APRIL UNIT BALANCING UPDATE 170330

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

    • APRIL UNIT BALANCING UPDATE 170330

      Dear Players,

      A bit before its time we would like to present to you our unit balancing update for the month of April. We’ve listened closely to your comments and feedback, and hope you like the implemented changes.
      Our goal in this update was to reduce the massive missile spam we’ve observed while retaining the fun of rocket-play. Also some units (such as the Tank Destroyer) received some well-deserved tender love and care.

      UNIT CHANGES

      [*] Amphibious Combat Vehicle: Introduced Naval Base Level 1 requirement



      [*] Tank Destroyer: Redesigned unit to be a bridge unit between Combat Recon Vehicle and Main Battle Tank, deleted the defensive focus for this unit, decreased Cost from 2175 Industrial Components to 1750, increased infantry damage to 5/6/7/9 and vs armor 6/8/10



      [*] Towed Artillery: Increased Basic Supplies cost from 825 to 975



      [*] Mobile Artillery: Decreased Industrial Components price from 2050 to 1500



      [*] Mobile Anti Air Vehicle: Decreased Cost from 1500 Basic Supplies to 1300, Decreased Cost from 1550 Industrial, Components to 1400, Increased Missile Defense Damage to 2.5/3.5/5, Reduce Helicopter Damage from 6/8/10/11 to 5/6/7/8



      [*] Mobile SAM Launcher: Reduced Anti-Air Range from 75/100 to 50/75, decreased Cost from 1750 Industrial Components to 1350, Decreased Cost from 575 Electronics to 450, increased Aircraft damage to 8/10/11



      [*] Theater Defense System: Increased Aircraft Damage to 11/12/13, Increased Missile Damage, Increased Price from 1500 to 2500



      [*] ASW Helicopter: Reduced Air Base requirement to level 2, Mobile Radar, Reduced Industrial Components price from 800 to 650



      [*] Mobile Radar: will now pick up infantry as radar contacts (ONLY UNIT THAT CAN DO THIS)



      [*] Strike Fighter: Reduced Aircraft and Helicopter Damage to 2/3/5/8



      [*] Naval Strike Fighter: Reduced Aircraft and Helicopter Damage to 2/5/8



      [*] Stealth Air Superiority Fighter: Increased Aircraft Damage to 20, Increased Helicopter Damage to 15 , Introduced Radar



      [*] Stealth Strike Fighter: Reduced damages against Aircraft and Helicopters, Introduced Radar



      [*] AWACS: Fixed Bug that allowed it to see stealth unit radar contacts before Stealth Locating System Upgrade



      MISSILE CHANGES

      [*] Reduced all Cruise Missile Hitpoints to 4/5/6/7



      [*] Decreased Chemical CM damage vs Armored from 50/75/100 to 15/20/25



      [*] Decreased Chemical CM damage vs population from 25/35/50 to 15/20/25



      [*] Decreased Conventional CM Damage from 20/30/40 to 15/25/30 against Infantry



      [*] Decreased Conventional CM damage vs population from 3.5/6.5/10 to 3/5/7



      NAVAL CHANGES

      [*] Corvette: Decreased Missile Defense from 3/4/5 to 2.5/3.5/5



      [*] Frigate: Increased Missile Defense damage to 5/6/7/8



      [*] Cruiser: Decreased Missile Defense damage to 3/4/6



      Your CON Crew
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf

    • my two cents:

      TDs
      one guy recently asked my for what that unit is now? To be honest I don't know. It looks to me like it's recon but without recon good sides and with stronger hard attack. Sorry but in my opinion it is still pointless unit. What you should have done would be: add some soft attack (bc that was main reason why this unit was ineffective), perhaps nerf HP and a little hard attack + making this unit more economically desirable. Now TDs are even more nonsense unit (before they at least had "tank destroyer" hard attack) - at least as tank destroyers.

      AA/AM in general + strike fighters + missiles
      Generally nerf for strikes and CMs + buff for AA/AM. CMs perhaps (but not in the same time when you buffed AA/AM so much), but strikes? You made it pointless unit now. Well, perhaps not utterly - it still is carrier for CMs, but that is not enough in my humble opinion. Strikes were ok, yeah sure for start better then superiority fighters but in that scenario you should buff them, not nerf strikes. Now they are like ducks to be shoot down. At the end in higher levels strikes were seriously inferior when facing sup.fig. One more thing, now stealth strike are almost not worth to be build at all :(

      Mobile radar
      You mean special forces, right?

      Perhaps you could consider giving a little radar to other helicopters :)

      CMs
      Now they will have little chances to hit, even with first level of AM units - or am I wrong? Not nice :( Does someone else have feeling it will be more or less pointless unit when facing AM units?

      What you did good, you know. So I will not point it out ;)

    • TD: we actually increase the Infantry damage together with other important changes such as price.

      Strikes: pointless? You did notice basically everyone using strikes constantly them often owning the skies as well. This had to stop.

      Anti Air: Basically everyone was using AA not SAM. We actually nerfed it and now let's see.

      Mobile Radar: when we write Infantry units we don't mean stealthy special forces. Please note that AWACS and other airborne radar cannot spot infantry any longer.

      Helicopter radar: not needed - they have massive view range making radar redundant.

      Cruise Missiles: were starting to totally dominate the game. Not intended and not fun - and no they will not be useless. But they also will not be the one hit kill button they used to be.


      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf

    • Well, I like those changes mostly.

      I like:
      1. rockets have less hp, easier to intercept,
      2. air domination fighters are now the key to control the skies ( in early game I guess, because stealth fighters are now stronger ),
      3. decreased chemical damage to armoured units,
      4. frigate has now complete and strong air defense,
      interesting:
      5. mobile radar detects infantry, and air radar units not,
      and I don't like:
      6. tank destroyer - that name is now incorrect. Tanks will destroy - them. It's now a light tank, that should be available from first day. Ealier, tank destroyers mixed with other land units seem to be useful as cover to artillery.
      Display Spoiler

      ***

      "We rarely recognize how wonderful it is that a person can traverse an entire lifetime without making a single really serious mistake — like putting a fork in one's eye or using a window instead of a door."
      - Marvin Lee Minsky

      ***



      The post was edited 1 time, last by Efreet ().

    • well tbh I'm actually kinda sad to see cm be reduced I loved those little guys, great for blackmailing near by nations.
      other than that I like this update! I hated TDs before so no huge loss to me, I do love that u guys buffed the theater, and overall I'm extremely pleased with the update.
      on another note, thanks guys! u guys have an update at least twice a week recently and I really appreciate it!
      As always just my 2 cents

      Use Helicopters, Special forces or Stealth. Use your head to play - not the missile button. - Germanico

      These terrorists aren't trying to kill us because we offended them. They attack us because they want to impose their view of the world on as many people as they can, and America is standing in their way. - Marco Rubio

    • This has some great parts and some bad parts. Im happy with most of it, bout time the TDS get a bit of a boast, well deserved. But one thing that bothers me is the strikers. So now the Strike Fighters do the same damage to another aircraft as they do to a flipping helicopter? I agree that there needed to be a decrease and it was too good compared to the air superiority fighter. But Id rather see at level 1... 5 for air superiroity and 3 for strikers. Think 2 is too low.... And for flip sakes just up the heli damage as well.


      Naval changes Im very happy with, this change was well needed.


      Tank destroyers Im in the middle.. Im happy with the addition of the more offensive abilites, but dont like the increase in anti- infantry abilites. Its called a tank destroyer for a reason. I do feel that has to be looked at again
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu

    • I am ecstatic about all of the changes except for the tank destroyer. I literally only built them to defend my cities vs...well, tanks. I liked that I could stop a blitzkrieg in its tracks with 3 TD, 1 somewhat upgraded Spec Ops, and an AA for vertical cover. IMO it was the perfect city defense. (sure you could still nuke it, but that's a whole other war.)

      I was even happy to use them in a unique mobile defense, with their airdrop cape, I could drop them in a defensive wall where I needed them to outmaneuver a tank rush. There was a lot of benefit in the tank destroyer being able to destroy tanks. Please reconsider the stats, or consider providing more units with armor busting capes.

      If the intention was to make the tank the only land unit worth building, well, mission accomplished.

      - Slightly adding to my statement I like how the tank destroyer is still effective vs tanks in city combat. the -50% a tank incurs and the neutralness that the TD enjoys still makes it the better unit in city combat. I still dislike that it gets hosed in all other situations though. (historically, a TD was hidden and served as a quick disable for unsuspecting tanks so the city bonus makes sense, but they should also be better in other terrain allowing for concealment. It's obvious they'd be garbage vs. a tank in open desert or grasslands and both units would be hard pressed to be effective in mountainous terrain...I'd even argue for a -75% to both offense and defense in mountains.)
      -Nobody cares about the Alpha, it's all decided by the Omega.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Ace_lvl_9000: Research garnered further thoughts. ().

    • Glad to hear you like the changes.

      Concerning the TD we saw in our stats that they were basically not being used (statistically - of course some players did but not to a larger extent).

      Let's collect some feedback and see what we do with them - in a worst case we could simply revamp them completely into a new unit type.

      We just don't want to cater useless, or rather hardly usable units - not fun.

      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf

    • Germanico wrote:

      Glad to hear you like the changes.

      Concerning the TD we saw in our stats that they were basically not being used (statistically - of course some players did but not to a larger extent).

      Let's collect some feedback and see what we do with them - in a worst case we could simply revamp them completely into a new unit type.

      We just don't want to cater useless, or rather hardly usable units - not fun.

      //G
      Well, I had been using Tank destroyers prior to this update but didnt bother to upgrade them. I will be more inclined now. But I still dont like the anti infantry abilites. But yes the offensive anti tank role is a good move. And in the end of the day... the european tank destroyer is soo s£xy looking. The US one looks a little inferior. Maybe have the 3 tier progression have tank destroyers done next? Although I want strikers done too...

      anyway, I hardly think they were not being used cos of looks. Its the offensive abilites that will make them a much more popular package to produce. Just think the anti infantry abilites really ruin them for a balancing perspective
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu

    • Germanico

      Strikes
      No, I did'nt (ppl were doing strikes bc a) they are good unit in stats and b) are airplanes so they can be moved and used fast - and that is for what you need airforce), but the way you did it, there will be no more strikes around when people will see how vulnerable they are now :( People just should understand they need frickin AAs, SAMs and superiority fighters. They are in game and doing well against strikes. Now perhaps people would do long range bombers instead of strikes (I will) - will you nerf them too if that happens?

      AA
      the same. People don't understand what is the difference between first AA and SAMs, and why this should be used then, and that in another situation. Now I'm afraid AA/AM are OP.

      Spoting, mobile radar, awacs
      I don't understand. You are reffering to special forces, not infantry class units as all. Right? So now only mobile radar will spot special forces, but all other infantry class units will be spoted by both mob.rad. and awacs?

      Helos radar
      But are you sure they spot every type of units in range of view (except special forces/subs/stealths air.)?

      CMs
      the same as strikes, simply ppl will focus on BMs

    • Germanico wrote:

      If the anti inf is imba we will nerf it. It's still not the anti inf superweapon...
      Looking at the tree, I suspect the cost to dmg ratio of the TD vs. upgrading and building the Combat Recon V. the CRV will win out. Why spend the extra on one more point of damage? The TD will still be superior to all in city defense, but if you're on the attack, go with what's nearly as good, faster land-wise, and cheaper to produce/upgrade.

      I also don't think you've created an anti- inf super weapon. Mechanized Inf can still be used to put the TD and CRV in their place, which is their primary usage intent. Sure they're not doing tank damage vs armor, but they're also cheaper to build than a tank. So it's logical to simply build two inf for every tank you see across the border.

      Besides I'm probably just butthurt because I built loads of TD to create a tank deterrent and now my neighbors are laughing at me. I actually love that the TD is something of a combat recon vehicle for Airborne now and maybe if we're looking at a total revamp, that's a place to start. dropping an up-armored jeep from a chopper isn't so uncommon.
      -Nobody cares about the Alpha, it's all decided by the Omega.

    • Nerf down the Tank destroyers anti infantry stats. And make Combat Recon vechs heli capable. Right now I see no reason to really invest in Combat recon vechs over amphibs. Other than the cool skins for the Combat recon vechs.

      By letting the CRVs air assault capable it will balance out the rivalry between Amphibs and CRVs
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu

    • I get it about why you want to nerf strike aircraft.

      I'm 1 squadron short of 3 full wings. They are doing everything except recce and the actual occupations.

      However, I think that is a reflection of real life.

      Too, it takes a LONG time for damaged units to be returned to strength (much longer than it does to actually build a new one even with a 5th level hospital) ... so I am reluctant to commit troops to the engagement when I can use aerial attacks instead.

      On the subject of AA vs SAM ... the barrier is level 4 barracks and level 1 secret weapons lab ... it takes a lot of time to get that capability. I'd like to get theater SAM but that needs 5 and 2 and there are just too many other 'priorities' to get the resources together.

    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      But I still dont like the anti infantry abilites. But yes the offensive anti tank role is a good move.

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      anyway, I hardly think they were not being used cos of looks. Its the offensive abilites that will make them a much more popular package to produce. Just think the anti infantry abilites really ruin them for a balancing perspective
      Completely agree. The Tank Destroyer should be anti-armour focused. Unless they rename Tank Destroyer's light tanks to comp estate for their reduced Anti-Armour stat.

      Loving the new offensive stats though going to start equipping them to my Airborne Infantry divisions to give them some much needed AT Firepower and complement their offensive stats. Shame they will be called Tank Destroyer divisions are a result though, would rather them be called Air Assault Divisions.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Lord Aodhan ().

    • Germanico wrote:

      Helicopter radar: not needed - they have massive view range making radar redundant.

      Maybe for the Gunships, but the Attack Helicopters lacking radar doesn't sound right. Attack Helicopters use radar to hunt down enemy Armour and destroy them with guided Missiles, it's absolutely essential to their AT role. Gunships don't really need radar being Infantry and light vehicle killers, but Attack Helo's definitely do. Maybe reduce the Visual range of the Attack Helicopters and bring back their Radar?

    • Lord Aodhan wrote:

      Germanico wrote:

      Helicopter radar: not needed - they have massive view range making radar redundant.
      Maybe for the Gunships, but the Attack Helicopters lacking radar doesn't sound right. Attack Helicopters use radar to hunt down enemy Armour and destroy them with guided Missiles, it's absolutely essential to their AT role. Gunships don't really need radar being Infantry and light vehicle killers, but Attack Helo's definitely do. Maybe reduce the Visual range of the Attack Helicopters and bring back their Radar?
      I see your case for the AT helo and it's valid, but it is really just semantics. You could literally rename sight range to radar and it'd be the same thing. The mechanics of the unit won't change, it's a trifle over the naming convention. Besides, with the helicopter not being able to radar track anything but armor on the ground, do you really want little green orbs? or would you actually like to see units via the sight range?
      -Nobody cares about the Alpha, it's all decided by the Omega.

    • Lord Aodhan wrote:

      Germanico wrote:

      Helicopter radar: not needed - they have massive view range making radar redundant.
      Maybe for the Gunships, but the Attack Helicopters lacking radar doesn't sound right. Attack Helicopters use radar to hunt down enemy Armour and destroy them with guided Missiles, it's absolutely essential to their AT role. Gunships don't really need radar being Infantry and light vehicle killers, but Attack Helo's definitely do. Maybe reduce the Visual range of the Attack Helicopters and bring back their Radar?
      Cough Cough, helifire missiles rely on the radar to guide the hellfire missiles. Attack choppers defo need them. Doesn't have to be a huge radar range.
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu

    • TD units, now totally useless.
      STRIKES now , you should of never changed them.
      CM, they should of never been changed or at least bring the costs way down WITH THIS NEW CHANGE .OR AA of all kinds could of been increased against CM and that would of balanced it just fine. but putting a leg tech on [AA] them would of made it much better.
      WHEN ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO FIX MEDICAL BLDGS TO RESTORE YOUR TROOPS.
      DUH THIS IS A NO BRAINER AND IMPORTANT TO THE GAME AS A WHOLE.
      AND NO RADAR IN ATTACK COPPTERS, COMMON NOW THATS WHAT THEY SPECIALIZE IN KILLING TROOPS AND TANKS. THEY WERE ALREADY WEAK AS TO BEGIN WITH.