Balancing help needed for Missiles and WMDs

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

    • Balancing help needed for Missiles and WMDs

      Hi guys,

      Your trusted CoN Crew could really use help on missiles and their usage effects in game vs simple math models here in studio.

      Our biggest issue right now is that it seems many players don't understand or see the difference between tactical missiles and WMDs like the Cruise Missile and strategic ones like BMs or ICBMs. This leads to frustration and a letdown after launching their first WMD.

      Basically, we could even consider shifting WMDs to BMs and ICBMs and alter the Cruises a bit to be conventional only, simulating anti ship and anti armor missiles.

      Additionally, the question is: what to do with the Boomers aka Ballistic Missile Boats. Are you using them?
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • From my experience, it seems like people just don't think it's worth it to make missiles. I disagree, but lots of people don't look into missiles very much. First of all, change the name of the warhead when mobilizing. People glaze over it and think you only make one warhead at a time, which would make them useless. Second of all, causalities. Cruise missiles are expensive because they hit a single target accurately, if they kill half a city population level while barely being able to take out a Western tank (talking fully leveled) I don't think that anyone should use them unless they don't mind dealing with terrible morale in cities. Third of all, damage. As said in the sentence above, the damage isn't that good. You can try and spam multiple rockets with something like a 4 striker group or a heavy bomber but if you're fighting a competent opponent with SAMs following behind half those missiles could easily be toast. And if they do hit, you've spent the components for half a tank just to damage one or two stacks.

      I don't think i've used enough WMDs to talk about them but I'm not sure how attractive getting half the world to turn on you is.
    • I would not change Cruise missiles to specific missiles for Anti Ship etc, I like them how they are. However they are very expensive. Ballistic missiles and ICBMs are too, and I dont seem to find much use for nuclear ICBMs at the moment. They are extremely expensive, and for me I prefer to move fast and dont like making wars last long. Ballistic missiles I tend to use more of, I love the ballistic missiles, and will use both conventional and chemical warheads whenever the situation calls and sometimes nukes if I get the right target, however often I may not find it justifiable to use Nuclear ICBMs. I love the subs, and would hate to see any harm come to them
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • Don't think you can do much to change people who don't understand for what purpose missiles classes are - pain is the best teacher. Perhaps you could add more description and tell more about it in tutorial. I like the idea of separate anti-ship missiles, yeah I like it a lot - no more multi purpose warheads, you have to plan more, make some reserves. But I don't believe there should be specific anti armour (I believe you are thinking about missile specific to hit "hard" land targets) class. At the end you have conventional warhead for hard targets and chemical for soft (plus multi purpose nukes). Perhaps warheads in general do too much damage to the cities and population [especially conventional bc people should understand that chemical (for population) and nuclear (for all) weapon can't affect population in small degree, indeed it has to inflict heavy damage]. So now it is not so easy to get through anti missile cover but when you do it can be really devastating. But I believe from my experience it is too hard to get through ships (I'm talking about those frickin frigates anti missile wall) anti missile cover to hit them - you have to overwhelm them in specific time so you need many, many missiles shot at them > so you need many, many missiles launchers (in general, not those land units called launchers).
    • Eternus wrote:

      Don't think you can do much to change people who don't understand for what purpose missiles classes are - pain is the best teacher. Perhaps you could add more description and tell more about it in tutorial. I like the idea of separate anti-ship missiles, yeah I like it a lot - no more multi purpose warheads, you have to plan more, make some reserves. But I don't believe there should be specific anti armour (I believe you are thinking about missile specific to hit "hard" land targets) class. At the end you have conventional warhead for hard targets and chemical for soft (plus multi purpose nukes). Perhaps warheads in general do too much damage to the cities and population [especially conventional bc people should understand that chemical (for population) and nuclear (for all) weapon can't affect population in small degree, indeed it has to inflict heavy damage]. So now it is not so easy to get through anti missile cover but when you do it can be really devastating. But I believe from my experience it is too hard to get through ships (I'm talking about those frickin frigates anti missile wall) anti missile cover to hit them - you have to overwhelm them in specific time so you need many, many missiles shot at them > so you need many, many missiles launchers (in general, not those land units called launchers).
      Id rather see an Anti - Ship warhead rather than a new missile. And the AS Warhead only be used on cruise missiles

      but then again... hmm

      Yea, frigates are hard to get through, but if they isolated. Sneaking a sub up on them, engaging with the subs normal weapons. Then firing a cruise missile is really easy.. The issue is when the frigate is with a destroyer and a cruiser...
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • Eternus wrote:

      yeah, it could be specific warhead - it is detail. Just something specific for sinking ships would be nice ]:->

      Again yeah, especially when there are even more frigates in stack = pain.
      yea.. when u see them frigates.. "damit I have to get close now and use guns"
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • Eternus wrote:

      well it is sort of frigate reason of existence but IMHO frigates AA ability is too much OP now.
      I dont really mind. Just maybe if their heli damage was a bit lower
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • In the interests of flexibility, if we're talking about an anti-ship warhead, can it also be usable against submarines (though perhaps at a different damage rate)? ASROC and Ikara were stand-off ship-launched ASW weapons, and I think systems like these might introduce another dimension to submarine warfare.
      "The enemy cannot push a button, if you disable his hand."
      Sergeant Zim, Terran Federation
    • D

      RasczakRough wrote:

      In the interests of flexibility, if we're talking about an anti-ship warhead, can it also be usable against submarines (though perhaps at a different damage rate)? ASROC and Ikara were stand-off ship-launched ASW weapons, and I think systems like these might introduce another dimension to submarine warfare.
      Definitely not, we dont want subs to end up like CoW where bombers were useless against them cos their AA was soo strong which was soo unrealistic and a pain...

      I think the ASW Weapons wont need a new warhead, ASW Helis only can do damage to sub and surface ships
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu
    • Germanico wrote:

      Frigs will get nerfed. Soon(tm)
      I will place my thoughts into a separate thread on this to save everyone a lot of pain.

      I use conv.CM's heavily and so far it seems to be against players who don't know the benefit of having a proper anti-air/missile defense in their territory. That being said I find that it takes approx. 2 missiles to level a city with 3 units so I can come in and take it without a fight. On rare occasions I send in 3 just to get the job done, but the math on how much damage is needed to kill a stack (even factoring in the 25%) is generally very easy. I am in agreement with those who don't see the need for a change (damage-wise) I think the solution to the majority of "unit use" problems could be cured with an OPTIONAL tutorial. A simple message saying hey, click this small icon for a more in depth look at game features. Sure it's work, but I am of the mindset that players simply don't know what they don't know.

      20,40,30 ConvCM, 75,50,15 BioCM 101,150,60 NukeCM. A quick look at the numbers of the level 1 ConvCM. The CM will do HEAVY damage to any lvl 1 target it hits, which is accurate IRL too, using more than one makes sense because like IRL they're meant for single targets (usually buildings or entrenched unit that's not going to do much moving.)

      Here is where I would make changes (if that's really necessary) The conventional vs tank types and ships could be upped because conventional is exactly what you'd send IRL. You'd want something like a guaranteed kill on 1 target if there was no missile defense in play. The bio effect vs tank types should be lowered to that of ships. (It's a sealed vehicle, bio would have lesser effects AND this creates a functionality role between the Conventional and Bio CM's)

      Finally the nuke CM, this is more or less obvious, it should devastate an entire stack (Ship should be upped to 30-50 because although ships stay relatively spread out, a nuke going off would still rock their world,) but here's where it could be improved on. Even if it's shot out of the sky, there should be a small radius of damage and fallout (15dmg?) These research-wise are expensive and although I don't know the expense mobilization-wise vs effectiveness because I haven't tried it yet, I would think that it would balance.


      The only other change I would argue is the air firing method. It's currently a 360 and realistically a cruise missile can only be fired in a forward facing 180 arc. With that being said, since the limitations are added to firing, the target fired at shouldn't have to be attacked. A weapon systems person can dial in any coord within the arc and send a missile that way. It's really set it and forget it, then on to the next threat. I would like to see the ability to drop a CM on the way to another target.

      I hope my thoughts are insightful. Any disagreement/discussion is most welcome, especially if you've had a hand in bio and nuke play with the CM.
      -Nobody cares about the Alpha, it's all decided by the Omega.
    • I definitely like the optional tutorial.
      In the last game I played, I used conventional cruise missiles...liberally...to take out enemy ground stacks and reduce my casualties. I've never been attacked by them, so I don't really understand how air defense impacts them. Maybe if we want to stress how air defense can take them out, fighters should have some small anti-cruise missile (not ballistic missile or ICBM) capability?

      I don't always pay such close attention to damage stats, so I don't feel qualified to comment on those.

      You're right about firing arcs from aircrafts. However, I've seen a lot of images and some video of cruise missiles being launched perpendicular to or in less normal (please pardon the math pun) directions relative to the launching unit's direction of travel, so I don't think that'd be a great limitation to apply to land-based launchers, frigates, destroyers, cruisers, SSNs, and SSBNs. I also wish an aircraft could launch a CM at a target while en route to or from a different target.
      "The enemy cannot push a button, if you disable his hand."
      Sergeant Zim, Terran Federation
    • Cruise missiles are supposed to aim something. Not devastating the whole country. Conventional warhead shouldn't destroy cities, instead of aiming them specifically.
      And TDS must be way more efficient.
      Actually, the game is just : some missile launchers (airstrike, submarines) to destroy everything, and single infantry or airborne to capture cities.
      I don't build anymore artillery, AA, helicopters, fighters, spec ops etc, because they are just useless in front of cruise missiles.
      Frexit
    • good point but can't agree on whole. One guy wanted to missile me to hell - he didn't bc I had enough area aa. Also now with rebels mechanic you can devastate country, but can't hold it with only some airmobiles (well you couldn't before either but now taking it back/later is also more difficult). Many units are pointless to be mustered, but not bc of missiles but bc of those units costs/stats. For example I don't ever build tanks, tank destroyers, artillery. Fighters are good but on higher levels or on start to have some air cover/spoting units. Helos are underrated by players, thought they could have radar for gameplay purposes (but smaller than airplanes) - btw many units lack radar like stealth airplanes (it crumble their effectiveness highly making them practically pointless to be build). Theater defence is good, simply there is a need to have the numbers when you want to have good air/anti missile defence. What pains me is that first area anti missile unit has so big requirements to be build - when I have that ability I do the best AA bc I only need a little more infrastructure and it's a lot better in stats. Only pro of that previous unit is to make it airmobile in time (practically useless if not facing very good opponent). Personally I would nerf that unit and make it faster to build (in terms of needed infrastructure) so it would be good for operational (one city or unit stack) air/missile defence but for strategic defence TDS would still rock.