UPDATED: Restrict Airlifting by level of research of unit

The air lifting then is locked by unit level? I hope by tier 2 and not by tier 3.
And was is with the big nations like Russia or USA? Without airlifting in the early game this nations are helpless .

Another good point.

The idea of restricting air lifts is MASSIVELY biased in favor of the smaller Nations.
I am strongly opposed to this idea.

This is a really bad idea. Frankly an attacking player can get everything ready then go boom and the defending player is dead.

A big no-no.

@Germanico
Let's focus on that point for a moment:

"a) detrimental for defending players because active players can quickly relocate their entire attack force including tanks and steam roll"

I'm not sure that I understand everything from above post correctly, but it sounds like early and mid game will give some time to prepare defenses indeed¹, but looks like late game will speed up, or stay unchanged. So there is a status quo for less active players - they won't be slaughtered in 15th, but in 25th day. Well, it is some progress.

I'm also interested to make less active² player's life here easier, but only idea I got ( omitting prohibit of 'Shoot and Scoot ' - which is devastating to them - and some other suggestions ) is 0.5 x speed map or lock movement orders at night hours.
From my experience community here is strongly divided between those who like speed maps and don't like speed maps. So first group can spend more time in game, while second can spend less. It will be a huge challenge to satisfy both. What type of player is your company's 'target'?
Forgive me if it's trivial and just skip it.

I think airlift limit concept is worth testing for a month in new maps, to get a real measure. If it will be truly so bad, just restore from backup.

----
¹ Example: An attacker has no logistics at land he tries to conquer, while defender can have whole logistic network connecting all homeland cities. So defender regroups fast, attacker - slow. The goal is potentially reached.
² Logged in per 6-8 hours interval or more.

It's not like you can even airlift anywhere that far without stopping.

Actually, through Bunny hoping with USA, i'm, day 20 (entered day 2), nearly finished to annexing America, ~60 cities.

I built only two ships until now, to prepare Cuba invasion (AI), but for the rest, the basic tactic is "create an entry point" through units with high mobility (airborn covered by air), build an airport if there isn't one (and there is usaully one), then rush in everything.

I take the 20 cities of the guy before i begin to take his provinces. More quick and convenient.


The main problem here i can concur with is : I have no desirability to do otherwise. To use ground logistics, or even naval projections. If i was against someone really proficient in the game, i would of course need more, as he would counter me. However, with AIs and casual players, which are the most common, well...

let's just say that we adapted the nerf of the airborn in order to keep bunnyhopping. I don't think the airlifting system as proposed in the update is perfect, but i see what problem it wants to solve :

Countries falling too quick thanks to airlifting of huge armies into newly conquered cities, through airlifting.


I made a small time comparison, in terms of logistical times.

Taking a country with a reasonable amount of mountain and provincs, ~20 cities, without using airlifting, if the resistance can't stop you : between 3 and 6 days, depending on Rogues.
Same amount, with airlifting : 1 day if no rogue (lucky), 2 days if cautious.

This proposal of update continues to go in the way of dealing with "over optimised expansion capacities", which is nice.

My opinion on this is : let's try the "time locked per tech unit".

We need to see how it will turn REALLY, in order to get data.

Interesting, what means WMD?

After reading the initial post I could see this as a great thing. However I feel like it changes entirely how the game is played. Putting more emphasis on prediction and predetermining your enemies movement rather than reacting to your enemy. Now what I think would make things better is to change warfare in a big way. That being you have more troops. As of right now for majority of the game you cannot launch full offensives and protect certain areas. However if troop transportation is changed you'll need to be able to do both since you'll no longer have the ability to reposition your armies to deal with the new threat. So my suggestion is make the troop pool larger or decrease stacking (I believe increasing the troop pool would be better since it gives you more opinions) by doing this you enable your players to defend their borders to certain extent and fight campaigns. Now it is without doubt that a decision needs to be made on where you want to prioritize so where you put your army but I feel as if right now its an all or nothing. If someone has their whole army defending their homeland you cant win a war with half your troops attacking and half defending your homeland. Your army would get defeated on the offensive and your homeland trampled once the enemy regroups. So since players cannot move their armies with ease I believe it best to make it easier to fight in multiple areas rather than one.

Stop removing my post , if you do not agree with it , reply and explain your reasons.

I still feel like this move is wrong. Are you saying that in 2020 A380s can't carry tanks all the way around the world? I should be upgrading for better combat stats then 'can you use airlifting' and 'how far can you airlift'.

Don't get me wrong, I like this game and I think the developers most of the time make good upgrades but in my opinion this is wrong.

Do you want to remove the chemikal and nuke CMs from the strike fighters?
But many strike fighters can have nuke bombs. The Tornado, the F-15. In Germany the Jagdbombergeschwader 33 in Büchel have also nuke bombs.
The nuke Bombs are under US control, but the german Tornados will attack with the Bombs in a nuke war.

It is more realistic to remove the CMs from tier 1. Thats ok

"

• Take away CMs from T1 Strikes including naval
  
• Make Strikes not able to deliver WMDs ever (wmd's are strategic)
  
• make Destroyers not able to deliver WMDs
  
• Swap CM and BM research times 1:1 so that BMs come a bit earlier than CMs"
  

I think this is a bit too harsh, at least from my perspective as a "lover of agility", but several of your patches, that i was disliking, proved to be beneficial to the game as a whole. And here, i can see very well what the "optimistic" objective is. So... eager to see it.

However, maybe you should put that for another update ? I mean, the main problem i have when you do huge rebalancing is that it tends to be super difficult, in the eyes of a player that tries to analyse and give you feedback, to find real causes and consequences, when so many factors are changed at once

I think you know exactly what i mean.