GAME UPDATE (171130)

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

    • Ace_lvl_9000. stop writing foolish things.

      Nobody has disadvantage of several days for using naval units, only because of coupled research tec. Some players could have trouble with it, only if they make mistake on whole strikeforce doctrin.

      If you build only naval tec units you make something wrong, naval tec is advantage if you have both kind of weapons. Land and naval tec together have double survavibility than land only or naval only.
      And since naval tec of several kinds of weapons need land tec to be researched in RL too it make sence we have similar researchtree in game.
      Who said, that island country MUST research ONLY naval tec weapons?

      Ok, im thinking greatest disturb is AFV - ACV coupling of research tree. But even so, not island power need ACV for fighting enemy, land powers need ACV for landing operation. You are any way wrong. And land power need common AFV anyway, also there is no trouble with coupled tecs.

    • What's utter nonsense is building sea-based units at all. It's utterly pointless to make a plane that's carrier capable if you are having to research all the land based tech IN ADDITION to putting time and resources into a carrier too. Nevermind that you have to protect your carrier which means you're also spending time researching a fleet. I am sure that any player who forgoes all naval units is 100% better off than one who stupidly is trying to research both at the same time.

      and you DO have a 7 day disadvantage you're just too stupid to see it.

      ASF research lvl 3 resulting in a 9/9 unit is started day 4 completed 26 hrs later. NASF lvl 1 resulting in a 7/7 unit is started and completed at the same time. (mind you you're able to field some ASF if you so choose, but they're obviously not contributing to your naval scheme) Fast forward to day 9, ASF research level 4 opens up, completed on day 10 (31hrs later) so from 0700 Day 10 game time to 0000 Day 14 (at which point lvl 5 research opens creating a 13/13 ASF) you have a 11/11 ASF vs a lvl 1 NASF (still 7/7) At 0000 Day 15 lvl 2 NASF research opens (mind you, ASF research lvl 5 is already underway from day 14) So day 15 you're starting NASF level 2 whilst ASF's just finishing lvl 5 making ASF a 13/13 unit vs a 7/7 unit. that is maintained for just over 24 hours , NASF research finally completes and you're looking at an 11/11 NASF. So looking at it you're right my math was off, it's a 6 day disadvantage.

      The same ridiculous disadvantage occurs again on Day 20 when the ASF becomes a 16/16 on day 21 and the NASF has to wait until Day 26 to research its final tech leaving it at a 7 day 16/16 vs 11/11.

      All the while you're having to spend a research slot and resources researching land based units when you're actually trying to create your perfect Naval Strike Group. That's completely locking down a research slot on land tech while leaving 1 slot to juggle ships, marines, amphibs, and Naval strike fighters
      -Nobody cares about the Alpha, it's all decided by the Omega.

    • Calling someone stupid, only if you dont check a game... Calm down sonnyboy.

      Nobody need research landunits above second tier. Some land units must stay at 1st tier last upgrade to be most efficient in combat use/ressource usage relation.

      Also you can have enough researching power for research both kinds of airunits (naval and landbased). Naval airforces dont predict use of aircraftcarriers, dont mix treads also.
      Like i said only disturb could be on AFV - ACV, but only if someone can not planing a war.

    • I actually tried seeing how this played out recently, i had a game that most of the players left so it was just vs AI. I had a chance to experiment.

      I found that with the current research model for naval air units, aircraft carriers are imho, useless. Until late game, I don't have the rare to spare to research and build the carrier and the required buildings to create it. When coupled with the additional cost and time on researching the land based units before the naval air units, it just doesn't have enough justification. I rarely build the Amphib either. The best tactic i found was i will use marines to take an island near where i will campaigning, and build an airfield there, then air trans the land based units to the island. By using the materials i would have used for the CV, naval air and building a larger fleet to protect it, i can have my lvl 2 airbases pumping out asf and sf much more cost effectively.

      The only time I find I build naval sf's now is to use them to defend against sea based invasions. But even that has been reduced with the lessened damage they cause to ships.

      With the limited rare, fuel, and cash prior to midgame, you have to be ruthlessly efficient with what units you choose to research and make. If a unit or building doesn't provide multiple advantages it just won't get built. a lvl 3 airbase built for the purpose of building NSF's doesn't justify it's existence. The lvl 3 airbase only exists to build it to a lvl 4 for bombers

      NSF's, NASF's, ACV's, ASW's helo's and carriers, don't justify their cost to research, cost to build, cost to build infrastructure for.

      I am sure the dev's and some players will disagre with me, but as far as i am concerned, they aren't going to get built, which actually kind of annoys me. I like having f-14's, i like having a number of the naval variants. Unless I have a better reason to do so, I just can't justify the costs.

      CM's before tier 2 are mostly useless as well as they are such a short range.
      ----------------------

      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.

    • Exactly my point, summarized in a more eloquent fashion. Thanks for the additional insight War-spite. I've found the same while playing recent games. It has prompted me to move away from all naval aircraft and Amphibs have become an absolute ban. I won't ever touch those again unless a change comes down the pipe.
      -Nobody cares about the Alpha, it's all decided by the Omega.

    • I call BS because it all depends on effective play with what you have grown.. I had a recent map as Brazil.. all jungle down there so I dev'd air mobile and helos.. wasn't long I had 2 continents so the next upgrade was a way to move my OP force anywhere.. thus carriers.. then there was no space on Earth that wouldn't feel my prowess no matter where they were hiding..

    • I think the notion that one grand strategy needs to fit every country is an oversimplification that leads, in all likelihood, to failure. CoN, as I see it, is an operational war game. Having said that, effectively conducting operations will require different tools depending on your strategic situation. Your strategic situation includes your military ("stack" composition), infrastructure, R&D, economy, and diplomacy. All of these things facilitate the operations you undertake.

      Example:
      Right now I'm in a 1990's Europe game where I'm the UK and am the dominant player (theres only a few left- most quit for reasons I dont know). I never put any resources into naval research except for SSBNs- they're going to be both a strategic deterrent and part of my off-axis attack when the situation calls for it. I immediately developed good relationships with the US and France, and undertook an amphibious assault on the Netherlands. I also put airfields in strategic locations around my territory. Whenever I need to cross an ocean, I just fly.
      However, I've played a game as Australia with a hostile Indonesia and Philippines. That sucked- because they'd put significant resources into maritime combat, and had staked out all the maritime nodes off my coast with ports (this was before the introduction of the Wharf building), I was effectively stuck on my own continent while they could land raiding amphibious forces everywhere and bombard me very easily (Australia has no cities within aircraft striking distance of the ocean, and out of artillery range). For as long as I lasted in that game (which wasn't very long), I had no rear. It was really not a pleasant experience, and I had no way to effectively counter it, because I never had the infrastructure to build maritime units.

      It's quite possible that a unit is helpful in an operational context, but not to my overall strategy. In that case, there's a decision to be made- do I want to invest the resources in R&D and lose the opportunity to research something else in its place to use it for this operation? Sometimes I'll answer that in the affirmative and do it; other times I won't. Making those decisions is part of what determines my success at an operational level.

      Depending on my country and the state of my international relations, I am prepared to pursue different R&D and force composition strategies to defeat my enemies. Just because I haven't found a situation where a unit is useful, does not mean that no such situation exists.
      "The enemy cannot push a button, if you disable his hand."
      Sergeant Zim, Terran Federation

    • Well said, but this isn't about an operational viability context, what we're discussing is the fact that you're literally crippling yourself by choosing to research some tech paths. The amount of time, slots, and resources invested in certain units, will hinder your chances of overall victory if you go down those paths.
      -Nobody cares about the Alpha, it's all decided by the Omega.

    • Ace_lvl_9000 wrote:

      Well said, but this isn't about an operational viability context, what we're discussing is the fact that you're literally crippling yourself by choosing to research some tech paths. The amount of time, slots, and resources invested in certain units, will hinder your chances of overall victory if you go down those paths.
      I think crippling is a bit of an exaggeration. I mean the naval equivs are not expensive per se. It is more that they are generally not worth the trouble. If you do invest it in them, you are once in a while using a slot that could be used for something useful, and using resources you could use to upgrade a factory.

      The real power of naval air is having a carrier which IS a major investment. Lvl 5 dock, research costs and time, and then the time and cost to build and operate one. To get units to a campaign that a few marines and an airfield can accomplish with strategic lift bringing over land based fighters that are superior to their naval counterparts in almost every way.

      If the dev's want people to use the naval aviation aspects, I see two solutions: make the naval air units get the benefits of the land air units between tier upgrades automatically, and carriers slightly (but not much) cheaper/shorter time to get. For example making the research cheaper but build cost more, or vice versa.

      The other option, is reduce the range of strategic lift and have it require a certain level of airbase. This would prevent the scenario above, and require either occupying an enemy city and building it up, or building a carrier and naval air.

      I of course prefer the previous solution.
      ----------------------

      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.

    • Or simply make the naval version a bit under the ground version for regular aspects, and the carrier much more accessible.

      The main "point" of such a balancing, and its threat, is in my opinion "at what point do i decide to use naval variants for ground based usage". In late game, it's already the case (Day 40) for the European Doctrine.

      I do agree with everyone willing to see a bit more of naval airplanes before day 30 :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.

    • War-spite wrote:

      The other option, is reduce the range of strategic lift and have it require a certain level of airbase. This would prevent the scenario above, and require either occupying an enemy city and building it up, or building a carrier and naval air.
      That should be better choice.
      But we dont need any changes. because:


      Opulon wrote:

      The main "point" of such a balancing, and its threat, is in my opinion "at what point do i decide to use naval variants for ground based usage". In late game, it's already the case (Day 40) for the European Doctrine.
      If someone dont understand use of naval aircrafts, it is not fault of devs. Sometimes, ecpecially for europe doctrin i use both kinds of strikers even with land power. And my wings have double survability than wings of kind "war-spite" players. Double research costs for double survability is fair enough.

    • Well, it's exactly what i wouldn't see as an intelligent "design" for early and mid.

      Specialised versions are "good in what they are specialised for".

      It may be a bias from my own work, but whenever we use a "specialised" framework for a project, we have our chart of "pros/cons" because the specialisation always comes with some downfalls. If the specialised framework is better all-round than the non specialised, then it is not "specialised", it is "the new standard" and the old one gets deprecated.

      Developing naval variants of airplanes to use them instead of ground main line, not because you want to use them on carriers, but just because they are better planes overall, is (in my opinion, as always) a smal balancing problem.

      If naval variants are better than main line, then the high cost of the carrier is the real safelock to forbid you from using them too much, and it's understandable.

      However, as i would like to see more aircraft carriers, let's say day 20 ^^, the most instinctive balance to me would be :

      1°) Naval variants don't need the main line to be researched, and are 25% cheaper than main line
      2°) The naval variants are slightly less efficient than the ground line. In my opinion, less efficient doesn't mean "less strong" but just "a bit less of range, a bit less of speed, a bit less of HP". I always thougth (but you may prove me wrong) that naval refitted planes were always a bit more tricky to keep operational, a bit heavier, and with more difficulties to fill them for max operational range.
      3°) The aircraft carrier cost is halved by 50% in research costs.

      I did that too, using the two kind in a solo air wing to mitigate more damages, but the trick was "i researched the naval strike fighter" just for that. Like... i ended with the last tier of naval variant for aicrafts before bothering to do the airplane carrier. Simple reason : the naval version is just a "+1" to the capacities of the main line.
      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 am amongst the people advocating for a nerfed MLR. I take the reasoning that i'm a weak minded player for what it is, and will only answer to that "ok". Now that this detail has been reviewed, please describe more in precision your vision of the balancing of the MLRS, and why it was perfect. This interest me more than to learn the obvious about my mental abilities :p
      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.

    • The balancing For the MLRS was near perfect your using a long range Arty unit to deal damage. Easily countered by helicopters and Strike fighters alike. now nerfing there ability to hit Ships i could agree with but Nerfing there ability to take out inft as they try to get in range is just silly. as it is now you can simply air strike or hit them with missiles unless a smarter player stacks them with Sam's or TDS. Now people can simply rush from 2 directions and get into range to battle them. there is always a counter for every unit. people just need to learn to use them. Rather than complaining about a unit they can figure out the counter for.

    • Admiral Gojira wrote:

      Nukes should have been made stronger not weaker. MLRS should have been left alone there tune was just about perfect. Just because a weaker minded player cant figure things out should not mean to punish the stronger players for some peoples in ability to play the game!!!!
      I disagree with your premise. The "weaker minded" player rely's on units that overpowered, such as mlrs were. The ability to play the game is not based on meta gaming to find the strongest combination and just spam that. it is the ability to win with inferior units, in inferior numbers. Any keyboard jockey can win with a stack of mlrs, sam's and 1 infantry. I have literally beaten players that outnumbered me by 3-4x the number of units, with more resources than I had, and further into the research trees than I was, simply by using the messages and newspapers, and a few strategic attacks.

      Sure like every other player I built up a stock of mlrs, why wouldn't I? it was pointless not to invest in them. I am happy to see them nerfed a bit, just as i am glad cm's got nerfed as they were just spammed.
      ----------------------

      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.

    • Opulon wrote:

      ...
      1°) Naval variants don't need the main line to be researched, and are 25% cheaper than main line
      2°) The naval variants are slightly less efficient than the ground line. In my opinion, less efficient doesn't mean "less strong" but just "a bit less of range, a bit less of speed, a bit less of HP". I always thougth (but you may prove me wrong) that naval refitted planes were always a bit more tricky to keep operational, a bit heavier, and with more difficulties to fill them for max operational range.
      ...
      I very much agree. I think it can be justified by the fact that the number of planes you would fly off a carrier in a "squadron" would be fewer than a land based unit, as the carrier has a more limited number of planes. So one unit of f-16's would actually represent more planes than 1 unit of f-14's. Plane for plane, the f-14 would generally ghost the f-16, but 24 f-16's vs 16 f-14's... so to that effect fewer HP would be natural.
      ----------------------

      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:

      Admiral Gojira wrote:

      Nukes should have been made stronger not weaker. MLRS should have been left alone there tune was just about perfect. Just because a weaker minded player cant figure things out should not mean to punish the stronger players for some peoples in ability to play the game!!!!
      I disagree with your premise. The "weaker minded" player rely's on units that overpowered, such as mlrs were. The ability to play the game is not based on meta gaming to find the strongest combination and just spam that. it is the ability to win with inferior units, in inferior numbers. Any keyboard jockey can win with a stack of mlrs, sam's and 1 infantry. I have literally beaten players that outnumbered me by 3-4x the number of units, with more resources than I had, and further into the research trees than I was, simply by using the messages and newspapers, and a few strategic attacks.
      Sure like every other player I built up a stock of mlrs, why wouldn't I? it was pointless not to invest in them. I am happy to see them nerfed a bit, just as i am glad cm's got nerfed as they were just spammed.
      See the thing is Sir i use MLRS as a part of over all strategy. Now i am simply gonna have to build a few more to suit my needs. simply put there gonna make you waste more resources on building a higher number of them rather than being able to support your front line with just 1 stack probably gonna need two IT wont stop my strategy just slow it down a bit. I think the weaker minded player is the people that say something is overpowered because they lack the ability to understand what the units do, and cant find the counters to them! The players that can not read the terrains buffs and debuffs to catch the incoming units at there weak point vrs there strong one. maybe my logic is flawed but i do not think it is.

      The post was edited 5 times, last by Admiral Gojira ().