Navy is screwed up...

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

    • Yes, MRL are too powerful against navies. I think they already have rebalancing planned.


      Good continuation on others games, and i envy your bank.
      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.
    • Dear D5Greene,

      thanks for informing us ahead of time about this extremely hostile measure of yours - additionally using bad language against our product on a public forum.
      I am unfortunately forced to close your account due to infringement against our terms of service.

      Regards

      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Lol, highlevel MRLS has 150 km range. it is how. epic fail of 35 ship owner. did you have single stack of 35 ships? that mean in first xy fight ticks you would not do any damage, even in range of fire. And Opulon if you write something ironical, please be more precise, i was nearby belive you.

      Good you are banned, but you can read it. MRLS aren't overpowered. They have weak point sv Air//missilesstrikes, and vs closecombat mixed armored forces.
    • No. I wasn't ironic on this.

      On our intern game late game, 70 MLR divided into 10*7 MLR + 3 mobile anti-air were able to hold Suez and Gibraltar chokepoint for indefinite amounts of time, without Two navies (with hundreds of ships in correctly organised stack aka no penalties) able to even contest the zone. The missiles obviously all failed, and the several aircrafts carriers tried their maximum to kill with airplanes and helicopters the MLRS. Sadly, they failed, as the MLRS were at 150 km range into ennemy line, in a situation with a very hard reco. Some kamikazes air superiority fighters shot down the naval awacs, and created "blind spots" in reco for HUGE periods ot times, like nearly 1 hour EACH time the kamikazes were sent. Navies tried to push forward, but they basically met a situation where guns they couldn't see were hitting ~ 175 HP worth per hour. After 40-50 ships lost with no progress, nearly 33% of their naval force, retreat was drummed, and MLRS losses were counted 4/70.

      Faced with basically the same problem in Panama, my only success was "okay, the 50 MLRS here are a pay toll. I will lose 10 cruisers, but i will make the frigates pass to the other side". Strategic victory, but i didn't contest the MLRs supremacy over the zone.

      I find MLR too powerful against navy because i feel it should'nt be their role. Or, said in other words, i don't feel one should say to himself "how to blockade a Naval chokepoint" and answer "with MLRs of course !". I should say to myself "Naval patrol aircraft" or "ASW helicopter", if i'm considering ground solutions.

      But MLRs... is already VERY EFFICIENT in MANY situations (even in armored combat. Do the experimentation of a 3 mech inf + 7 LRM vs 5 MBT + 5 mech inf, in plains. Retreat the MLR after each fire tick. Normally, after 2-3 hours, the MBT, after 1 or 2 MBT lost and 1 or two mech inf lost, would engage in combat. Now, look how the MLRs are magically resilient to damages, while dealing a tremendous amount of damages for a unit that costs no fuel and no components, and has the lowest "electronics price for damage output" of the game, except missiles of course)

      I clearly imagine this user getting wrecked by units he didn't saw. Doesn't excuse his rage, of course, but it's pretty sure that the average 50 HP per hour damage that a MLR group delivers is pretty devastating.

      More a late problem than mid or early. We used the MLR reasonably until day 50 (where we began to SPAM IT), and it wasn't overpowered.
      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.
    • Nice Battle, i would glad see that once. But you say: airforce and missilesstrikes failed. It mean you fought not vs 50 MLRS but vs enemy with good antiair/misslile defence with 50 MLRS as main firepower.

      But to be honest: If enemy had strong air/missile defence: you should take this threat first, before you attack MLRS defence area. Sorry even navallanding operation would working. (however i dont know other strikeforce of your enemy, also i cant be sure). Both of you should make 4 cannonflesh fleets with 10+ different units in it. +4 landing cannonflesh troops for 40 hp while disembarking bonus á 6+ different units. MRLS could not stay out of navyrange in Panama area. You didnot write about enemy navy, i mean also he hadn't strong navy.

      P.S. good mixed armored troop is not 5 MBT+5 mech inf....
    • Yeah. It's why i say they are only overpowered in late game, where everyone basically has "a large army of everything". It makes the game unique, by comparison of other phases ^^. I had ~500 units and them ~1 300 units.

      And on Panama, i agree. But i was ... not tempted to try it, due to bunkers and density of forces lol !
      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.
    • I would have thought the obvious scenario is just to not fight them. land marines out of range, build a dock land troops in spain or morocco, invade and take his cities. You should never be attacking an enemy strong point.
      ----------------------

      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.
    • I was Spain and Morocoo :p. And i was attacked by... the rest of the planet. basically, 100 cities vs 333 cities. The -18 war malus inflicted by my opponents for this simulation was the most exhausting factor. So... in several occasions... i made the choice, and i think i had no real alternative, to attack willingfully several strong points, especially to create a "nukable" corridor. At his point of the conflict, the difference between a strong point and a weak point is subtle.

      A weak point has 50 units to defend it, a strong point has 200 units... the time needed to pierce the weak point, it has become a strong point of a sort, and while they can cautiously invest 50% of their troops to defend and oppose a equivalent army to mine, they so keep at disposal 500-600 offensive units to keep me pressured.

      Another factor, maybe important maybe not, is that i battled against my brother-in-arms. They know how i think and how i fight, globally. So, maybe they had very good ideas of what to do to forbid me from sleep and drive me to the exhaustion point of physical capitulation. It is very probable that i failed to ensure a good decision making process

      I'll admit humbly that after 30 hours of warfare, deprived of sleep for the whole period + the office + the 360° mental charge on all theaters, i was unable to continue to fight properly. The nail in the coffin was a member jokingly saying "imagine in a 4X map lol" ---> *throws his sword on the ground*

      The worst thing is : it was damn fun. Regret nothing :D
      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.