ALLIANCES AND COALITIONS UPDATE - What do you think?

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

    • ALLIANCES AND COALITIONS UPDATE - What do you think?

      Given the patch release of yesterday many of you felt the change of airborne infantry to be hit or miss (which is understandable, as these things take time to adjust to)
      With this being said, it is important to have a healthy, constructive discussion on how to tackle Airbourne infantry and where you would like them to go. Some have suggested decreasing the timings and implementing a refueling system, others wanted to see AA tanks to be more viable against Airbourne Inf.


      What do you think? It is important to keep a broad perspective to have the best discussion as we can. You the players are capable of shaping the game, as long as we keep criticism thoughtful and open minded.
      Dorado Games
      Conflict Of Nations

    • To keep it simple :

      - Ranged AA is a partial problem-solver, for coverage and saturation reason (its percentage may be improved through cost reduction or higher coverage, but still fail to nullify the "tactic"). I fail to see a design of Ranged AA that would forbid me for abusing the Airborn rush strength. However, Ranged AA remains a good idea for plenty other reasons.

      - The players understanding the "jump and jump" tactic needs to be nerf still feel that two hours, one/one is too much and sends to the bin the airborn. They are often advocating for, of course, a reduction. I saw interesting ideas that convinced me ---> Loading time could be very low, in order to keep the flexibility of the unit, and its "quick to answer" specialty. However, unloading time (or refueling) can be a bit long, if it doesn't forbid the unit from attacking. Another suggested that the airborn could have a long unloading time (but very short loading time) and not be able to "conquer" the provinces in this unloading time. Another suggested "a little bit of everything" with speed and times.

      - Minimum loading time
      - Slower hélicopters in the air
      - Unloading time (but a bit quicker than 90/60 minutes) that allows for fighting.

      I disregarded opinions implying that Airborn were fine and balanced pre-nerf, because i admit i don't see the universe the same way.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Yak wrote:

      What do you think?
      Attrition from ranged AA would do much more than some suggest , as AA is now you fly over them with a chopper and land at the intended target with a 100% healthy unit , ranged AA would shoot down some choppers (not all) while airplanes patrolling would intercept some. It takes time to replace lost units and heal damaged ones. You cannot possibly know what adjustments are needed to air infantry without first fixing AA.
      The Devs have stated that they are working on AA.
    • I appreciate the last update, especially the economic overhaul is a good step towards a real balancing.
      Nonetheless I do suggest some steps for unification and classification of units to determine a balance for a specific purpose (tactic and strategic use of units).

      1) Infantry

      Since infantry are the actual core units in the game because they are the only units to occupy territories, they need all a clear tactic purpose. So, when you are asking yourself what infantry units you might build to accomplish a specific strategic plan, you should know what you will build, because these and those units are good for it.
      It shouldn't be like: “Well, I don't care about my strategy. I build unit XY anyway because they are strong or even overpowered in every situation.”

      Rebalance resource costs of infantry

      I don't see really a reason why infantry should cost components. They are used anyway plenty with mobilisation of vehicles. There is no need to shorten components even more. Additionally infantry should only cost supply, manpower, fuel and money to balance out the remove of components for recruiting and supplies are anyway needed in huge amounts for researching and support vehicles. More costs of supply kills game balancing.

      This leads to my suggestion to balance infantry units in a way that allows to full fill a specific (or a few) purposes on the battlefield.

      a) Basic Infantry

      Basic infantry already have a slight shift defending strategic points on the maps such like cities. The balance, considering their battle strengths, is okayish. But either give it a clear tactic role or make it a “universal infantry” neither really good in attacking nor defending.

      b) Basic Mechanized

      This infantry type has a focus on supporting friendly armoured vehicles, but it is stronger in attacking enemy infantry. How can an anti-vehicle unit be stronger against infantry then vehicles? In my opinion it doesn't make sense.

      c) Basic Marines

      In my opinion it is well balanced because of the focus on enemy infantry and attacking in general.

      d) Basic Airborne

      After the rework this unit is not viable any more. It was kinda okayish before the update because of the fast transportation speed and the slightly better attack power. But now, to be honest, this unit is a total waste of resources making it perhaps only viable for bypassing strong enemies defence lines. If this was intended I assume it to be a good revamp. Furthermore the landscape modifications are one of the worst in the game.
      Nevertheless getting infantry transported into the enemy land (cities) by air is a quiet powerful strategy to perform, so the revamp is understandable but also questionable.

      e) Special Forces

      They are balanced as well in my opinion.

      2) Support Vehicles

      Support vehicles are intended to support your troops (what a miracle). So, I assume the developers thought making them costing supplies primary would be a good idea. But I state they are wrong.
      As drawn above supplies are needed for everything (research, units, annexation, unit upkeep) while components, fuels and electronics are provided plenty compared to supplies.
      So my suggestion would be to shift costs of support vehicles to primary cost components, fuel, manpower, electronics and money.

      3) Revamping landscape modifications

      Some units have horrible, wrong or not well reasoned. To mention here is the Airborne Infantry and the tank destroyers. Why the heck does a tank destroyer get a bonus in attack and defence power while in cities when the city landscape description says it is bad terrain for armoured vehicles?! They should be good in forest landscape and stealthy in them, perhaps?
      However, I suggest to give every ground unit in every landscape a modification for attack and defence since this increases the tactic and strategic value of every unit. Giving no modifications should be exceptional.

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

    • Thanks for the great write down DPRK. I don't quite understand what your problem is with our terrain - we didn't change anything in the terrain setup for some time.Tank Destroyers are viable in Urban terrain because of their generally low profile, their mobility often now featuring wheels instead of tracks and their ability to mask in urban terrain.Trying to hide modern engines in a forest has become a challenge (considering modern thermal imaging and infra red spectrum sights).

      We all agree that inf needs roles but actually we already have them. Presently we are fixing some issues we are seeing with yesterdays Airborne nerf - so stand by for a hotfix shortly.

      Concerning the resources: Having high Supply demand is normal - they are the most common map resources as well so relatively abundant.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Liqter wrote:

      Germanico wrote:

      so stand by for a hotfix shortly.
      First off , i want to say i am glad you are working on a fix for AA and want to ask if you can give an estimate on when the fix might happen.It is my opinion that AA as is masks what changes are needed to air infantry , i believe Air Infantry being OP is directly related to issues with AA.
      Soon(tm), but hopefully, not Soon(tm) Like Bannerlord Soon(tm) ^^. The hotfix will, i think ease some concerns with the role of the airborn, while keeping the "nerf airborn rush" aspect
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Germanico wrote:

      Thanks for the great write down DPRK. I don't quite understand what your problem is with our terrain - we didn't change anything in the terrain setup for some time.Tank Destroyers are viable in Urban terrain because of their generally low profile, their mobility often now featuring wheels instead of tracks and their ability to mask in urban terrain.Trying to hide modern engines in a forest has become a challenge (considering modern thermal imaging and infra red spectrum sights).

      We all agree that inf needs roles but actually we already have them. Presently we are fixing some issues we are seeing with yesterdays Airborne nerf - so stand by for a hotfix shortly.

      Concerning the resources: Having high Supply demand is normal - they are the most common map resources as well so relatively abundant.
      Thanks for your reply Germanico. I think some terrain modifications for units are too penalizing or grant a too excessive bonus, while some units don't get a bonus or penality on a certain terrain. I won't go in detail with it, it is just a thought of mine considering true tactical decisions of value.

      I do accept your argument related to tank destroyers. But considering the fact that other armed vehicles have a penality when fighting in cities (in fact only a main battle tank), thus leading to no, respectively, less use of them in cities. Few or no players would use them in city fights, which leads to the questions whether a tank destroyer, focused on fighting armoured vehicles, is viable in the current META.
      If you think of a tank destroyer, which main target would be a MBT, the decision to give it only a (positive) terrain modification in city is highly questionable, since other armed vehicles will try to avoid a tank destroyer in city. Furthermore if you look at the other armoured vehicles (scouts and amphibious vehicle), they will avoid a TD at any costs, while their main (tactical) aim is not to attack cities but scouting enemy units and to support infantry in amphibious operations.

      Supplies are the most common resources but you are also very reliant on your geographic position to get access to those. Maybe you should think about switching some resources on the maps.
    • @DPRK: "Supplies are the most common resources but you are also very reliant on your geographic position to get access to those. Maybe you should think about switching some resources on the maps."

      Any feedback gladly accepted. We can always swap and update resources - more eyes see more.

      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Liqter wrote:

      Germanico wrote:

      so stand by for a hotfix shortly.
      First off , i want to say i am glad you are working on a fix for AA and want to ask if you can give an estimate on when the fix might happen.It is my opinion that AA as is masks what changes are needed to air infantry , i believe Air Infantry being OP is directly related to issues with AA.
      Firstly we will address the strategical issue of Airborne bunny hopping across player nations - so a cooldown is needed but we are adjusting to player feedback and also to some bugs we found.
      This will happen hopefully later today.

      The AA updates you mention are needed - we agree, but need more time due to the code involved. We will actually give the AA unit some value against Transport Helis while the Airborne will get Air Ground Attack values against regular troops while still airborne , making them viable to their role: Air Assault. These changes should be with us next week.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • A suggestion for Alliance games, a setting to lock down Gold use.
      We recently had one, and all had agreed to the terms of no gold use.
      And low and behold, it's use was widespread, some admitting it, others not.

      Sometimes we just want a level playing field, specifically only for Alliance matches!

      Secondly airbourne units need some functionality back. I agree that they needed to be fixed, but bunny hopping now doesn't capture on a string now. I have no problem with slowing them down, that was needed.

      Thanks!
    • I think it would be good to go back to the way it was before in regards to the loading and unloading time, as quick mobilization and assault is the specialty of airborne and adding massive loading and unloading times doesn't make sense. That being said, I understand the concerns about abusing this tactic. I feel a better way to counter this would be to add a timer after an airborne unit has conquered a territory (you could call it the rest and recuperation timer, or something like that). In other words, it would be possible to quickly load and unload a fresh airborne unit to quickly capture a single enemy territory, but the player would then have to wait several hours before using that same airborne unit to attack another territory, kind of like the timers on the cruise missile units that keep you from firing from the same launcher twice in a row. That wouldn't completely stop that tactic, but it would make it more difficult to use airborne infantry exclusively to overrun a territory in hours (unless you just had a ton of them).
    • I really like the idea behind the Coalitions.

      It is nice to have a simple and streamlined method of creating alliances among players and then uniting their Victory Points to achieve a mutual win.

      However, there HAS to be a way of leaving a Coalition. Players make mistakes, passions change, Roleplay Happens. A good way to get around the "backstabbing" fear would maybe to have a timer set on leaving. Once you click the "Leave" button, it begins the process of your departure and notifies all of the other members of your Coalition that you are leaving in 24hrs/48hrs/whatever time period.

      The only other complaint that I might have regarding the Coalition Update is regarding the "Shared Intelligence."

      Prior to this update, Shared Intelligence was a Subscriber only perk. While it is always good to give the general player base more options and more tools to make the game enjoyable, taking things away from subscribers and giving it to free-to-players may only alienate some of those subscribers and hurt income generation. If something is taken away, then maybe something should be given as well?

      Also, the Shared Intelligence feature with the Coalitions seems to be a bit buggy. Some days it displays properly in the Intelligence Window. Other days, there are no reports even though there are agents in place and being funded, and prior day's intel reports do not display either.
      “It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived.”



      George S. Patton Jr.
    • lordgaben1 wrote:

      Leaving a Coalition is one of three things I really want to see implemented.

      The other two are a playable Portugal, and a revamped trading module.
      All of these are either discussed or being implemented. Some asymmetrical maps were being discussed for as many playable nations as possible. Also, leaving a coalition will be added soon(tm). Trading hasn't been forgotten. These issues are all either being discussed or in implementation phase. ^^
      Dorado Games
      Conflict Of Nations