hard units but slightly less to soft targets, heavy ATGM motorized inf which deal significant damage to armor units when defending against them with the downside of small hard ATK stats and some reductions to soft ATK/DEF stats. Heavy machine gun airborne infantry which deal more damage to soft targets when defending but less when attacking. These will allow players to create more advanced units and allow infantry to be better at combatting hard units as well as expanding their useability.

    • RoyalBacon24 wrote:

      There is never really enough time or resources to research a variety of units and so players usually just invest in one type of inf unit / armored unit which are always motorized infantry and MBT's because of how good they are in every situation. This doesn't allow players to be more tactical and use a variety of different unit types and even if they tried they would get crushed by players who have only have one type of unit but is much more advance
      Stopped reading right there because it clearly showcases that you don't know what you are talking about.
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • RoyalBacon24 wrote:

      There is never really enough time or resources to research a variety of units ...
      This seems to come up every few weeks now, we've just concluded a couple of very similar thread recently, too.
      (You may want to Google a bit before making such a sweeping suggestion.)

      The suggestion is built up the misconception that making a wide variety of units feasible would enrich the game.
      Actually the opposite is true: selecting a few well chosen types is a crucial part of playing skill in CON.

      Aside from this, your starting statement "always motorized infantry and MBT's because of how good they are in every situation" indicates that you've only observed low skilled players, and drew the wrong conclusion. CON game mechanics is such that relying on melee is a bad idea in general, and doing so with MBT is very bad, in particular. (Again, you'd have seen that if searched a few weeks' history of the forum.)
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • In response to the replies, I wasn’t saying motorized inf/ MBT was op compared compared to all other units in the game, I meant just in those catergories( armored/infantry) because of them having moderate stats when defending and attacking and are easier to mobilize while other types (i.e. naval infantry, amphibious combat vehicle) are better in more specific situations and could be crushed if you do not pay close attention to them.


      I understand that the game is designed so that you need to invest in specific units depending on your tactics, but I feel like their should be a way so that you could defend yourself against all types of units or else you could be crushed if the enemy has a unit that you cannot really counter.

      Also have we been playing the same game? Because MBT’s have an extremely large amount of hit points, just for comparison, a level 1 mbt still roughy has at least 10 more hit points than any of the max level armored vehicles and also still has moderate combat stats. The hit points and stats usually outweigh the debuffs from the environment but even then there is a upgrade that removes almost all of them.

    • RoyalBacon24 wrote:

      In response to the replies, I wasn’t saying motorized inf/ MBT was op compared compared to all other units in the game, I meant just in those catergories( armored/infantry) because of them having moderate stats when defending and attacking and are easier to mobilize while other types (i.e. naval infantry, amphibious combat vehicle) are better in more specific situations and could be crushed if you do not pay close attention to them.
      And you just keep digging ...

      Your issue is arguing from a standpoint that considers armor/inf viable in the first place. You can totally invest in a lot of different units to defend yourself against various threats, the key is knowing in which to invest and in which not to invest. A lot of the units cover multiple different things, to a different degree ofc. If the enemy has a type of unit you can not counter that simply means you failed to plan ahead.
      Because in general there are only 3 different types of units that you need to counter: Air, Ground, Navy.
      For example:
      - Artillery already counters pretty much every single ground units.
      - Air Superiority Fighters counter anything that's an Aircraft
      - Ships counter other Ships

      ofc there is a lot more to it but that's the extremely simplified version. Did you notice? Tanks or Armor and Melee in general don't feature anywhere in there as a counter to anything.

      In general you can get together a pretty diverse army, you just need to actually expand faster than the snail pace a lot of the people seem to prefer.

      For Reference: These are the units I had in one of my games at day 36. It could probably be better in terms of what units/the amount I actually built, but frankly once I reached the point that other people stopped being a threat I tend to slow down a lot in terms of unit mobilization and useful research.

      Screenshot_1.png
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • RoyalBacon24 wrote:

      [MBT] hit points and stats usually outweigh the debuffs from the environment
      No they do not. MBTs fail spectacularly in urban combat. CON being principally about taking cities, this is the deciding issue against them.

      Forgive me for being blunt, but this (as well as the rest of your treatise) betrays that you do not yet comprehend how to play the game well. So I suggest you refrain from insisting on major changes for how it should be.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • RoyalBacon24 wrote:

      But the point I'm making is that I feel like the game shouldn't just be about taking cities, it leaves less room to be more tactical and makes you much easier to predict. What's the point in having combat outposts, airfields, field hospitals if their going to just go to your cities?
      Cities give the most VP and res thats true; but outside of homeland the difference between cities and provinces is not that big.

      For starters buildings in provinces tend to be cheaper and provinces also are way more often located in strategical locations where you can make more use of the stuff you can build than in a city. Eg a combat outpost in mountains can have a far higher effect than a bunker in a city. Most strategically important places in con are provinces.

      Cities might be the prime strategic objective, but the simple fact that provinces are everywhere already make them important.

      Fact is tho that it wouldn’t really sense to enable mobilization in provinces (do you also want to deal with insurgents in every single province?) as cities do represent major hubs for economy/infrastructure
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • RoyalBacon24 wrote:

      What's the point in having combat outposts, airfields, field hospitals if their going to just go to your cities?
      First of all, not everything has to have a point.
      Second of all, non-urban fight have their purpose, of course. This does not change the fact that being weak in cities is a fatal weakness for MBT.

      And 3rd but most important: you keep insisting that your viewpoint is somehow to make the game more "tactical". But you are missing the point that CON is a game of strategy. Recognizing what the handful of good units are (for given situations) is a key point in forming good strategy. Trying to make a plethora of units equally useful is a misguided suggestion, which would not make the game better.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player

    • RoyalBacon24 wrote:

      But the point I'm making is that I feel like the game shouldn't just be about taking cities, it leaves less room to be more tactical and makes you much easier to predict. What's the point in having combat outposts, airfields, field hospitals if their going to just go to your cities?
      I don't think you understand what the word "tactical" means, and that's confusing people (at it confuses me a bit). Tactical isn't something a person or military unit does.

      "Tactical" refers to the scale (distances, #'s of people, #s and types of machines involved) at which plans are made or operations are carried out.


      I think you're trying to say that you would enjoy CoN more if the game encouraged players to use a greater variety of "Tactics" to earn VPs and win.

      However, for the reasons Teburu outlined above, and more, I just don't think the changes you suggested will change gameplay much among the more successful players.

      Right now players building the types of units you're focusing on changing are making a mistake (if their goal is defeating their opponents quickly).

      Your suggested changes would simply alter the mix of ineffective units players could mistakenly build.


      However, in a perverse sort of way, maybe offering players a wider variety of mistakes would boost Dorado's revenue without affecting the rest of the game much.

      Bottom Line: If you want to convince Dorado or if you want to enlist most forum readers' support, you need to think more deeply about the game mechanics.

    • RoyalBacon24 wrote:



      Also have we been playing the same game? Because MBT’s have an extremely large amount of hit points, just for comparison, a level 1 mbt still roughy has at least 10 more hit points than any of the max level armored vehicles and also still has moderate combat stats. The hit points and stats usually outweigh the debuffs from the environment but even then there is a upgrade that removes almost all of them.
      In all honesty i love running into tank users. do yourself a favor and look at the stats on tank destroyers. in a straight up fight in a city you'll lose every time. But i'll share the best advice I think I got when starting, range wins wars.

    • I’m trying to resist being a tank user myself but I have to say, I had a feeling someone would bring up tank destroyers, while they are very good against armored vehicles it is very vulnerable to infantry unlike tanks which can deal a lot of damage to infantry and armored units alike and also have the advantage of having much more hit points.

    • RoyalBacon24 wrote:

      I’m trying to resist being a tank user myself but I have to say, I had a feeling someone would bring up tank destroyers, while they are very good against armored vehicles it is very vulnerable to infantry unlike tanks which can deal a lot of damage to infantry and armored units alike and also have the advantage of having much more hit points.
      Maybe try a (public WW3, FP, or BGUSA (FP and BGUSA should be like taking candy from babies unless until a skilled player is using the game to do some "farming")) game in which you simply don't fight ground-vs-ground melee battles at all after about day 5-6???
      • Use Air and Artillery (with maybe a little help from Navy) to defeat all enemy ground units quickly.
      • Log in enough times per day to keep your Air (and Artillery) both busy and safe.
      • Use a high-level hospital(s) to keep your your air (and badly wounded Nat Gds) units healthy.
      • Use (low-level) Nat Guard to capture provinces and to garrison cities while the city morale is low. The city garrison NGs need to have decent health. The ground-capturing NG units can be weak.
      • Use Navy enough to keep you safe from other Navies.
      • Keep an eye on potential enemies' buildings and on the CoN News to decide who needs to get hit next by you.
      • Expand your economy quickly by capturing cities. Don't obsess over building Arm Industries.
      Then come back to tell us how things worked out (Please, tell us every few game days!).

      This outline isn't a magic incantation that guarantees victory. It is instead guidelines that an attentive player can use to perform well.

      Notice that this advice doesn't include any Armor or Infantry unit other than the ones you get initially, and the (low-level) National Guard that you mobilize.

      PS: If the game goes on long enough for enemy anti-air to become a problem (or you encounter a clever opponent who makes it a problem early) there are ways to deal with that. Google-searching the topic(s) here in the forum will turn up plenty of sound advice.
      Similarly, Cruise or Ballistic Missiles can become useful toward the end of a game, and can how to use them effectively be googled in the forum site.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by KFGauss ().

    • RoyalBacon24 wrote:

      I’m trying to resist being a tank user myself but I have to say, I had a feeling someone would bring up tank destroyers, while they are very good against armored vehicles it is very vulnerable to infantry unlike tanks which can deal a lot of damage to infantry and armored units alike and also have the advantage of having much more hit points.
      They have zero protection against Strike Fighters, can't conquer and are too expensive for a armored unit and based on what this awesome guy called "Zozo001" said, do you think someone would let their units with boosts on cities alone in the middle of the desert? Im very sure that the answer is no.

      Just don't.
      National Guards Should Not Be Underestimated 8)

      The post was edited 2 times, last by KoopKoopyGuy ().