Give ranged attack to all inf branch

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

    • Teburu wrote:

      ignore entrenchment + easily more than 100 dmg + stealth
      I was thinking that, but I didn't really want to do search.
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt
      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris

    • Anyone seen anybody using marines lately?

      And I dont really buy this SecOps are so damn good they dont need range.
      C‘mon this is a late game upgrade. Anybody who is not able the detect stealth units at day 30 deserves this slap in the face.
      I mean practically every unit can detect stealth. Even my grandmothers one eyed limping dog.
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.

    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      Anyone seen anybody using marines lately?

      And I dont really buy this SecOps are so damn good they dont need range.
      C‘mon this is a late game upgrade. Anybody who is not able the detect stealth units at day 30 deserves this slap in the face.
      I mean practically every unit can detect stealth. Even my grandmothers one eyed limping dog.
      I never see marines…I wouldn’t mind giving them something.
      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.

    • Zemunelo wrote:

      Mbt is not 1 tank either.
      Do MBTs have Artillery embeded in their unit structure? Absolutely not.
      Infrantry have Mortars, auto grenade launchers etc, and that is by themselves , not to
      Mention that Mortars were already existing in vietnam war era (supposedly lvl 1 Inf) So yes, Inf should get range and tanks don’t, either way inf damage against tanks ain’t much and MBTs have a lot of HP that they can heal quickly if you know where to place them in.

    • Zemunelo wrote:

      Mbt is not 1 tank either.
      As Samurai said, a tank has all these useful features already. They do not need a mortar for 20 range attack. Knowing that a highest tiered tank can cause 12% damage to Tanks, and 13% to Infantry. Full leveled tanks can have Chemical/Nuclear missile protection built in them. LEt alone having about I think 25-45 hp.

      Even level 1 Tanks are better (in some scenarios) than infantry with Mortar.

      And mortars have been existing in history before.

      Some tanks have built in mortars and grenade launchers on them, but we do not need them on my Abrams, Leopard 2A7, or even my T-14 Armata!
      "YES WE CAN!" - Barack Obama
      Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall! - Ronald Reagan
      We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things. John F. Kennedy
      The only thing we need to fear is fear itself. - Franklin D. Roosevelt
      Do not let anyone tell you who you are. - Kamala Harris

    • japan samurai wrote:

      Zemunelo wrote:

      Mbt is not 1 tank either.
      Do MBTs have Artillery embeded in their unit structure? Absolutely not.Infrantry have Mortars, auto grenade launchers etc, and that is by themselves , not to
      Mention that Mortars were already existing in vietnam war era (supposedly lvl 1 Inf) So yes, Inf should get range and tanks don’t, either way inf damage against tanks ain’t much and MBTs have a lot of HP that they can heal quickly if you know where to place them in.

      The Destroyer 4 wrote:

      Zemunelo wrote:

      Mbt is not 1 tank either.
      As Samurai said, a tank has all these useful features already. They do not need a mortar for 20 range attack. Knowing that a highest tiered tank can cause 12% damage to Tanks, and 13% to Infantry. Full leveled tanks can have Chemical/Nuclear missile protection built in them. LEt alone having about I think 25-45 hp.
      Even level 1 Tanks are better (in some scenarios) than infantry with Mortar.

      And mortars have been existing in history before.

      Some tanks have built in mortars and grenade launchers on them, but we do not need them on my Abrams, Leopard 2A7, or even my T-14 Armata!
      Guys,

      The mortars you are referring to (unless you meant to (but didn't) discuss self-propelled howitzers and similar sorts of vehicles) would not have a range that's even remotely close to what 25 represents in the CoN game.

      So . . . That kind-of makes the small infantry mortars and small mortar-y sorts of launchers on tanks irrelevant in this conversation.

      In this game, a unit that can fire on other units that are 25 away is using some (real or imagined) powerful indirect-fire weaponry, not little "man-portable" mortars or grenade launchers.

      Does that make sense?

    • The Destroyer 4 wrote:

      Zemunelo wrote:

      Mbt is not 1 tank either.
      As Samurai said, a tank has all these useful features already. They do not need a mortar for 20 range attack. Knowing that a highest tiered tank can cause 12% damage to Tanks, and 13% to Infantry. Full leveled tanks can have Chemical/Nuclear missile protection built in them. LEt alone having about I think 25-45 hp.
      Even level 1 Tanks are better (in some scenarios) than infantry with Mortar.

      And mortars have been existing in history before.

      Some tanks have built in mortars and grenade launchers on them, but we do not need them on my Abrams, Leopard 2A7, or even my T-14 Armata!
      No to Russia. Russia evil. Russia bad. Russia horrible. T 14 bad no matter what their propaganda says.
      TANKERS
      #StandWithUkraine
      "A true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." G.K. Chesteron

    • japan samurai wrote:

      Then again you can engage enemies away at possible range of 5 if you do some exploiting, this is a game afterall and going by you’re [sic] logic that means Mot inf shouldn’t have any mortar range.
      Exploits??? By that I suppose you mean that you think you know a way to subvert the designers' intent. How does describing an exploit turn into a way to promote an opinion about anything other than recommending removing the exploit?

      My [KFG] logic means Mot Inf shouldn't have any Mortar range??? I honestly have no idea how that assertion connects to anything I wrote or to any of the game mechanics.

    • Tbh everything should have a range of 100… I am pretty sure if you fire your rifle/ tank gun/ grenade it can travel far…
      If this continues I am gonna request himars to be able to fire when in a transport ship state too….
      TANKERS
      #StandWithUkraine
      "A true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." G.K. Chesteron

    • KFGauss wrote:

      japan samurai wrote:

      Zemunelo wrote:

      Mbt is not 1 tank either.
      Do MBTs have Artillery embeded in their unit structure? Absolutely not.Infrantry have Mortars, auto grenade launchers etc, and that is by themselves , not toMention that Mortars were already existing in vietnam war era (supposedly lvl 1 Inf) So yes, Inf should get range and tanks don’t, either way inf damage against tanks ain’t much and MBTs have a lot of HP that they can heal quickly if you know where to place them in.

      The Destroyer 4 wrote:

      Zemunelo wrote:

      Mbt is not 1 tank either.
      As Samurai said, a tank has all these useful features already. They do not need a mortar for 20 range attack. Knowing that a highest tiered tank can cause 12% damage to Tanks, and 13% to Infantry. Full leveled tanks can have Chemical/Nuclear missile protection built in them. LEt alone having about I think 25-45 hp.Even level 1 Tanks are better (in some scenarios) than infantry with Mortar.

      And mortars have been existing in history before.

      Some tanks have built in mortars and grenade launchers on them, but we do not need them on my Abrams, Leopard 2A7, or even my T-14 Armata!
      Guys,
      The mortars you are referring to (unless you meant to (but didn't) discuss self-propelled howitzers and similar sorts of vehicles) would not have a range that's even remotely close to what 25 represents in the CoN game.

      So . . . That kind-of makes the small infantry mortars and small mortar-y sorts of launchers on tanks irrelevant in this conversation.

      In this game, a unit that can fire on other units that are 25 away is using some (real or imagined) powerful indirect-fire weaponry, not little "man-portable" mortars or grenade launchers.

      Does that make sense?

      KFGauss wrote:

      japan samurai wrote:

      Then again you can engage enemies away at possible range of 5 if you do some exploiting, this is a game afterall and going by you’re [sic] logic that means Mot inf shouldn’t have any mortar range.
      Exploits??? By that I suppose you mean that you think you know a way to subvert the designers' intent. How does describing an exploit turn into a way to promote an opinion about anything other than recommending removing the exploit?
      My [KFG] logic means Mot Inf shouldn't have any Mortar range??? I honestly have no idea how that assertion connects to anything I wrote or to any of the game mechanics.
      Infantry not having mortar range is ridiculous. Motorized infantry get ranged attacks on level 6.

      If they didn’t, they would be like a goldfish, not able to get out of their tank. (Nothing to do with tanks btw)
      Besides, it makes the game more realistic.