Main Battle Tank Ranged Unit

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

    • I looked for but didn't discover the material at this link until after I had written what's below. Drat. Now that I've taken the time to write the info again, I suppose I'll leave it here.
      Improvements To Armour And Melee Units

      Once again someone seems to be mixing up the real world concept of using direct-vs-indirect fire with the gamer notion of "ranged" weapons/fire.

      Tanks (not self-propelled howitzers, etc.), with rare, generally-inaccurate, and generally-last-resort exceptions shoot at things in their line of sight, aka things they can see. This type of shooting is called "direct fire".

      Artillery of various sorts includes units that do direct-fire and "indirect-fire". The indirect-fire artillery shoot at things the gunners can't see an/or shoot over obstacles (instead of shooting through them).

      To a first approximation, these distinctions have nothing to do with the range to the target (because the Earth is curved, distance does eventually interfere with using direct fire against a target, but that's not the point here).

      In CoN, tanks engage in melee combat using a crude approximation of their direct-fire abilities, and In CoN tank's limited ability to inaccurately lob some shells over obstacles isn't modelled (and leaving that out that is 100% consistent with the rest of the game's rules). In CoN tanks (properly IMO) don't explicitly engage in indirect-fire.

      In CoN units that are explicitly artillery units are crudely simulating long-range, indirect-fire weaponry (think of big howitzers (and rocket launchers) not little man-portable mortars or something like a Javelin missile).

      In CoN the long-range, indirect-fire artillery are shooting more-or-less accurately at non-line-of-sight targets that are at ranges of 10s of miles.

      In CoN, highest-level infantry include a crude approximation of the effect of embedding some long-range, indirect-fire artillery into advanced infantry formations.

      Sure, modern tanks can shoot some rounds accurately at line-of-sight targets at single-digit kilometer ranges, but modern tanks simply aren't artillery units.

      Tanks carry big, powerful, rifled, guns but they just aren't long-range, indirect-fire artillery.

      PS: Scrubbing that game-notion of "ranged" units out of your mind for this conversation is a good idea. Except for perhaps human fists, I'm having a hard time thinking of any weapon that wouldn't be a ranged weapon when used in some games. It all depends on the size of the game's battlefield.

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

    • Teburu wrote:

      Too long, did not read.

      Not this garbage again … you want MBT with range? Literally just build Mobile Artillery.
      I don’t want a main battle tank with range, I want the range mechanic to be reworked. If you read you would realize I was suggesting a way for the tank to have range while also not being an indirect artillery piece. In its current state with 0 range the armor units absolutely suck and I would think you’d agree. We shouldn’t have units in a game that literally just suck ass. Something needs to be done, we can’t have intelligent conversations in old threads, I’m opening this thread so you all can converse with me about this.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MattBooth25 ().

    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Too long, did not read.

      Not this garbage again … you want MBT with range? Literally just build Mobile Artillery.
      I don’t want a main battle tank with range, I want the range mechanic to be reworked. If you read you would realize I was suggesting a way for the tank to have range while also not being an indirect artillery piece. In its current state with 0 range the armor units absolutely suck and I would think you’d agree. We shouldn’t have units in a game that literally just suck ass. Something needs to be done, we can’t have intelligent conversations in old threads, I’m opening this thread so you all can converse with me about this.
      Thats still an mbt with range; also doesnt make the idea any less terrible.
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      I know this topic has been discussed, I thought the damage reduction as the range increased was an interesting and new take on the situation, as I see people don’t agree.

      MattBooth25 wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Too long, did not read.

      Not this garbage again … you want MBT with range? Literally just build Mobile Artillery.
      I don’t want a main battle tank with range, I want the range mechanic to be reworked. If you read you would realize I was suggesting a way for the tank to have range while also not being an indirect artillery piece. In its current state with 0 range the armor units absolutely suck and I would think you’d agree. We shouldn’t have units in a game that literally just suck ass. Something needs to be done, we can’t have intelligent conversations in old threads, I’m opening this thread so you all can converse with me about this.
      With rare exceptions, the age of a thread only weakly or not-at-all affects the quality of what was or might be written into it.

      In fact the thread at the link I gave above covered this (Tanks with non-zero ranges would be wrong) thoroughly already.

      If you wanted to discuss reducing artillery strength at long ranges, that would be something I don't recall reading before.

    • KFGauss wrote:

      MattBooth25 wrote:

      I know this topic has been discussed, I thought the damage reduction as the range increased was an interesting and new take on the situation, as I see people don’t agree.

      MattBooth25 wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Too long, did not read.

      Not this garbage again … you want MBT with range? Literally just build Mobile Artillery.
      I don’t want a main battle tank with range, I want the range mechanic to be reworked. If you read you would realize I was suggesting a way for the tank to have range while also not being an indirect artillery piece. In its current state with 0 range the armor units absolutely suck and I would think you’d agree. We shouldn’t have units in a game that literally just suck ass. Something needs to be done, we can’t have intelligent conversations in old threads, I’m opening this thread so you all can converse with me about this.
      With rare exceptions, the age of a thread only weakly or not-at-all affects the quality of what was or might be written into it.
      In fact the thread at the link I gave above covered this (Tanks with non-zero ranges would be wrong) thoroughly already.

      If you wanted to discuss reducing artillery strength at long ranges, that would be something I don't recall reading before.
      okay, yes, if the artillery was reworked so that it did 100% damage at 0-25, 75% damage at 26-50, 50% damage at 51-75, and 25% damage at 76-100 (example stats using the multiple rocket launchers range stat) this could be a way to buff armor because in its current state we all just use arty and support units to fight each other. I don’t think that’s a fun way to play tbh.

    • Teburu wrote:

      Lowering Arty dmg would not change a single thing. Stop making low effort suggestions and actually think them through.
      I could argue that it would increase the activity required to properly use artillery, another suggestion would be not allowing artillery to use its range attack when your offline which would allow armor vehicles to get up on arty players who are afk. I would argue for this by saying the game is set up in a very much you control the units actions, if melee units won’t travel 100 range to engage a target within its radar detection without your orders, why should artillery fire at targets without your orders? These units clearly cannot think for themselves. If we left melee combat as the only combat that didn’t need your orders I could see that being a soft check for arty.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by MattBooth25 ().

    • Frankly it just sounds you dont use Artillery much, if at all.

      It is already highly dependant on activity; even a full stack of stationary Artillery will (bar a few exceptions) not kill a Melee stack of 10 before it reaches them.

      Also straight up trying to introduce new mechanics to "fix" perceived issues just is a hallmark of suggestions that havent been thought through; you probably should avoid doing that because it leaves a pretty bad first impression.
      Instead try to work within the current game mechanics, there are plently of options to pick from.

      It also seems that youre mixing up two different topics:

      1. MBT being garbage
      Tanks, and armor in general, are garbage because the damage trades is so highly unfavorable which leads to a need of frequent healing and replacements. On top of that as Melee it is highly dependent on terrain modifiers and has to get on top of the enemy which just makes it incredibly inflexible.

      2. Artillery being OP
      Artillery on the other hand is OP not only because it can deal damage without receiving any, but on top of that it can outrun pretty much any enemy unit that tries to chase it down. The attack range also allows for a far greater flexibility in engagements with the terrain playing less of a role than it does for melee.
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      Teburu wrote:


      I could argue that it would increase the activity required to properly use artillery, another suggestion would be not allowing artillery to use its range attack when your offline which would allow armor vehicles to get up on arty players who are afk. I would argue for this by saying the game is set up in a very much you control the units actions, if melee units won’t travel 100 range to engage a target within its radar detection without your orders, why should artillery fire at targets without your orders? These units clearly cannot think for themselves. If we left melee combat as the only combat that didn’t need your orders I could see that being a soft check for arty.
      That doesnt quite make sense to me. If you are at war with someone and you have lvl 6 or 7 motorized infantry, they will hit an enemy stack before it gets to them. And a stack of whatever melee unit you have will engage any enemy unit they "touch". In addition to this, Arty can only attack in sight range if you dont have radar. To me at least its like saying you cant conquer a province/ city because you didnt hit the attack button.

    • The only units in the game I currently use are:
      Moto lvl 1
      MAA lvl 4
      Mobile Radar lvl3/6
      SAM lvl 6
      Elite Railgun lvl 2
      Rocket Launcher lvl 4
      ASF lvl 4
      Striker lvl 6
      Cruiser lvl 3
      Elite sub lvl 3

      I could forget about armor completely and it wouldn’t effect my play style, but either we get every new player directed to the forums or discord to learn or just remove tanks because tanks wouldn’t be used in ww3, im tired of beating every tank player until maybe I run into an arty player. Maybe the question is what are tanks even doing in CoN WW3? Just to bait new players?

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MattBooth25 ().

    • TheWildThing wrote:

      That doesnt quite make sense to me. If you are at war with someone and you have lvl 6 or 7 motorized infantry, they will hit an enemy stack before it gets to them. And a stack of whatever melee unit you have will engage any enemy unit they "touch". In addition to this, Arty can only attack in sight range if you dont have radar. To me at least its like saying you cant conquer a province/ city because you didnt hit the attack button.
      im saying, I don’t think the ranged infrantry should be able to attack the incoming melee unit from range unless you were online to engage the armor. Yes arty is useless without radar, which is why players always build radar before arty to prevent that. You would always be able to conquer a city or province without actively hitting an “attack button” because as I stated melee combat would not need your orders. Keep in mind I don’t believe this is the proper solution anymore though.