Modify healing rate to ground units.

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

    • Modify healing rate to ground units.

      Greetings to all. Nice to be here.

      I have played the Game for short time and i like it, but i have some issues about ground units healing process.

      Taking for example an infantry battalion. It takes roughly 20 hours to build it, could be less, of course, but take these hours. That's means i need 20 hours to develop 15 HP for an infantry level 1.

      If from a combat it loses 14 hp, in the actual mechanics the batallion requires 13 days to heal. It is a very large time considering that a game could last 40 or 50 days (My experience)

      If we manage to build a 5 lv hospital, it will take only 3 days, that is more acceptable, but... guys! if i need 20 hours to build this battalion from zero, why i need 3 days to heal it?

      Of course, i can put it on a ship, but it is only 2 hp/day, so, it is the same problem.

      This is for me a big issue because we have no options to disband but it will consume resources for maintenance while is not doing anything. The option is send the unit to die but it affects the stats. And i play avoiding loses.

      So, i dare to write this because i have seen that devs are active here.


      I suggest to change the healing mechanics to this way:

      Proposal 1
      Use a 10% of unit hp per hour.

      Proposal 2
      Use the minimum unit to heal in the same time it requires to build. For example, if an moto infantry lv 1 requires 20 hours, we divide 15 HP/20 hours, so, the heal rate will be 0.75 HP/hour. Because units HP have only one decimal, the rate could be 0.7 or 0.8.

      In both proposals we must consider:

      1. The units requires hospital to heal. No more healing in plain cities of the outrageous cheat of healing in transports.

      2. Each additional level of a hospital could add 0.1 HP/hour to the healing rate. In the example, a hospital level 5 will heal:

      0.8 lv 1 plus 0.4 the sum of the next four levels. That is 1.1 hp/hour. So, 14 hp/1.1 HP/hour gives 12 hours and 40 minutes.

      I think that this have more sense for the game than be charged with useless wound units.

      If this represent too much, a disband button could be an option.

    • First of all, let me be first to give you a "like" and a hearty "Welcome to the Forum, glad to have you"

      Now, let me comment on your idea.

      I personally don't find it necessary. I only use infantry for sopping up empty territory, so it doesn't matter to me whether the soldier has 15 hp or 0.1 - both will sop up territory equally well. Secondly, I think your proposal would doom Military Hospitals levels 2-4. Who in their right mind is going to waste all those resources on a 0.1 bump in healing.

      No, I think this idea (while prompted by sound logic) needs re-examined.
      *** 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:

      First of all, let me be first to give you a "like" and a hearty "Welcome to the Forum, glad to have you"

      Now, let me comment on your idea.

      I personally don't find it necessary. I only use infantry for sopping up empty territory, so it doesn't matter to me whether the soldier has 15 hp or 0.1 - both will sop up territory equally well. Secondly, I think your proposal would doom Military Hospitals levels 2-4. Who in their right mind is going to waste all those resources on a 0.1 bump in healing.

      No, I think this idea (while prompted by sound logic) needs re-examined.
      Thanks for the welcome.

      Well, i used the infantry as a example, but just now i'm playing a new ww3 map. I send two divisions using in each one a CRV with infantry to attack two IA countries. I was succesful, i don't lose anything but my CRV received heavy damage. That's was in day 1, now i'm day 4 My CRV are healing but far to be useful again.

      I'm a fan of air dominance, so, when the days advance, i switch to strikers and i have no need to heal units more than planes, but in this map i'm trying a more ground based game, just for fun, but i found the healing "problem" (at least for me) very worring. What happend if we talk about a MBT with 44 HP loses? Without hospital it requires 44 days! With lv5 hospital it requires 9 days. It is too much.

      I think that my idea could generate some skepticism and yes, 0.1 is quite low, but it can be reworked using 0.2 instead of 0.1

      Hospital / healing rate / time
      No hospital / 0 HP / no heal
      Lv 1 / 0.8 HP / 20 hours
      Lv 2 / 1.0 HP / 15 hours
      Lv 3 / 1.2 / 12 hours and half
      Lv 4 / 1.4 / 10 hours and about 40 mins.
      Lv 5 / 1.6 / 9 hours and about 20 mins.

      Of course, lv 4 and 5 seems doomed but, from lv 3 to lv 5 there is a reduction of 3 hours. So, if i want to gain this reduction i need to build lv 4.

      This could be beneficial to people who prefer to play with ground units. Remember that you need to redeploy the units to cities with hospital or a field hospital, so, the time is increased with the distance.

      Of course, this apply to field hospitals.

      The other proposal is based on base health, so there is another way similar to actual mechanics:

      Hospital / healing rate / time
      No hospital / 1.5 HP / 10 days
      Lv 1 / 10% / 3.0 HP / 5 days
      Lv 2 / 20% / 4.5 HP / 3 days and about 8 hours.
      Lv 3 / 30% / 6 hp / 2 days and 12 hours.
      Lv 4 / 40 % / 7.5 hp / 2 days.
      Lv 5 / 50% / 9 hp / 1 day and about 15 hours.

      This way is quite similar to actual healing rate but it is the same rate for all units, no matter if it is a tank or infantry. Now, the time problem is present, because with no hospital, a unit is unavailable almost 1/5 of an average game.

    • Kaiservar wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      First of all, let me be first to give you a "like" and a hearty "Welcome to the Forum, glad to have you"

      Now, let me comment on your idea.

      I personally don't find it necessary. I only use infantry for sopping up empty territory, so it doesn't matter to me whether the soldier has 15 hp or 0.1 - both will sop up territory equally well. Secondly, I think your proposal would doom Military Hospitals levels 2-4. Who in their right mind is going to waste all those resources on a 0.1 bump in healing.

      No, I think this idea (while prompted by sound logic) needs re-examined.
      Thanks for the welcome.
      Well, i used the infantry as a example, but just now i'm playing a new ww3 map. I send two divisions using in each one a CRV with infantry to attack two IA countries. I was succesful, i don't lose anything but my CRV received heavy damage. That's was in day 1, now i'm day 4 My CRV are healing but far to be useful again.

      I'm a fan of air dominance, so, when the days advance, i switch to strikers and i have no need to heal units more than planes, but in this map i'm trying a more ground based game, just for fun, but i found the healing "problem" (at least for me) very worring. What happend if we talk about a MBT with 44 HP loses? Without hospital it requires 44 days! With lv5 hospital it requires 9 days. It is too much.

      I think that my idea could generate some skepticism and yes, 0.1 is quite low, but it can be reworked using 0.2 instead of 0.1

      Hospital / healing rate / time
      No hospital / 0 HP / no heal
      Lv 1 / 0.8 HP / 20 hours
      Lv 2 / 1.0 HP / 15 hours
      Lv 3 / 1.2 / 12 hours and half
      Lv 4 / 1.4 / 10 hours and about 40 mins.
      Lv 5 / 1.6 / 9 hours and about 20 mins.

      Of course, lv 4 and 5 seems doomed but, from lv 3 to lv 5 there is a reduction of 3 hours. So, if i want to gain this reduction i need to build lv 4.

      This could be beneficial to people who prefer to play with ground units. Remember that you need to redeploy the units to cities with hospital or a field hospital, so, the time is increased with the distance.

      Of course, this apply to field hospitals.

      The other proposal is based on base health, so there is another way similar to actual mechanics:

      Hospital / healing rate / time
      No hospital / 1.5 HP / 10 days
      Lv 1 / 10% / 3.0 HP / 5 days
      Lv 2 / 20% / 4.5 HP / 3 days and about 8 hours.
      Lv 3 / 30% / 6 hp / 2 days and 12 hours.
      Lv 4 / 40 % / 7.5 hp / 2 days.
      Lv 5 / 50% / 9 hp / 1 day and about 15 hours.

      This way is quite similar to actual healing rate but it is the same rate for all units, no matter if it is a tank or infantry. Now, the time problem is present, because with no hospital, a unit is unavailable almost 1/5 of an average game.
      2. Stacking multiple units of the same time accelerates healing
      e.g.: 2 motorized Inf in a city with lvl 5 hospital will heal 2x6 HP per day.

      3. Coastal waters can also be used to heal units; especially useful for mbts for example

      The current system is not really problematic in that regard that using the „proper“ units to fight you will either take very little damage (aircraft for example) or none at all (units with ranged attack)
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • Kaiservar wrote:

      . . .
      if i need 20 hours to build this battalion from zero, why i need 3 days to heal it?
      . . .
      a disband button could be an option.
      I think that you know the answer to your first question - The game works this way because the Devs think that using Hospital buildings to heal units in that way makes the game more fun, not because it has any connection to how the real world might work. That probably means that change suggestion based on making the game more fun will have the best chance of making an impression on the devs.

      I've wanted a disband option, but not for the reason you listed. I don't think I would ever disband a unit (and thereby throw away the resources that unit represents) that will become useful so long as I just wait a while.

    • well the reason is sounding, but the details and execution need to be ping pong around.

      Ground unit has issues when it comes to healing due to lack of mobility by nature, giving them healing boost is reasonable suggest.

      tho it shouldn't highly buffed, It need to still be more convenient to have high lv hospital distance from frontline worth it.

      so here my spin around the suggestion.
      - Melee unit with HP above 90% will have healing 10% HP/day added. for recovering light damage and give it high immunity against low damage attack.
      - give Melee unit flat multiplier for healing at hospital. so it doesn't benefit already buffed aircraft.
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD

    • There is at least one more problem with your options.

      1. imagine stack of lets say tank, motorized infantry, national guard, point defense and mlrs defending the city and you trying to soften it up with
      artillery ... artillery deals dmg each hour, so if it doesnt reach 10% of hp of stack it becomes pretty much immortal + due to counterfire from mlrs its doomed to loose

      2. same problem. if stack has lets say 6 different units and they heal at this rate, stack becomes pretty much immortal to softening

      I suggest getting one high lvl hospital, especially effective with airpower. From my own experience I attack country with lets say 6 stacks, after end of day each stack is on verge of loosing one striker, in evening I send them all to lvl 5 hospital and by midnight next day they are usually ready to go for other country fully healed. Good hospital and mixed stacks to mitigate damage is an essence.

      Kaiservar wrote:

      This is for me a big issue because we have no options to disband but it will consume resources for maintenance while is not doing anything.
      Not exactly. While damaged unit isnt as effective as new one, it defends city its stationed in. Imagine the difference there is an airmobile infantry dropping on empty city and city with lets say stack of combat reckon, national guard and motorized being healed there.

    • for my suggestion, there is no ground unit with less them 10 HP. (except the stupid ugv). and it's work together with the city healing rate.

      for OG post, eh yeah i guess it's overboard fast, but he kinda try counter it with hospital requirements. u can't just build it everywhere right?
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD

    • Zefyros22 wrote:

      There is at least one more problem with your options.

      1. imagine stack of lets say tank, motorized infantry, national guard, point defense and mlrs defending the city and you trying to soften it up with
      artillery ... artillery deals dmg each hour, so if it doesnt reach 10% of hp of stack it becomes pretty much immortal + due to counterfire from mlrs its doomed to loose

      2. same problem. if stack has lets say 6 different units and they heal at this rate, stack becomes pretty much immortal to softening

      I suggest getting one high lvl hospital, especially effective with airpower. From my own experience I attack country with lets say 6 stacks, after end of day each stack is on verge of loosing one striker, in evening I send them all to lvl 5 hospital and by midnight next day they are usually ready to go for other country fully healed. Good hospital and mixed stacks to mitigate damage is an essence.

      Kaiservar wrote:

      This is for me a big issue because we have no options to disband but it will consume resources for maintenance while is not doing anything.
      Not exactly. While damaged unit isnt as effective as new one, it defends city its stationed in. Imagine the difference there is an airmobile infantry dropping on empty city and city with lets say stack of combat reckon, national guard and motorized being healed there.
      Units dont get healing while in combat.
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • Thanks allí for your feedback.

      Well i will go in parts.

      To Teburu:

      "The current system is not really problematic in that regard that using the „proper“ units to fight you will either take very little damage (aircraft for example) or none at all (units with ranged attack)"

      One of the things that i like of CoN is the deep of it. You can play combined arms. Ok, ranged attack is good, but as long as i had seen, it is more near to an "arcade" game than a strategy one with the deep of CoN from my personal perspective, of course, that's not a bad thing, it is only far from my style of game.

      In my last game a coalition partner grouped a full stack of infantry and another full stack of SAMs. While it was impossible to defeat the SAM stack with fighters and the infantry could do a heavy blow to strikers stacks, i was thinking "what about choppers?" And full stacks of maybe MBT? or even CRV?

      Worse, it leaved his cities undefended. Of course, we was the only serious power in the map, but i had seen many videos of people using stacks of MRLS with radars playing shoot and scoot. Maybe in a prívate map it could be efficient, idk, but in the public maps, where resources are scarce, if i do stacks like these, i need to sacrifice some other units.

      I would not have rocks to defeat sissors, because i only build paper.

      Anyway, although melee is not the best option in this game, the fact is that in front of a player who build a combined army, melee is not only probable but unavoidable. The problem that many people have with melee is that is not efficient and it is not efficient because healing procces for ground units take too much time.

      To KFGauss

      "I think that you know the answer to your first question - The game works this way because the Devs think that using Hospital buildings to heal units in that way makes the game more fun, not because it has any connection to how the real world might work. That probably means that change suggestion based on making the game more fun will have the best chance of making an impression on the devs."

      I agree. My suggestion goes just to fun. I want to play more ground based game: more tanks, more infantry, artillery (not only MRLS). There is plenty of possiblities to play and have fun. I want to try air assault, for example, but with the actual healing process is almost impossible to do it because the attiction is overwhelming. This not happen with aircraft because with only a lv2 hospital you can heal the units and return to the figth. For me is boring, because it is a "winner formula" just like MRLS/Radar combo is.

      Zefyross22

      About empty cities or occupated by healing units.

      Yes, of course, it is better to have half or less than half unit than nothing, but think this (from my experience): in an intense map where you are fighting many fronts and enemies (without options to do peace), conquer and subdue cities is very hard because the insurgents. They spam full healthy, so, if my wounded units are there, i could lose the city.

      But not only from insurgents but enemy too. If the enemy counterattack, i would not have units capable to hold the ground. That requires move double units per city captured: for the initial advance and for the garrison. That's ok, i send reserve units behind to cover the "loses" but the problem is that my wounded units must travel back many hours, maybe days to reach a lv 5 hospital (rare for me, i usually uses lv 3 for striker healing) and then, await there for many days.

      About this:

      "1. imagine stack of lets say tank, motorized infantry, national guard, point defense and mlrs defending the city and you trying to soften it up with
      artillery ... artillery deals dmg each hour, so if it doesnt reach 10% of hp of stack it becomes pretty much immortal + due to counterfire from mlrs its doomed to loose"

      A way to solve this is a counter. If there is no attack for two or even 3 hours, healing could begin. If the unit is healing but receive a hit, the counter would be reset to zero.

    • Thats… wow.

      1. Resources in in publics are not that scarce that you have to sacrifice a lot just do be able to do artillery; in general you dont need an incredibly high variety of units to begin with.
      And if you use Arty then fighting in Melee is 100% avoidable

      2. Melee is not considered inefficient because of „slow healing“; Healing is actually one of the least worries to have when using melee. Its that Melee in general is an incredibly suboptimal way of fighting.


      You want to play more ground based like Infantry and MBT? Then changing how healing works will accomplish NOTHING to make that a more viable of a strategy.

      The more I read of what you write, the more Im starting to think that you:

      - aren’t actually that experienced, because while manage to repeat common talking points you seemingly fail to understand the deeper logic behind them
      - you did not actually think through your idea because simply healing faster wont make Melee suddenly „viable“

      While in general I can somewhat agree that for individual units healing is incredibly slow; stacking neatly solves that problem, especially late-game.
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • 1. Resources in in publics are not that scarce that you have to sacrifice a lot just do be able to do artillery; in general you dont need an incredibly high variety of units to begin with.
      And if you use Arty then fighting in Melee is 100% avoidable

      Yes, i would agree that i'm not so experienced, but it doesn't negates that healing is so slow that melee is inefficient, but if healing was more quickly the melee could be more practical

      First of all, no one could stay 24 x 24 overseeing the game. Sometimes you need to leave units moving to a target. You can't do this with aircraft, not because it was impossible, but is not secure.

      If you want to capture a city with airport, any kind of bombing is totally inefficient. And if the city is defended, what must be do? Melee.

      About resources, yes they are scarce. If you want to build MRLS You need army base lv4. This is an expensive invest to build these artillery

      Happens that in public maps many people abandon or focus only on ground units without artillery or Anti air defense, so, it is easy to defeat them with strikers or artillery. The problem is when you found someone that balance their cards.

      And my friend... I doubt the devs spend time and money developing a game with so many ground units only to do a "winner formula" with MRLS or even strikers. The problem is that ground units are less available in a figth because when they loses HP it loses capacity. And recover them is a very slow process if we compare to a plane or even a ship.

      Of course, this is my point of view. I'm curious about why you consider melee suboptimal, because for me, is the damage received vs healing time. This affects availability.
      <span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.1);">

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

    • Kaiservar wrote:

      Thanks allí for your feedback.

      Well i will go in parts.

      To Teburu:

      "The current system is not really problematic in that regard that using the „proper“ units to fight you will either take very little damage (aircraft for example) or none at all (units with ranged attack)"

      One of the things that i like of CoN is the deep of it. You can play combined arms. Ok, ranged attack is good, but as long as i had seen, it is more near to an "arcade" game than a strategy one with the deep of CoN from my personal perspective, of course, that's not a bad thing, it is only far from my style of game.

      In my last game a coalition partner grouped a full stack of infantry and another full stack of SAMs. While it was impossible to defeat the SAM stack with fighters and the infantry could do a heavy blow to strikers stacks, i was thinking "what about choppers?" And full stacks of maybe MBT? or even CRV?

      Worse, it leaved his cities undefended. Of course, we was the only serious power in the map, but i had seen many videos of people using stacks of MRLS with radars playing shoot and scoot. Maybe in a prívate map it could be efficient, idk, but in the public maps, where resources are scarce, if i do stacks like these, i need to sacrifice some other units.

      I would not have rocks to defeat sissors, because i only build paper.

      Anyway, although melee is not the best option in this game, the fact is that in front of a player who build a combined army, melee is not only probable but unavoidable. The problem that many people have with melee is that is not efficient and it is not efficient because healing procces for ground units take too much time.

      To KFGauss

      "I think that you know the answer to your first question - The game works this way because the Devs think that using Hospital buildings to heal units in that way makes the game more fun, not because it has any connection to how the real world might work. That probably means that change suggestion based on making the game more fun will have the best chance of making an impression on the devs."

      I agree. My suggestion goes just to fun. I want to play more ground based game: more tanks, more infantry, artillery (not only MRLS). There is plenty of possiblities to play and have fun. I want to try air assault, for example, but with the actual healing process is almost impossible to do it because the attiction is overwhelming. This not happen with aircraft because with only a lv2 hospital you can heal the units and return to the figth. For me is boring, because it is a "winner formula" just like MRLS/Radar combo is.

      Zefyross22

      About empty cities or occupated by healing units.

      Yes, of course, it is better to have half or less than half unit than nothing, but think this (from my experience): in an intense map where you are fighting many fronts and enemies (without options to do peace), conquer and subdue cities is very hard because the insurgents. They spam full healthy, so, if my wounded units are there, i could lose the city.

      But not only from insurgents but enemy too. If the enemy counterattack, i would not have units capable to hold the ground. That requires move double units per city captured: for the initial advance and for the garrison. That's ok, i send reserve units behind to cover the "loses" but the problem is that my wounded units must travel back many hours, maybe days to reach a lv 5 hospital (rare for me, i usually uses lv 3 for striker healing) and then, await there for many days.

      About this:

      "1. imagine stack of lets say tank, motorized infantry, national guard, point defense and mlrs defending the city and you trying to soften it up with
      artillery ... artillery deals dmg each hour, so if it doesnt reach 10% of hp of stack it becomes pretty much immortal + due to counterfire from mlrs its doomed to loose"

      A way to solve this is a counter. If there is no attack for two or even 3 hours, healing could begin. If the unit is healing but receive a hit, the counter would be reset to zero.
      I vehemently disagree that your suggestion goes to fun (not the suggestion that it is illogical healing takes longer than building-that's totally valid) I for one don't want increased melee. I hate and lament any time I am forced to participate in melee while I am building real units. Anything increasing melee is massively LESS fun.
      *** 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:

      Anything increasing melee is massively LESS fun.

      Can i ask why? Just curiousity. I see that it is unpopular, but i don't know why.


      Because it is inefficient. The idea is to inflict damage on the enemy without sustaining damage to yourself. Choosing melee is like having a lion charging at you, and having a table in front of you with a sword and a .577 elephant gun on it and picking the sword. I ask you, how fun is getting mauled by a lion?
      *** 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:

      Because it is inefficient. The idea is to inflict damage on the enemy without sustaining damage to yourself. Choosing melee is like having a lion charging at you, and having a table in front of you with a sword and a .577 elephant gun on it and picking the sword. I ask you, how fun is getting mauled by a lion?
      Supremacy exist and still running
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD