amphib and marine issue with requirements

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

    • amphib and marine issue with requirements

      Ok, I realize this isn't a bug, but it is a logic error.

      Apparently the amphib armor is the king of the jungle. To build it you need among other things, a naval base. Chad being a landlocked country has NO ability to build a naval base, yet it has lots of jungle.

      Mongolia, is another landlocked country, and there are others that cannot build marine or amphib units. So if they reach the coasts, they HAVE to annex a city just to be able to make marine units.

      Now where this gets really unbalanced is Marines have the best in-city attack. So even if mongolia never wanted to reach the sea, they just wanted a really good unit for attacking cities, a unit almost everyone else gets, they can't get until they A) reach the sea, then B)Annex a city.

      This wasn't a problem when annexation was de rigueur, but it is next to impossible now. Landlocked countries are at a distinct disadvantage.

      Can we get rid of the naval base req for marine and amphib units? If it MUST have an extra req, how about lvl 2 factory or lvl 2 recruiting center?
      ----------------------

      Jacopo: Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

      Remember that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb idiot die for his country.

    • Ok the amphibious vehicles dont must need a naval base, but the Marines must have it.
      Marines are a navy unit. And a navy unit without harbour is stupid.

      And to conquer a city I dont need Marines. Only sometimes I research Marines, if I play the USA or GB.
      Marines have the best city attack, but I attack the city with helicopters or strike fighters. And to defend a city the normal infantry is better
      „Morgen, ihr Luschen!“ --- „Morgen, Chef!“ (Ausbilder Schmidt alias Holger Müller bei der Arbeit)

    • I understand you don't NEED marines, but considering their attack benefits, they are a really nice unit to have that are completely impossible without annexing a city, a feat all but impossible in the first 10 days of the game.

      And how long does it take you to build up say 5 gunships or strikes? I bet it is longer than it would take to build a few marine units. AND your air units can't TAKE a city.

      And if you reach the coast, good luck taking any islands out of reach of air mobile.

      My point is sure, there are work arounds and band aids, but the fact that a really prime unit is deprived to someone seems woefully unfair. And if it is as you insist there MUST be a naval base, then every landlocked country should get a lake beside one of it's cities.

      Come to think of that, it would be a stupidly awesome air defense. put 5 frigates in a little lake with max air def.
      ----------------------

      Jacopo: Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

      Remember that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb idiot die for his country.

    • Yeah the naval base requirement pissed me off, and I wasn't aware of it till I started the latest game as a landlocked country Bolivia. Luckily I could split Peru with Columbia and conquer a port city, but then everything shuts down till I could annex Iquique. So because of game design, I am now behind the rest of the countries. I don't get the logic that a naval base is needed. US Marines travel in more ways than just by sea. I would think that the requirements to build marines would be Army base 2, Air Base 1, Recruitment Office 1 and Arms Industry 1. On the armor I think it should be Army base 2, Recruitment Office 1 and Arms Industry 2.

      If that Peru player was a new player, he may not be back because his first game he gets double teamed. And why, because I needed his seaside province to make naval infantry.
      "For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" -

    • I definitely agree that marines shouldn't require a naval base. Perhaps 1 level higher of army base? Because the US uses/has used marines in Afghanistan, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc, as non-naval invasion forces. Marines have kinda become an attacking force, rather than a naval-based force. And yes, they can certainly be used as a naval invasion force. But they are also used in entirely landlocked countries for combat.

    • Following your logic everyone should be treated the same - everywhere. Meaning we should see Mongol Marines training naval landings in the Hilton Ulaanbataar swimming pool...
      In CON we don't have rivers, so "Amphibious" really means ship to shore movement predominately. As this isn't a really massively used feature, we gave the ACV some nice secondary traits.
      Jungle in this case could translate into swamps, wetlands, deltas etc. We also don't feature a brown water navy (in absence of rivers) so all of this points to the ACV as a solution for these cases.
      And as such it would make sense to have training facilities attached to naval warfare.

      Same could be said for naval fighters. Of course you could argue that planes can be built anywhere, but for mobilization reasons you need a crew/pilot trained in eg. carrier landings etc.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf

    • Following YOUR logic players should avoid playing landlocked countries as they are denied building certain units.

      Do you disagree that marines ARE the best infantry for taking cities?
      Do you disagree that AmCV are to use YOUR words "the kings of the jungle"?

      Since as you say not everyone should have an equal footing, why do you release "balancing" updates. Why does it need to be balanced? Why not have the UK, USA, China, and Germany start out with WAY more cash than everyone? Why not have Canada, venezuala, norway, iraq, iran, and saudi arabia start out with a TON of oil?

      Why does every country produce at least one city of all resources? Are you saying that mozambique has a thriving electronics industry?

      If things don't need to be equal or balanced between players, then why not really kneecap some countries? I mean forget about you can't use marines or AmCV's, why not go all in and restrict research to only allowing a certain number of people to research things. Like after 5 players have researched cruise missiles, no one else gets to. I mean it doesn't matter if everyone has equal opportunities right?

      It is your company and you can make the game however you want. The forums, I THOUGHT, was where players could give you feedback on things they think aren't working or on bugs they find. You literally have people paying you to playtest it. And when you get feedback you don't like, you respond with condescension and aggression?

      I have had bad days, and come on here ranting about this, that or the other thing, only to later with a cooler head, regretted it and apologized, so seeing as you were a gentleman and didn't hold it against me, I will do likewise in this scenario and assume you might have had a bad day and didn't intend to insult a player that was pointing out something they felt might have been an oversight. Seeing as a few other players agreed with me, with Seele only partially disagreeing, I seem to be of the same opinion as many others, including your own forum moderator, Opulon.

      Now this is not a democracy, and as I said, you can make the game however you want. I was trying to be helpful. But apparently screwing land locked countries was done intentionally. I hope the condescension was not.
      ----------------------

      Jacopo: Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

      Remember that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb idiot die for his country.

    • War-spite wrote:

      Since as you say not everyone should have an equal footing, why do you release "balancing" updates. Why does it need to be balanced? Why not have the UK, USA, China, and Germany start out with WAY more cash than everyone? Why not have Canada, venezuala, norway, iraq, iran, and saudi arabia start out with a TON of oil?
      Maybe that's an idea for a "Real World" scenario, base it off of the figures in CIA World Factbook, so that everyone knows up front that it is NOT going to be balanced as far as resources and possibly starting units. That would be a scenario for players that have played and understand what the units can do. It wouldn't be good for new players because they would see it as "unfair". I think they keep the games balanced with equal shares for all and only differentiate on doctrines, is so that they don't get 100 games with people playing the 5 or 6 large countries and AI playing the small ones because nobody wants to get stomped. So if you have a "real world" game, you would need some incentive that would say increase the gold payout for the 25 initial small countries survive till the en


      War-spite wrote:

      It is your company and you can make the game however you want. The forums, I THOUGHT, was where players could give you feedback on things they think aren't working or on bugs they find. You literally have people paying you to playtest it.
      Amen brother.
      "For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" -

    • MallahanJr wrote:

      Maybe that's an idea for a "Real World" scenario, base it off of the figures in CIA World Factbook, so that everyone knows up front that it is NOT going to be balanced as far as resources and possibly starting units. That would be a scenario for players that have played and understand what the units can do. It wouldn't be good for new players because they would see it as "unfair". I think they keep the games balanced with equal shares for all and only differentiate on doctrines, is so that they don't get 100 games with people playing the 5 or 6 large countries and AI playing the small ones because nobody wants to get stomped. So if you have a "real world" game, you would need some incentive that would say increase the gold payout for the 25 initial small countries survive till the en
      I understand and agree with you, I was more pointing out the fallacy of the opinion that some countries get a raw deal and they should suck it up. If it is ok for some why not really unbalance things, and go real world.

      I would not WANT a real world based game. But I think it is unwarranted to say landlocked countries cannot have marine/amphib units. And even if I was given what would be a more reasonable explanation, I would expect it to be given more politely
      ----------------------

      Jacopo: Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

      Remember that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb idiot die for his country.