Reverse Cruise missiles and Balistic missiles

Kristovi · May 31st 2017, 7:39pm

I think the Cruise missiles comes too early in the game. Mostly, you can rush on it and destroy everything from airplanes and boats. Even before opponents can afford missiles defense systems.
Balistics launchers are slow and useless in compareason.
Historicaly, balistics missiles were invented first.While Cruise missiles are much more sophisticated.
I suggest to allow Cruise missiles research at day 11 and Balistics at day 2.
That way, if you want to use missiles at the very begining you'll have to build missiles launchers. And your planes and boats will act like planes and boats, not just as missiles plateforms.

Oceanhawk · May 31st 2017, 9:42pm

Kristovi wrote:

I think the Cruise missiles comes too early in the game. Mostly, you can rush on it and destroy everything from airplanes and boats. Even before opponents can afford missiles defense systems.
Balistics launchers are slow and useless in compareason.
Historicaly, balistics missiles were invented first.While Cruise missiles are much more sophisticated.
I suggest to allow Cruise missiles research at day 11 and Balistics at day 2.
That way, if you want to use missiles at the very begining you'll have to build missiles launchers. And your planes and boats will act like planes and boats, not just as missiles plateforms.

Just no....

Kristovi · May 31st 2017, 10:00pm

In other way, I'm right but the idea to change something you are acustomed hurts you.

Opulon · May 31st 2017, 10:33pm

An Interesting idea that i would support if missiles weren't hard countered by TDS (beyond my perception of the thing, of the fact that it allows me to crush 3 players simultanously with a ~60 K/D ratio if my opponent didn't research that EXACT tree of missile defense), and if they weren't so damn expansive in terms of research.

I like to imagine a game under your setting, and i'm sure it would nerf pretty well the missiles in terms of "shock and awe" for early game (let's be honest. Missile+Air synergy allows us to crush an army of 60+units belonging a sleeping player in twenty minutes and it's what we find convenient), but i'm not sure this would benefit the game as i tend to think more and more that aircrafts, with their agility and speed, need to be encouraged in order to raise "user actions" and "user decision" in the first days (until day 5-6) of the game.

In other words, a change i would love as it would forbid me a noob-farming playstyle (and i know that my muscles begin to be used to that, it will be my absolute doom, when the true masters will rise), but a change i don't think good for this era of "growth" for CoN

Kristovi · May 31st 2017, 10:49pm

I d'ont really see the problem with TDS. First, there is a tactic of "saturation", second : this is not a missile game, if missiles have a counterpart I feel ok with that. Just use the large choice of units possible to destroy the TDS. And it's much more interesting to send your helicopters, you stealth drones or you special forces to disable a TDS than just launch like 10 missiles.

Opulon · May 31st 2017, 10:54pm

I already advocated for a slight change in missile mechanic in another thread, involving a battle experience very... traumatising for me : forum.conflictnations.com/inde…ti-aircraft-and-missiles/

As i said, i would support the idea if missiles weren't already a "all-in" bet. Well, i'm yet to encounter a full TDS player to validate this theory.

Oh, and yes... encouraging alternative way to kill TDS/SAM instead of saturation would be proof of an achieved asymetric gameplay

Kristovi · May 31st 2017, 11:17pm

Did you tried the ICBM ?

Opulon · May 31st 2017, 11:27pm

Yes. I tried once as a tactical asset (one in a isolated area with airplanes). While it did its job (the cutscene is nice :p) and killing everything, the drawback of my weak-minded civilians saying "Nuclear high-yield weapon is overkill for 30 planes" made me regret this choice. Not cost effective at all.

and the Other time a volley of 6 to create a strategic impact, after sniping and killing (with saturation) the few (again) missile defense the player had. While i suffered a quite huge malus for civilian casualties, that hurted my economy... My enemy, though, didn't had an economy anymore. He surrendered by message after, negative in all outputs (i razed only core-area)

ICBM are a strategical weapon in the deepest meaning. There is plenty of ways to do without them, but if you find a good window, they basically end the war. Nobody really recovers in a full scale war from having its electronics+rare+ fuel cities reduced from 8-9 pop to one, 25% morale, and no building.

Overall, i don't "like" ICBM very much, because the only context i'll use them will be "long term luck" (aka : investing MASSIVE resources to build the volley, and praying the attack to kill missile defense will succed) or "lack of skill from opponent". But they have their place.

To be honest, i don't see how to balance them more.

But i didn't used at all ballistic missiles, this is true.

Last warrior · Jun 2nd 2017, 3:08am

Kristovi wrote:

I think the Cruise missiles comes too early in the game.

I thought it former too, but regarding CM's are weak (only few HP's) and regarding that developing and building of warheads and cm's cost rares, wich you have not for research other weapons. I say it is not too early, every one can decide to do or not to do. And single SAM and AA stack kill evry bunch of CM's low levels.

Kristovi wrote:

I suggest to allow Cruise missiles research at day 11 and Balistics at day 2.

and

Kristovi wrote:

Even before opponents can afford missiles defense systems.

Ballistics have more HP's it would be terrible if Ballistics come too early in game. Also really a contradiction.

Germanico · Jun 2nd 2017, 12:51pm

I believe this to be a very fruitful discussion - cause although we want "missile-play" as we call it internally, we need to make sure that it doesn't become the only viable option to victory.
In this regards I would love to hear what you think about the CMs without changing their order or such.
Basically, how can we make it still fun to play with CM's but allow the opponent to stand a chance.

Main reasons for the current CM issue as I identify them are:

a) time of introduction of both CM and counter
b) cost/effect of CM greatly outweighs the cost/effect of counter measures
c) general sexiness of offense over defense (a more psychological issue, yet still to be taken into account)

Looking forward to the ideas.

//G

Opulon · Jun 2nd 2017, 2:05pm

TDS and SAM require secret lab + high military base to be built. It isn't really motivating to build them. After all, in terms of mindset... Building a complex chain of building to prepare a vast campaign is something we do easier than doing the same thing, but to anticipate a vast campaign against us. Choosing to do TDS and SAM, in this setting, implies (or so i think) to already "feel" the metagame, while choosing missiles is a bit more instinctive. (This links your a) and c) )

Concerning the raw power of Cruise missiles, if you imagine a player researching them day one, and building one warhead...

The warhead cost them this :

And deliver (for 5 warhead) a potential damage output, Day 3, of 200 hard damage, 75 soft damage.

In other words, for half the price a tank, you deliver with missiles the comparative damage output againt soft infantry he would deal in ten hours, and the damage output he would deal against hard targets in 25 hours. And at this point of the game, there is simply no counter-measure, except if you use gold (SAM, Day 3, 17 hours of research.)

I don't complain, but to be honest, i wouldn't complain either if my missiles dealed 50-75% less against ground targets (not naval targets). I suppose that when you designed the CM, you intended to make us use them mainly against armored targets and naval targets, and choose other solutions to kill infantry. Actually, there is no such decision. Missiles are more than enough to kill massive amounts of ennemies. This, offensively, or defensively.

I lost 2,6k men because he attacked first. Then i retaliated, only with missiles. I didn't bother to move ground units or naval units, i feeled lazy about them. When ground was clear of ennemy troops, i sended a inf in forced march. Of course, an experienced player would have anticipated this and prepared counter-measures... but it seems that in general, new or casual players just do not choose this path of research, even when they know their allies have been exterminated this way.

For long term balancing, i don't feel a play style should allow to have this kind of statistic, especially when you consider we are all "young" players, merely baboons with stick in a few years, when people will have mastered the meta.

Dr "Overkill design" proposes :

- Drastic Reduction of infrastructural needs for SAM and TDS at the first level (no more secret lab and lvl 5 military base :D)
- Drastic reduction of missile damages for the early and mid level.

In late game, i feel that if they didn't choosed any anti-missile defense, even when it's easy to access and produce, they are "asking for it".

Oceanhawk · Jun 2nd 2017, 4:14pm

Opulon wrote:

- Drastic Reduction of infrastructural needs for SAM and TDS at the first level (no more secret lab and lvl 5 military base :D)
~~- Drastic reduction of missile damages for the early and mid level.~~

This gone back and forth many times on this forum, missiles are expensive to research, and make infra to build and then fire! Remember you need to fire these things too. I have at times been able to take advantage of cruise missiles, why? Because my opponents don't know how to really defend against them or couldn't be bothered with TDS. Yes mobile SAM does need to become easier to produce, I agree. But missiles do not need a nerf.

My real issue is on the seas. The cruise missiles early on are a huge game changer for anti-ship abilities. The issue? Frigates lack Anti Missile abilities.

This is where the real issues with cruise missiles arise. On the sea, Frigates are not really the dedicated anti-air/missile unit like they more or less should be. I Say leave cruise missiles and bring down TDS costs. And increase the frigates anti-missile ability

- Drastic Reduction of infrastructural needs for SAM and TDS at the first level (no more secret lab and level 5 military base :D)

- Drastic Increase frigate's anti-missile stats

Opulon · Jun 2nd 2017, 4:28pm

I see your point. Going in the way of your proposal, i still would advocate for a reduction of soft hp damage. Less to nerf missiles than to buff indirectly infantries since they have so low HP

Oceanhawk · Jun 2nd 2017, 5:49pm

Opulon wrote:

I see your point. Going in the way of your proposal, i still would advocate for a reduction of soft hp damage. Less to nerf missiles than to buff indirectly infantries since they have so low HP

Leave this be for a few hours... this point you made ties in with an idea I have.. and Im gonna make a thread about it later on...

Last warrior · Jun 3rd 2017, 2:17pm

Opulon wrote:

TDS and SAM require secret lab

Warheads require secret lab too.

Opulon wrote:

The warhead cost them this : supplies 1350, electronics 900, money 2225

And deliver (for 5 warhead) a potential damage output, Day 3, of 200 hard damage, 75 soft damage.

first five CM's cost: : (secret lab) Supplies 750, mechanics 500, electronics 750, rares 400, money 1000 +(researching CM (day two 15 Hours))supplies 4000, rares 2500, money 7500, +(researching WH (day 1))supplies 2500, rares 3000, money 10000 +(1 pack of 5 warheads (build time 1 day with 100% moral)) supplies 1350, electronics 900, money 2225, + delivery vehicles if your start countrie has not a strike fighter on spot.

Also first option of defence against CM lvl1 (4HP) and lvl 4 (5 HP, 10k Rares research cost (other ressources have not count)) is simple stack of 2 AA lvl 2 (5 def points vs Missiles, also insant kill of every CM wich would attack it, cause SM's can not be stacked).

also even single AA lvl1 has 2,5 HP vs 4 HP of CM you have only nearby 30% damage from CM on target. also my suggested defence on day 2: 4 most important cities stack 1 AA+1 inf+ tank or CRV. last 4 cities 1 inf+ tank or crv. day 4 : most importand cities 2 AA, last 4 core cietes 1 AA+inf or tank or crv. Good luck with CM first strike.

Stack of 1 lvl 1 SAM +2 lvl 4 AA kill every CM, every, even high level CM (8 HP)

Opulon wrote:

Drastic Reduction of infrastructural needs for SAM and TDS at the first level (no more secret lab and lvl 5 military base :D)
- Drastic reduction of missile damages for the early and mid level.

NO, see over that why.

Oceanhawk wrote:

- Drastic Increase frigate's anti-missile stats

Not drastic increase, frigates were already nerfed, also we need only get back their stats before, and CM's would be complete outsourced. complete!,aslo if we want something like true action, please dont rebuff frigates. stack of 2 frigates lvl 3 kill every CM's by impact.

And now about *high cost of TDS:

Opulon wrote:

TDS and SAM require secret lab + high military base to be built.

Without lvl5 military base TDS would be overpower. every one could have strong Attack and nearby impenetryble deence. Now you can choice defence or attack.
TDS are suposed to counter ballistics and ICBM'c, and ballistics are not early game weapons, ICMB's are not even middlegame weapons. That mighty weapon make CM's useless completly. Also
high regirements is a ballanced counterpart to power of TDS.

IF we want a stat changes i suggest we should have fraktionwide differences. But Countirewide even better, russian TDS should have more HP's and 10% stronger stats (attack and def.)and range. russian ICBM's 15 % more HP's and 5% more power and 10% cheaper. SAMs 1 point more Att.

US CM's should have 1 hp more and 10% higher range. US ballistics should have 1 HP more and 10% more power. US TDS should have 20% more attack stats. US-SAM's should have higher range.

Euro TDS should be more expencive and have less range, but have 10% more def stats (not attack stats), no changes on missiles. SAM's should be cheaper.

Oceanhawk · Jun 3rd 2017, 4:55pm

Last warrior wrote:

Oceanhawk wrote:

- Drastic Increase frigate's anti-missile stats

Not drastic increase, frigates were already nerfed, also we need only get back their stats before, and CM's would be complete outsourced. complete!,aslo if we want something like true action, please dont rebuff frigates. stack of 2 frigates lvl 3 kill every CM's by impact.

Id like to see anti missile stats for other warships nerfed, and a drastic increase here

Share