Kalrakh wrote:
Not sure, what you are talking about. Ships and Artillery fire at hostiles, if they see them as radar dots, not only if they see them physically. The combat AI can even do what the player can't: differentiating between neutral and hostile radar dotsOriginalSwift wrote:
+1 for this feature.
I think it would be very useful for me to have a "fire at will" setting as well as "aggressive".
Both have their use cases indeed.
I'm currently playing a game where I'm considering how to defend large swathes of waters whilst I'm offline.
How realistic do we want this warfare to be? Because you can consider in the real world, if a few tanks rolled up towards your coast line past one of your littoral defense vessels, they arent just going to wave them past, maybe throw them the front door keys whilst you're at it. No. They'd radio, get permission, then blast 'em out of the water.
I think what would be perfect, is that naval ships specifically, whilst placed on strategic water movement points, who are set to aggressive fire mode, would engage in "fighting" the enemy. Not bombarding them once in sight. Thus solving issues around units moving freely without causing wars, yet still enabling them to stop sneak attacks whilst players can't respond to the game.
I think this is way more realistic and probably easier to implement from a technical point of view.
The sneaking past your defenses happens, while there is no war declared yet.
Normal stance is also 'Fire at will' stance, the only difference of 'aggressive stance' is, that 'aggressive stance' can pause the movement of a unit to commence attacking.
Heres the scenario:
I'm playing as New Zealand. So far the team invaded all across Europe, Asia and now there's only Africa and South America.
I want to blockade the entire ocean between me and Brazil, or me and Africa. This means I would also be able to protect my allies from invasion.
Theres two main concepts to my idea, as follows;
1) A user should be able to place a naval unit anywhere at sea and have it engage either neutral or hostile targets that it comes into direct contact with (e.g. their location markers come within a certain distance, so basically if they try and travel past your naval units). This is different to an "aggressive" stance. The point is my ship won't be moving, it will be stationary on a strategic point to protect my waters.
2) I want to 1 corvette at each port, so that in the event some ground units try to travel past my corvette, it would begin fighting that unit (not bombarding).
Someone also suggested a "territorial water zone" which isn't far from reality, and I think this would make the game less fun, because it would not be an additive change, e.g. add a new feature or build out an existing one.
However, what I have suggested in points 1 and 2, these are also realistic mechanics for reasons I mentioned in my previous comment. It would also make the game more fun, because its not fun to wake up and see you got invaded when you had a corvette on every port.
It would also solve the bug in the game where a player can immediately after beginning a disembarkation move, issue a second move, towards the same location, and then instantly the units are free to have anti-air capabilities. Which seems extremely unrealistic.
So let's say that this was implemented by the developers. What does the game change look like?
1) to invade an experienced player who uses the new mechanic well, you will likely need to defeat some of his navy so that your ground units can access the beaches, regardless of your diplomatic status.
2) there becomes soft ownership of the seas and waterways because a user could blockade every single tile which leads to a particular area on the map, therefore claiming "ownership" of them.