Naval / Air controller

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

    • Naval / Air controller

      Suggestion for enhanced coalition play..

      Which would allow a member of a coalition to either claim or be nominated as Naval or Air controller, which would allow them to take control of the naval or air units of other coalition members whilst they are offline, or online with their explicit permission.

      Could be implemented in many different ways, maybe with a research tree which allows different degrees of interoperability and control. For instance setting maximum limits on the numbers of units which could be called, or research reducing the amount of time it takes between units being requested and made available.

    • Spinflight wrote:

      Which would allow a member of a coalition to either claim or be nominated as Naval or Air controller, which would allow them to take control of the naval or air units of other coalition members whilst they are offline, or online with their explicit permission.
      i mean.... you could just... like... coordinate who builds what

      and you'd have to be a fool to trust other random ppl with control over your units :D
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • Teburu wrote:

      Spinflight wrote:

      Which would allow a member of a coalition to either claim or be nominated as Naval or Air controller, which would allow them to take control of the naval or air units of other coalition members whilst they are offline, or online with their explicit permission.
      i mean.... you could just... like... coordinate who builds what
      and you'd have to be a fool to trust other random ppl with control over your units :D
      Currently I am playing a game with friends, so no this is not completely stupid.

      I like this idea, but I worry newbies might try it and get burned, discouraging them from future games.

      Perhaps it could be unlocked at, say, rank 10? That would allow new players to get some experience.

    • Yes all sorts of possibilities and the implementation would be a matter for the devs.

      Personally I think it should be a researchable ability. Interoperability is not an easy thing, especially when different nations have different doctrines. Nato being a good example where the Americans have had to pay huge chunks of cash to provide a command structre that disparate countries and units can slot into.

      Would fit well with the hoccifer tree, where insteadof researching a wupert and then building a unique and weirdly overpowered single unit the hoccifer would instead allow this feature, probably behind suitable rank locks.

      So one wupert would be Allied air coordinator. Rank 1 allowing the loan or borrowing of up to 3 air units after a 2 day notice period.. During which the loaning nation could refuse.

      Rank 2 reduces the period and ups the number of units etc.

      That would be how I'd see it going.

    • air units are probly the worse victims to afk deaths. Naval too but you can typically do some movements before hand to keep them on the move and not a sitting target.

      As for it being researchable not sure, maybee be a buff like amphibious assault, airlift, stealth etc. But giving the officers ability to command coalition units or cordinate with them sounds cool. But officers are op as it lol.

      Or you can give it as a ability for high command like the ability to share intel with non-coalition members.

      But personally if we gave air or Naval units command to coalition members i would do it as 1 of the following:

      1) Have a coalition Fire Stance for the units that grants ability for coalition members to move unit while active.
      -or-
      2) Only allow limited commands. For example Only the ability order Patrol over your own Unit. cannot order movement or out of airfield range. In the case of Naval units only have the ability to move a certain radious such as 100 (radius of a icbm) and unable to adjust if already moving etc.

    • Completely against idea.
      Afk/sleeping is a part of gameplay.
      If you are afk for several hours you can always pull back your planes to keep them safe. They are very fast so they can be back on duty quickly.
      The only thing I would recommend to devs is to have auto patrol option for subscribers, working similar to auto bombard for ground troops. Auto patrol only exactly above planes when enemy is inside patrol circle and/or visible, not somevere else. Auto patrol meaning they will automatically patrol to defend and if there is no enemy they will go ground again.

      Planes are already op, why to make them more op?

    • Would be an excellent way of flagging up multiple accounts!

      The way it works in real life is that units are assigned by the home nation to Nato and then come under Nato command. Those units must be familiar with Nato TTPs and would in a crisis then take their direction from the local commander, who could potentially be from any of the constituent nations.

      For instance when you assign amphibious units to Nato command it is the hosting nation which is responsible for air support / superiority.

    • Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

      Like I'd EVER turn my planes over to anyone, ... even a coalition member. (even if they were an alliance partner)


      No, ... just no.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD

    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

      Like I'd EVER turn my planes over to anyone, ... even a coalition member. (even if they were an alliance partner)


      No, ... just no.
      You dont have to...These feature is a can and not a MUST. I love it.

      I would even favor to extend to all units. How this will effect MultiAccount player...only the devil knows...
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.

    • point here is that the use of such a feature would be incredibly to begin with?
      as alread said, trusting randoms with your units.... just no
      and then there is still the fact that it‘d enable multiaccounting more
      imo not worth the risk for the in comparison small payoff
      and if its ppl you really trust you might as well share accounts at that point gives you even more control lmao ( only problem here is that this is against TOS)

      seems like a kinda weird try to circumvent the problem of activity
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • Job_ee wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

      Like I'd EVER turn my planes over to anyone, ... even a coalition member. (even if they were an alliance partner)


      No, ... just no.
      What if you were playing with a friend you knew on a personal level, outside of the game?
      Still no. I don't need a reason to get pissed at a real friend. Do you realize the tremendous advantage this would give to coalitions with players in different time zones?
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD

    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

      Like I'd EVER turn my planes over to anyone, ... even a coalition member. (even if they were an alliance partner)


      No, ... just no.
      What if you were playing with a friend you knew on a personal level, outside of the game?
      Still no. I don't need a reason to get pissed at a real friend. Do you realize the tremendous advantage this would give to coalitions with players in different time zones?
      Perhaps I am biased and that is the only reason I like it, but I would still implement it/ put it on Germanico's magical list.

    • Pafufu wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Job_ee wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

      Like I'd EVER turn my planes over to anyone, ... even a coalition member. (even if they were an alliance partner)


      No, ... just no.
      What if you were playing with a friend you knew on a personal level, outside of the game?
      Still no. I don't need a reason to get pissed at a real friend. Do you realize the tremendous advantage this would give to coalitions with players in different time zones?
      Perhaps I am biased and that is the only reason I like it, but I would still implement it/ put it on Germanico's magical list.
      I would take it off that list, stomp on it, crumple it up, burn it, bury it and recycle it as a charcoal pencil.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD

    • Basically I like this feature because i adds a new kind of realism.
      It tends to eb misused by multis, we fill find them and Ban them, be sure!

      You don´t like someone using your troops, ok understandable but what if you could nominate trops to be part of a pool or battlegroup. This pool could be managed by the designated player.

      This would represent a multination Force under Command of one Nation.
      If you don´r want your troops to takepart, don´t send them to the pool.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Dorado Games
      DE - Team Lead
      Conflict of Nations




      "That was not me, it was already broken!"