Proposed balance changes

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

    • Proposed balance changes

      previously posted on discord:

      Tanks that cost supplies

      Can we get tanks that cost supplies? So instead of electronics+components maybe supplies+components//supplies+electronics?
      We have witnessed the same changes for helicopters and ships already where previous components+electronics units are made into supply+electronic units.
      And im not talking about the CRV which has too little att/def and HP to fit the characteristics of a tank.

      Right now, the only thing that stops me/my alliance from building those tanks are those costs. Building tanks means less resources for Air Fighters, Ships, Submarines, you name it.

      I believe the recent changes to building requirements of artillery units are also encouraging us to build tanks?


      Give the ASW Helicopter a purpose

      Right now, if you compare ASW helicopter and the naval patrol aircraft(NPA) on the most important aspects:
      - roughly the same costs
      - same building requirements
      - NPA: far greater range
      - NPA: a lot more overall damage (though less against subs, but way more against surface ships)

      (I know, ASW Helicopter-> anti submarine(single and only purpose). An unit that already has a low usage rate. Subs without air protection can easily get chased away using ASW helicopter. Same goes with NPA. Except the NPA has longer range and can chase the subs even further away.)

      Now imagine if the frigates lost their att values against helicopters.


      Frigates wouldnt lose their ability to defend themselves and the ships in its stack. They wouldn't lose the ability to see Helicopters in their radar. They just cant actively shoot the Helicopters every 10 minutes. Which means the ASW Helicopter can move freely inside the Frigates AA range.

      If the frigates could no longer actively shoot the ASW helicopter, it has a new purpose: scouting. The ASW Helicopter can get much closer to the enemy ships without getting shot down. Of course the frigates would still have the strong anti-helicopter defence.

      It is not even needed to buff the helicopter defence of ships after my proposed changes: ASW Helicopters still deal little damage to surface ships and especially have very few HP. ASW helicopters can easily be countered by enemy (naval) Air Superiority Fighters too. While you cant even use your own Air Sup Fighters to attack the enemy AS Fighter because you are fighting inside the huge A-Aircraft bubble of the Frigates.
      Aircraft Carriers and Cruisers should keep their offensive value against helicopters though, because the range is so little it hardly makes a difference.

      Thinking of it, the other long-range AA guns dont have anti-helicopter attack values either... maybe because its hard to shoot down low flying objects 100km away?



      The useless MRL before late game

      What makes the MRL so special?
      The range you might think. It has greater range. Comparing the max level with mobile Artillery the MRL has 25km more range. Having a greater range than your opponent is actually huge and can turn around the tide of any war.

      But, lets take a closer look now, when exactly does the MRL have a greater range?
      MRL can be researched from day 5 onwards. Immediately a 75km range. While towed and mobile artillery each start with 50km range. HOWEVER, on day 5 the towed artillery can already improve its range via research. The mobile Artillery on day 6/7/8(doctrines).
      Which means at the beginning, the MRL does NOT have a range advantage against the towed one and only a short advantage against the mobile.

      When does the MRL upgrade its range again via research? Day 13.
      When do the other two upgrade their ranges? Towed: 24/26/26 Mobile: 12/14/16
      To conclude, the MRL gets an advantage against the Towed in midgame, but not against the mobile artillery, on contrary, the mobile could even get a range advantage on the MRL!

      Only in the late game, day 27, the MRL finally establishes its total range dominance, gaining the 125km range.

      To summarize, the MRL actually doesnt have a range advantage of any significance compared to the other artilleries until day ~29.


      This graphic shows when which artillery has the best range at any day. (There can be multiple artilleries to have the best range). Artilleries with a line on top of them means they have the best range.
      A range superiority exists if only one artillery has a line on top of itself for at least one day.



      What other comparisons can be made between the MRL and the other two artilleries?
      - The MRL deals slightly more damage overall. Most importantly, it damages soft and hard targets equally. Whether this is good or bad is very situational.
      - the MRL is quite unmobile, it only learns to fly on day 27, even the mobile artilery learn to fly on day 22/24/26.
      - Compared to the mobile artillery, the MRL is slower at the beginning and eventually it gets even faster than the mobile artillery.
      - The MRL almost only has half of the mobile Artilleries Hit points, making it far less tanky, but as squishy as the towed artillery.
      - The MRL even needs a 4th army base level to produce it. This is a huge deal because you take more time and resources to actually start a new production centre for MRLs.
      - The MRL costs supplies+electronics, same as towed artillery, yet about 50% more.


      What does it all mean?
      The MRL is only worth it in the very late game. Its not an unit that gives a good return in early or mid game AT ALL.It costs more than the towed artillery, has higher building requirements than the mobile artillery, does not have a range advantage until day 29, is only getting faster than the mobile artillery in mid-game, does not deal that much more damage, only learns how to fly much later than every other unit.


      Comparing the cruiser, the naval super unit with the superior range, and the MRL, the ground artillery super unit with the "superior" range:

      Both units are the super units in their respective fields, higher building requirements, more range, more expensive, excel in late game, yet there are few differences:
      - The Cruiser deals significantly more damage to surface ships (you rarely see subs) than the destroyer, especially the later in the game you are. 25% more -> 67% more.
      - The Cruiser has quite a few more HP than the frigate or the destroyer

      - Most importantly, it has a consistent range advantage. It scales almost the same as destroyers/frigates:
      Destroyer: Day2 50km range; Day 13 75km range; Day23 100km range
      Cruiser: Day 3 75km range; Day 15 100km range; Day 26 125km range

      With only very few exceptions (Days: 2; 13-14; 23-25), the cruiser holds a range advantage throughout the game from early to late game. Making it a viable unit even from the beginning.

      All this is different to the MRL, as I explained the MRL above. Most notably is that while the naval super unit has a consistent range bonus, the MRL doesnt have a consistent range bonus.



      What changes do I propose?

      I bet the usage rate of MRL is very low. It doesnt have a clear purpose until late game. It doesnt have anything that justifies the higher costs and production requirements until late game. Doubt its great to have units that are only useful in very late.

      I suggest moving the rage bonuses in the Tech tree a bit earlier, so the MRL actually can outrange the enemy before day 29. It doesnt have to be a non-stop consistent range advantage, at least partially and not getting outranged is already a step in the right direction.
      Furthermore, buffing its damage could justify the much greater costs to produce MRLs. It already starts with quite a bit of more damage than the other artilleries, yet the other artilleries damage scale stronger. Up to 100% more damage while the MRL only scales slow, 50% more damage throughout 3 tiers.
    • I would love to see the MRL keep a strong range advantage, that'd be awesome!

      I disagree about the tanks, though. I think that forcing a player to choose between mass-manufacturing tanks and air units, makes a player choose if they want to prioritize air force or ground. Having a player able to build both at the same time with no overlap in materials is crazy. It's much more realistic IMO to have a player need to choose wisely in terms of the balance of their forces, and makes for better gameplay. Ex: if you have less land, and want to mass up ground forces to defend yourself, maybe tanks would be the better choice, whereas if you're somewhere like an island or are fighting a large country, maybe you'll want to spend some time making an air force to allow yourself a longer offensive capability
    • About ASW Helis.

      This is the hardest unit to balance. I think ASWHelicopter won't have any practical use until it won't be able to land on Destroyers, Frigates, even Corvettes. But probably it is not an option. So what could be eventually done:

      I've also wondered about ignoring att damage, but It sounds not realistic. Helcs can use terrain features on the ground (no radar will send waves into trees, hills, valleys etc. to echo ), but sea surface is flat. I've read somewhere that anti-ship missiles are hard to detect, but they are flying so low, that sometimes hit sea-waves. But let's say it will pass, I think Frigate's DEF to Helcs should be equal to air targets - 6/9/11 or even more.. But should ASWH avoid other's ships ATT? if so, they DEF rates should also be adjusted.

      Another thing is to cut off requirement of naval base. If so, ASWH becomes the unique unit designed for naval fighting that can be produced out of the naval city. Well, I originally want to add this feature to Naval Patrol Aircraft, but if this could revive ASWH... ( actually both could profit form easy access, so universal and most powerful Naval Strike Fighters would be simply much more harder to get. )

      Next step could be damage boost against ships to same level of naval strike fighters 6/8/10, to give it a clear purpose - short range coastal borders protection from incoming transports. After all ASWH uses anti ship missiles and torpedoes. User could have here a tough choice between Corvettes and ASWH. So, ASWH could quite quick prevent sea invasion or sea blockade by mass corvettes, but could also die from single ASF.

      Next thing is to change role of Corvettes to the fastest offensive and defensive ship based on supplies that has bonuses on coastal waters. Details here: forum.conflictnations.com/inde…9/&postID=25963#post25963
      Those adjustments will simply push corvettes deeper to the sea, and ASWH will do their previous job.

      We could get:

      ASWH - shoreline control unit.
      NPA - sea control unit.
      Corvette - light multi role ship.
      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 ().

    • Efreet wrote:

      Next step could be damage boost against ships to same level of naval strike fighters 6/8/10, to give it a clear purpose - short range coastal borders protection from incoming transports. After all ASWH uses anti ship missiles and torpedoes. User could have here a tough choice between Corvettes and ASWH. So, ASWH could quite quick prevent sea invasion or sea blockade by mass corvettes, but could also die from single ASF.
      Totally needed because stopping unprotected transporters is so incredibly hard that you need extra units dedicated to such task. /sarcasm

      On a more serious note:
      Strike Fighters are meta. Almost everyone is running strike fighters. They have a many many purposes:
      - Get vision, have a very mobile radar
      - Shoot down enemy aircraft transports
      - Shoot down enemy helicopters
      - Soften up big stacks with CMs
      - Shoot down other Aircrafts (as long as they arent Air Sups)
      - Strike ground targets (as long as there isnt a lot of AA)
      - Strike naval targets (as long as there isnt a lot of AA-Frigates), made even easier with CMs
      - Detroy hostile buildings
      ...

      ASWH have these purposes (incl. your changes):
      - Get vision, have a good radar range (lets not forget their radar doesnt register hostile aircrafts/helicopters)
      - Attack naval targets (as long as there isnt a lot of AA-Frigates)
      - Attack/chase away submarines

      If you compare both units:
      - The ASWH has a greater radar range, yet is slower and the overall ASWH range is quite small.
      - The ASWH can attack naval targets. So can strike fighters. If the enemy has frigates, neither of them should attack naval targets. The ASWH in particular has a lack of speed and thus can easier get hit by multiple AA-ticks by the frigate and a lack of HP. It doesnt have CMs to shoot to abuse the reloading AA either.
      - The ASWH can chase away submarines, not an awesome purpose given the very low use rate of submarines.

      To summarize this part: The only real advantage the ASWH has is the greater radar range. Meanwhile the strike fighter has so many more purposes. So why should anyone build ASWH if they can build strike fighters and do the same and many more jobs?

      You might want to say, the ASWH has much greater attack values against surface ships. But do you actually need super high attack values against targets that are defenseless non-the-less? Remember, once the opponent has frigates, every ASWH attack run is suicide. What if the enemy is actually good and doesnt send ships without air protection to your shores? Or he doesnt even care about your shore? Your ASWH becomes obsolete. Even scouting your coastal waters is a risk, remember your ASWH cant detect other air units, without warning or a chance to fly away, the enemy can shoot down your ASWH.

      You could even argue that strike fighters are better at destroying mass corvettes than your ASWH helicopters:
      - Corvettes deal more damage against helicopters than fighters
      - Strike Fighters have a lot more HP
      - Strike Fighters can shoot CMs if needed, CMs are very strong against ships
      - Strike Fighters are a lot faster, they can do more attack runs, a better chance to be on ground during the healing tick.
      - Strike Fighters have a greater operational range. Depending on the airport situation, it could be useful.


      By the way, there is another unit called naval patrol aircraft, even with your ASWH buff, the naval patrol aircraft deals more damage to surface ships. This unit even gains more speed and the ability to shoot CMs! Why would you want ASWH to protect your shores from corvettes/transporters if you could build naval patrol aircrafts who are much better at it? The only advantage of ASWH is not having the naval base as production requirement? So the ASWH is the cheap version of the NPA? :(


      Lets put our focus on giving units real purposes. An units real purpose is to kill a good enemy (or assisting in doing so). Not a bad enemy. A good player with a decent strategic mind wont send an invasion army unprotected via sea, nor mass corvettes without any airprotection. You always want to prepare yourself against the worst, which is in this case a good opponent. If the opponent is worse than expected, the better it is for you. Whatever can withstand a good strategy can withstand a bad strategy.
      Here's an example:
      You build destroyers and frigates to gain the naval superiority and protect your coastline. If the enemy has destroyers, you can shoot back. If the enemy uses aircrafts, the frigates will protect you. If the enemy is bold enough to send his entire ground invasion army via sea, you will take the kills easily.
      You dont build ASWH with the sole purpose to kill those transporters while you cant handle the actual enemy fleet at all.

      The ASWH like you designed it doesnt have a real purpose (apart from the radar range). You still need units to deal with an opponents actual fleet. And those units can certainly cope with weak mass corvettes/transporters.


      Corvettes

      They are fine as they are right now, no great changes needed. Depending on the geopgraphic situation, they(+ground units) can deal very well with a much stronger navy consisting of destroyers and frigates.
      The ASWH cannot replace the corvettes in this case. The ASWH need undisputed airspace to operate. The Corvettes doesnt need undisputed waters, the enemy ships can only shoot once every hour -> Once they shoot, the enemy cant contest the waters for 1 hour. The Corvettes can move freely. Meanwhile the Frigates will shoot the ASWH no matter what every 10 minutes, too little to do stuff.

      About your proposed changes:
      They dont get useless after day 14. Tier 3 corvettes are actually pretty fancy. The Devs know why. Except if they removed the feature. :(
      Their key is to exploit the big ships slowness in coastal areas. You dont need big range, just get closer to the enemy ships and you are fine. Shouldnt be too hard with their superior speed.

      1) Pls dont give corvettes a sonar, at any level. This would be another nerf to the already underused submarines. Nobody uses subs. Even fewer will use them if they cant even snipe corvettes at later stages.

      2) Why this huge HP boost? Are the small "light" (I quoted you) corvettes suddenly a huge strong swimming fortress? You propose even more HP than a Frigate has. o_0 The Corvette right now has enough HP, even in later stages, coming very close to the frigate.

      3) Boosting units damage shouldnt be the answer to everything... if you continue this trend, every shot from any unit is a tactical nuke :)
      Corvettes have decent damage, not too great, but their swarm is the answer. You can easily produce them, even at a much greater number(only naval base lv2, no components needed). Their att stats dont need to match the one of the big ships at all, they make it up with numbers.

      4) Not sure why extremely fast on high seas. It makes them useable on high seas too, while right now their operational area is solemnly coastal waters, which I feel is enough. Though I dont oppose giving corvettes greater speed on high seas, I would prefer buffing their coastal speed so it matches or exceeds the high sea speed of the big ships. Personally, I prefer keeping as it is, the corvette as the ship of the coastal waters.


      Edit:
      Why don't you @Efreet say why my proposed changes of the ASWH are bad? Being unrealistic is not a strong argument in a game imo... balance > realism pls c:

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

    • I have tested the helicopters against frigates. The radar of the frigates dont locate the helicopters. But if the helicopter in sight range the frigate fired on the helicopter or if annother unit locate the helicopter.
      And this is realistic.
      „Morgen, ihr Luschen!“ --- „Morgen, Chef!“ (Ausbilder Schmidt alias Holger Müller bei der Arbeit)
    • Well, after this detailed SF and ASWH comparison, I concluded that any change proposed above won't give ASWH any practical use. But I feel that content didn't touch the point. Actually I could now compare ASF with SF where full feature SF sucks. Then ASF with SAM, and ASF sucks. I can probably imagine any abstract situation where any unit sucks. What actually you are trying to argument by this then? Your change won't make ASWH better than any Strike Fighter, and as you can read - Helcs ignore Frigate's fire in some conditions. ( No one didn't know, coz no one used. )
      ___

      "(...)Being unrealistic is not a strong argument(...)"

      If realism is a weak argument, than maybe you should simply propose a forcefields instead.
      ___

      Ah, come on. Corvettes are "build 5 and no more" units, mastering them is a waste. Maybe pros know some secrets, but in my noob thinking they become useless around day 10-15. I just want to encourage people to master them.

      1) About sub detection, don't worry. I've changed my mind. "Nobody uses subs." - A heresy. They are key to victory in most Pacific wars, due to obliteration of popular destroyer / frigate mixes. The more Frigates in it, the easier to sink. But I understand that not everyone like playing World maps in Asia. But wait, I don't remember that i have used Subs in Europe maps and any other low water maps, so I can agree here.

      2) I proposed a Corvette slightly less durable than a Frigate at high seas, but it switches to less durable destroyer at coastal waters. So I guess it gets interesting "dual nature". Thinking that only everything that is big and heavy deserves to be durable, should adjust your favorite strike fighters's hp to 10, and bombers to 40. In this case hp is a result of agility and river/archipelago advantage.

      3) Yeah, I heard it many times. I'm not a fan of endless rise of values, and the ideal solution is to set damage values from 1 to 5 and hp from 1 to 20, beginning everything from scratch. But reality is - we are in some system. There was some updates in the system like overall navy hp boost, new durable heroes, new anti-air mechanic. We know that CoN changes by evolution after a revolution. So, lets say that tomorrow Devs will boost up Cruiser's HP to 100/200/300. So you will show up on every balancing topic risen after update and think "oh no, he keep rising values again and again". But hey, lets try to propose nerf something, maybe SF naval damage to 2/3/4.

      4) Too be honest, I didn't compared every model, but Corvettes are simply the fastest ships in this choice and high seas shouldn't change it coz it's silly. It not needs a research. It's logical - smaller is faster. A little shortcut with 4.25 speed here, because to achieve the fastest status, whole ships speeds should be adjusted.
      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 4 times, last by Efreet: grammar, readability ().

    • Good discussion here... many valid points raised. Concerning the ASWH - yeah - we need to find a better role. I concur.

      Concerning ships: Actually in ships smaller is not faster. That's a common mistake most landlubbers make, because it goes so well on land (and even in air).
      Factually large vessels often are faster because they can sport a very large engine allowing them consistently running at comparatively high speeds, vs. the short sprints usually used by smaller engine craft.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • I did some research basing on wiki list military.wikia.com/wiki/List_o…l_ship_classes_in_service. Table below gets highest speed and the lowest speed from every ship class. I simplified many things, because the subject is huge and good for academic discussion, and the results are :

      ShipSpeed (from-to in knots)Speed mid valuePlace
      Carriers26-32294
      Cruisers32-34332
      Destroyers29-35323
      Frigate20-3527,55
      Corvette*12-60441
      Corvette**15-55351



      * large patrol vessels, missile boats, torpedo boats, patrol boats included. Why? For example Cyclone-Class used in the game is described as Patrol Boat on the list, not a Corvette. in-game Corvette term can mean whole family of small military ships then.
      ** only strict corvettes

      "In modern terms, a corvette is typically between 500 tons and 2,000 tons although recent designs may approach 3,000 tons, which might instead be considered a small frigate." - and that's the main problem with them, there are many models of Corvettes from small to large, from ultra fast to ultra slow.

      Conclusion:

      I must retreat from making Corvettes the fastest ships. They actually won the table, but this big difference (15-55) is not convincing. US Corvettes like Freedom Class and some Scandinavian models are very fast and rise the rank. Mid values differs only slightly and clarifies into two groups : Destroyers, Cruisers should be considered as faster (high sea); Corvettes, Frigates, Carriers, Subs are slower (subs's speeds reminds Frigates.).
      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 2 times, last by Efreet: grammar, readability ().