HQ Build times - are the new strategies good for the game.

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

    • HQ Build times - are the new strategies good for the game.

      The HQ build time was increased for balancing reasons, which I understand.

      In recent games I have observed the rise of a new early game strategy, which I will explain breifly:

      1: select a nation with an inland HQ but coastal access and Neighbors with coastal HQ's.
      2: move all your troops to just off the coast of their HQ, attack without warning win despite heavy losses, destroy HQ.
      3: message player and explain that early game the economic damage of having to rebuild a HQ is crippling, in time taken, lost resource generation, and the resources that must be spent.
      4: other player most likely quits, so despite the fact that the battle went heavily in favour of the defending nation in terms of troop losses they lose. - even if they can recapture their HQ they likely cannot become competitive against other nations.

      I have seen this strategy quite a bit, and had it attempted on me a couple of times so far. - I have persisted with both games and won both wars, but they are right, the damage is crippling. It is also near impossible to prevent in the early game without access to naval scouting units, and for most nations this strategy is viable on, they can carry it out earlier than it is possible to get units trained up in that role.

      This, to me at least, seems slightly against the spirit of the game. More of an unintentional loophole being abused by players who have spotted it.

      I also understand that a HQ is something that should be protected, and the heavy morale penalty that comes with losing it is a suitable punishment. However, I also feel that a country recapturing its most recent historical HQ should gain some reward for that, either a cut in the build time or the resource cost (or ideally both).

      Looking forward to hearing others experiences of this strategy, ideas for counterplay, peoples opinions on whether it is an issue or not, and ideas other than my solution to resolve it.
    • You are correct someone did the EXACT same thing you described as Indonesia. China somehow escaped my naval blockade and started attacking me and he did it to almost all cities in mid game when you start devolping a navy. I was so powerful if he didn't do this he would get destroyed since I almost completly surrounded him. Got every single country that borders China then all my troops at the border and set up the biggest naval blockade the world has ever seen. But with bombing on non coastal cities. All my cities went up in rebellion, I had to focus on the rebel states, so China could start winning the war. I eventally won when all my homeland cities were back and I and I did the same thing and it had the same effect. But this time, China didn't have all that buffer terroity so I started invading and China made a makeshift army (China's regular army got destroyed by powerful local rebellions) too late and I finally won. Long term though it was deadly. My resources grew slower, the moral punishment for buliding and getting troops were devastating when I needed troops fast. And instead of winning in WW 2020 since 2nd place was around 550 and I was around 1150, I lost by 46 points to Poland. I wouldn't all it a loophole during the war just good strategy but since it has long term damage, it is a big loophole. :thumbdown:
      War: "Sometimes you have to pick the gun up to put the gun down."- Malcolm X

      Peace: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

      The post was edited 1 time, last by War and Peace ().

    • Sadly, it collides with how most "naval shores" work, and how they are hard coded to allow "nodes" for disembarking/embarking.

      The best "RP" explanation i could give to you is that, as the military overlord of your country, you are not allowed to destroy civilian shores, because someone think of the children !
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Opulon wrote:

      Sadly, it collides with how most "naval shores" work, and how they are hard coded to allow "nodes" for disembarking/embarking.

      The best "RP" explanation i could give to you is that, as the military overlord of your country, you are not allowed to destroy civilian shores, because someone think of the children !
      And also, you'd hurt your own "naval trade"
      "Any of you *uckin' pricks move, and I'll execute every mother*uckin' last one of ya!" - Honey Bunny
    • We will be countering this in the coming update for our World War 3 64 player maps by adding level 1 bunkers to ALL player capitals.
      Our hope is to provide enough defensive bonus to deter, or at least complicate this strategy.
      Additionally we will globally increase the time to disembark into enemy harbors/territory from 1h+ to 2h+ as we believe we went a bit overboard when lowering it in the first place.

      This said: If you apply above "rush" tactic to ANY player HQ and conquer/destroy the HQ for the nation you will see pretty similar results.
      Effectively most players churn a running match after experiencing an early loss of major forces/HQ. This is totally understandable and expected.
      There isn't really a lot we can do about the fact that fighting a losing match simply is not perceived as fun by most players. And let's face it:
      Loss of most or even all of the units and/or the capital does definitely constitute such an experience.

      So you're not really pointing out anything new, it's just that coastal HQ are more vulnerable and should definitely not be left undefended.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • I suppose that you still can't have different disembarking times for units, like amphibious are quick, heavy armor is slow as hell :D


      Bunker on capital is a good idea, though
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Fereyd wrote:

      Maybe it´s a workaround to give Nations with an coastal HQ a Corvette as Starting unit.
      Or an ASW Heli...
      These are both good answers to the problem maybe even a naval infantry, but this would be too OP for taking small islands without harbors early game.
      War: "Sometimes you have to pick the gun up to put the gun down."- Malcolm X

      Peace: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein