Nice update. The nerf on the frigate is really severe, but it has the double benefit to refine it as more specialised, especially with upped missile damage, and deletes (partially) the doctrin of Frigate being the multipurpose good ship vs anything.

It also makes Corvette the "real" cheap ship with decent abilities.

I like the reduction of Strike AA ability, which will reduce some "misunderstood" operational results of AS fighters vs Strike Fighters, in stacks.

I like the reduction of visibility of the drone : 60 was really huge. 50 still is great, but it's less OP in terms of reco



"Adjusted Heavy Bomber Hit Points From /20/22/22/25/25/30/30 to 15/16/16/18/18/20/20"

However, this, i don't understand. I mean, it's really a huge reduction. BAM, 25% in early to 33% in late. I would like to ask, what was the spotted problem with Heavy Bombers, for you to consider this nerf ? i'm not an heavy heavy (lol) user, so i do not see...

I appreciate the update, but seem (inexplicably) to have lost about 800 gold in the process. Any thoughts on that?

"Reduced visible range of Drones / UAVs from 60 to 50"

You know, problem with drones is that everyone can see them at Tier1 and 2. They can spy AI territory well, but simply dying in pvp, until get stealth skill. They should probably be visible only to units with a radar, or should be available to master at day 20 both with stealth detection to mobile radars.

"Adjusted Heavy Bomber Hit Points From /20/22/22/25/25/30/30 to 15/16/16/18/18/20/20"

I see some logic in that point - big slow objects are easier to hit, but I think we are about to jump into AA systems epoch, where 15hp means "insta kill". Bombers are a great duo with UAVs, so they can be delicate as it is now, but UAV must be more "stealthy".

"Air Sup Aircraft ATK from 5/7/8/10/12/14/15 to 6/7/11/14/15/18/18
Naval Air Sup Aircraft ATK from 7/11/15 to 9/14/18
Strike Fighter Aircraft ATK from 2/2/4/5/5/7/7 to 2/2/3.5/4.5/4.5/6/6
Naval Strike Aircraft ATK from 3/5/7 to 3/4.5/6"

Love this one. Now those strikers take a lesson. Actually I play western doctrine, where ASF on Tier 2 have 15 AA dmg :o. So, I think - forget about strike fighting without mixing them with ASF, or - clear the sky before you try something. This could add more diversity in the skies, probably. By the way, ASF is the fastest unit in the game, so watching on bombers, ASF should have the biggest air hp (not a suggestion). : )

"Cruiser Missile ATK from 1/1/2/2/2 to 2/2/3/3/3.5
Frigate Missile ATK from 2/2/2.5/3/3/3/3.5 to 2/2/3/4/4/4/5
Destroyer Missile ATK from 0.5/0.5/0.5/1/1/1.5 to /1/1/1/2/2/3
Aircraft Carrier Missile ATK from 1/1/1.5/2/2/2.5 to 2/2/3/4/4/5"

It marginalized subs even more. So... awful change, but maybe realistic. I can agree only with frigates, which can protect coasts from ballistics again. : )

Other balance thoughts:

1) I'm wondering why land artillery units have more damage to armored units, and less to ships. Is there some reason? For example I would like to build some improvised coastal fortress and push ships out of the coast with use of land artillery.

2) National guard (NG) - I think their stats are perfect now, but hp dependency to morale should be cutted off, because they are designed to "times of danger", but honestly, they have aroud 60% hp when show up, and shouldn't move anywhere to heal - It make them useles, because they will reach a full strength after around two days, where won't be anything left to defend. Other units are also "manpower" so they should be also affected by morale, but are not. Additionally, NG could be able to "master" in day 20, so they could be useful also in mid game.

3) Mobile Radar Army Base requirements reduction to lv2

4) Attack subs:
Att 10/12.5/15; Def 5/6/7 - naval surface ships
Att&Def 5/7.5/10; - against submarines
+25% Att&Def at deep sea
-50% Att&Def at coastal waters

5) Naval Patrol Aircraft could require airport lv3 and no naval base + sight range same as drone

Good job with the ranks! : )

"1) I'm wondering why land artillery units have more damage to armored units, and less to ships. Is there some reason? For example I would like to build some improvised coastal fortress and push ships out of the coast with use of land artillery."

Yeah. In previous balances, the artillery was used extensively as a long-rang ship killer. Globally, the idea is that Land and Ship will not "directy" kill each other through bombardment, hence the "relatively" low damage output they do on each other

This said, artillery is enough to deter ships from remaining close to the shore

But...

Fleet, mostly, demolishes all infrastructure in the city. So ships wins the battle anyway.

Yes. Anti-Ship warfare has dedicated units. This said, through pure attrition, artillery wins, at equal spending, against ships except for cruisers

It is really devastating change. If ASF returned high anti air damage, then it should return lower anti landunit damage like before. Now is ASF OP-Unit, and bomber is now several times more expencive then BM with more range but less power.

Well, I don't know why ASF are OP now, they don't damage infrastructure, they have no missiles on board, poor damage to land, ships, only effective in destroying lone "runners" and strike fighters, strictly defensive, expensive, they slow expansion if you specialize in them instead of strikes. Of coz have some advantages : easy to get, will surely smash strike fighters like it should be from the beginning, probably 5:1 in looses against complete stack of euro SF, was 5:3 -which was crazy and not worth the name "superiority".

I think in this new era land units stacking penalty should begin form 6 like other types. Now it is funny because land units have 11, and air units have 6 (logistics problems in the skies? ), should be even inverted.
From some time I think that well prepared (have some AA protection) land offense is almost unstoppable from air (even gunships dies easily confronted with doom stack 10x mechanized infantry).

Frigates were actually buffed in one critical aspect: anti missile. Same goes for several other naval units, so we expect a fleet to have an overall much improved survivabilty vs. cruise missiles.
Subs are not marginalized in our opinion - we are just increasing the general survivability of surface fleets and that I believe is in the interest of most players.
Bombers were OP as flying tanks and our air defenses just couldn’t cope with them so this should settle things.

Last but not least:
Strikes vs ASF - anyone really wanting to put his money onto ASF as multiroles : good luck with that... no way Jose.

Thanks for the Explanation on bombers.

McJohnsen explained me in the meanwhile, and i agree lol

@Opulon
Bombers could not be a flying tanks if SAM and ASF be so powerful like it is now :D. I agree with their actual hp because of realism, they are "strategic", so it means - prepare target before action - to me.

@Germanico
Attack Subs:
- expensive,
- they damage research progress (rare resources, but that's fine due to nuclear power),
- low hp comparable with... a corvette (which is also good, they should be delicate, but with strong attack),
- only naval unit that has no artillery fire (which means that specialised to sea fight, but It's actually not dangerous there),
- halved efficeincy at coastal waters (which makes them specialised to deep sea),
- 3 units dedicated to haunt them (like they are a serious danger )
- destroyers are popular (they are simply good, and don't touch them),
- stack of destroyers can now intercept cruise missiles alone (so my last hope fall, but It seems realistic ex. CIWS).

Attack Subs are not worth the effort i know better ways to intercept sea transports (NPA, destroyers), spying (drones, intel, special forces ) or deliver cruise missiles (destroyers, cruisers, bombers, NPA).

I don't know, maybe there are some tricks that makes subs "fine" in your opinion, or they present well in some background battle simulators, but to simple mortal - they were good before this huge navy hp boost (which is also good). Attack subs were good a year ago, but now I consider them as a waste, they completely loosed proportions, they were forgotten in some update. I don't want to begin endless discussion so I shut up in that matter. Time makes miracles in this game.

in reply to germanicos anti aircfraft couldnt cope with bombers i had to quit using them a while back because of the opposite problems

10 is perfect for running my Armored Divisions, which mine is 3 Towed Artillery, 2 Motorized Infantry, 1 Mobile AAV, 1 Mobile SAM, 1 Mobile Radar, 1 CRV, and 1 AFV. On a side note, if I add an officer to one of those divisions i think the name should change from XX Armored Division to XX Guards Armored Division.

good one.

@MallahanJr

I'm probably mediocre player still learning arcanas, tricks, dirty tricks, game bugs etc., but I never believed in efficiency of so high variety of stacks, looks like a waste of research time and resources.
I would rather keep artillery back in second support stack same as SAM, radar... But who knows, maybe It's wrong play. : )

Depends on the day of the game.

I doubt Mallahan tries to do those stack Day 5, but in late, why not.


Not giving any real opinion on such a "tries to do a bit of everything stack" (i like autonomous battle groups but i think we must accept some weaknesses) , i'll just have an remark :

Towed artillery, in late, get an optics upgrade that raises its visual sight to 35 (like the CRV). In your stack, so, i have troubles to see the exact point of the CRV, as towed artillery will spot from the same distance. Maybe replace it by an additional motorised infantry to balance Hard/Soft HP

Also, i suppose that not every stack has got a mobile radar in it, due to coverage redundance.