UPDATED: Restrict Airlifting by level of research of unit

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

  • Germanico wrote:

    here are the expanded plans for neutralizing the early missile spam:


    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
    Phuck that $hit. The problem is that all these new players do 2 things, they don't develop defense and they don't update infrastructure, and they wonder why the game went sideways on them. I need CM nukes at sea, not so much on land, on land I need Chem to keep the infrastructure intact. So destroyers will become large corvettes and useless, I guess I go cruisers and skip destroyers. Swap CM/BM research times, don't care, I have found BM use to be too costly and useless, I can reuse my CM research more effectively, and chaining 9 CMs into a target from 3 heavy bombers is way better than 1 BM.

    The fix is make defense cheaper, and encourage doing defense before offense, and giving a fighting chance to the skilled and unskilled against the deep pockected gold player. It works out for everyone, because the guy buying the win will keep spending unless he get wise on his failed strategy, Dorado gets rich...new/skilled players get to stay alive longer.
    "For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" -

  • @Liqter They have a very poor censor system. Or should I say "very good", depending on your perspective.

    Even my name is a censored word.

    I doubt it is a deliberate act against you.
    Our forum is on a pre-K level and the censor is for all languages across the world I think.
    So something might be your name in one Country and be inappropriate in another.

    I've gone by "C y c" (short for Cyclone) since the creation of the internet. But apparently it is a bad word in some foreign language somewhere.

  • Cyclone46 wrote:

    They have a very poor censor system. Or should I say "very good", depending on your perspective.

    Even my name is a censored word.

    I doubt it is a deliberate act against you.
    Our forum is on a pre-K level and the censor is for all languages across the world I think.
    So something might be your name in one Country and be inappropriate in another.

    I've gone by "C y c" (short for Cyclone) since the creation of the internet. But apparently it is a bad word in some foreign language somewhere.
    Funny it never showed up on any of my posts until now. No matter really , i find myself playing less and less with every update , between coalitions , resource nerfs and gold rushing the game just isn't fun anymore.

  • Mea maxima culpa, Liqter, that I do not personally proof read your posts on a Sunday morning instead relying on a bot... ;)

    Please just correct the text and post it - even I suffer from this stupid blacklist, but to be fair community has already reduced its level of censorship quite a bit.
    "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf

  • Germanico wrote:

    Mea maxima culpa, Liqter, that I do not personally proof read your posts on a Sunday morning instead relying on a bot... ;)

    Please just correct the text and post it - even I suffer from this stupid blacklist, but to be fair community has already reduced its level of censorship quite a bit.
    The word that was censored is not in the post and it is in a language i do not speak.
    Files

  • So - thanks all for your feedback - specifically Liqter, Opulon, Seele, Cyclone, Mallahan et al.

    Even if you voiced negative feelings about some of the proposed changes your reasoning was solid and I tried to really consider what you said and the repercussions you mentioned.
    Having had time to let it sink and simmer a bit, I discussed it with some of my teammates and here is my altered proposal for the coming update:

    1) Air Sup and Strikes balanced out a bit better against each other (nerfed some A2A of the late Strikes - buffed the ground attack of the Air Sups so they don't just waste around)
    2) Strikes and Destroyers lose CM capabilities until T2 (mid game)
    3) CM WMDs Anti Unit Damages got nerfed - anti Pop/Building Damages got buffed (reasoning behind this simply is that a) dropping nukes and chems on populated areas is a bad thing - look at Aleppo or Hiroshima b) the unit damages of the WMDs were just not justifying any research into other missiles)
    4) Swapped researches: BMs are now the first missiles, then CMs (depending on BMs) and then ICBMs (depending on BMs) - this was something that always bothered me cause it was really wrong

    These changes allow CMs to stay deployable by Strikes and Destroyers of tier 2 once they are researched, INCLUDING WMDs - as Seele rightfully pointed out Nuclear Tornados etc are a reality and we should not omit them.
    "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf

  • If there are going to be limits on what units may be airlifted and what units cannot, then perhaps it would be easier and make more sense to place the limitations based on Airfield Level.

    For Example:

    Level 1 Airbase - Infantry (All Kinds), Recon Vehicles, Mobile AA
    Level 2 Airbase - AFVs, Amphibious Vehicles, Towed Artillery, Tank Destroyers, Radar, SAMS
    Level 3 Airbase - Tanks, MLRS, Mobile Artillery, Cruise Missile Launchers
    Level 4 Airbase - TDS, Ballistic Missile Launchers

    Airfields - <Same as Level 1 Airbase>
    “It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather, we should thank God that such men lived.”


    ―
    George S. Patton Jr.

  • @Cpt.America that is the logical first impulse when considering this topic, but a very bad idea for several balancing related reasons...

    Main game design reasons NOT tying airtransport to buildings or research:
    a) we don't have time/day unlocks on buildings meaning a paying player could easily unbalance the whole early game by building eg. Airport level 5 day 1 and zoom around - something no-one would ever rightfully expect or have any viable counter against
    b) if we'd use airports or transport research as the unlock the player again would need only one high level airbase or one research and once again ignore shipping completely (not realistic because even the USAF isn't able to eg shift a whole corps via air and loads of stuff is still shipped (see current buildup of forces in Europe)

    Hope that makes sense and explains why the "real life" closest solution in this case doesn't cut it.
    I also don't want to simulate or force players to create a "transport" fleet of air/ground/sea units with no further need than to move stuff around.
    This is a strategic war game and I really don't want to turn it into "transport tycoon" or such - so a level of abstraction in this case is what I would like to achieve.
    "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf

  • I have other things that are important to me that I want to discuss soon. And so I don\t want to get very involved in this one.
    But I just want to say for the record...

    I am very opposed to all of the proposed changes.

    I know I complained in the past about the weakness of conventional nukes. But this is because they are too weak to be economically feasible for high end games such as challenges. For pub games, the nukes are excellent.
    It is the conventional nukes that I like the most. Eliminating them makes me extremely sad. Sad like losing a pet cat or Trump becoming my President.

    As for the airlifting... I really feel this will change the game in a negative way. I feel it will affect challenges and high end play even more negatively than it will pubs.

    That's all I have to say on the subject. There is a lot i want to see done and I feel if i weigh in too often it will diminish my ability to be heard.
    But I wanted to at least let my opposition to the changes be clear and known.

    Thanks

  • I support Cyclone46 in his dislike of the new update. Frankly why is airlifting undergoing this change? Gameplay will be slowed at the beginning when it is already a bit boring. And I mean are you saying C-5 planes can't carry tanks? I think they can actually.

    In terms of the nuke missile update I think the old update system was better. Full stop.
    Famous quotes from me:
    "Just my important opinion"
    "The best player is the player who is patient, who is clever and who is ruthless."
    "I'm really great at diplomacy, terrible at strategy ;) "