Infantry mortars need a nerf, specially on x4 games

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

  • Kalrakh wrote:

    ewac123 wrote:

    "Choppers are the best"
    Until a few level 1 ASF appear...
    and get destroyed by my level 1 NASF ;)
    Ha! But then I activate my Anti-de Sitter space nucleation device, and destroy the entire Universe!
    *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

    "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
  • crazystoner wrote:

    You speak like artillery is the be all and end all.
    Dont get me wrong, railguns are fantastic, but id rather stacks of special forces any day, SAS.

    While towed artillery is great, the reliance on AA is a burden.
    Any other artillery and you lack maneuverability.

    Last game i played with railguns, i think my stack ended the game with 200kills, never did get that level 5 army base either, think i even lost one. But railguns are exceptionally overpowered in the hands of a extraordinary commander.

    I recall one game i played as Chad, heavy mech, two stacks, 1 with 5/6 tanks the other 5/6 mobile artliiery, i lost the game, but i had Africa and dominated every single large scale engagement. I lost because the entire game i was under gorilla warfare and my tanks lacked the maneuverability to combat wave after wave after wave. Same thing happened when i played as Canada and rushed stealth bombers. Of course the defining notion was i was alone vs alliances of enemies. Yet in both cases i was the biggest, most dangerious force on the planet and ultimately was defeated simply by attrition.

    Lose a city, you have to fight rebels, lose an airfield (spy action) and you loss counterstrike capability, lose a home city and you loss the ability to build units. You see the biggest issue isn't countering stacks, is that every single enemy infantry unit has an overwhelming offensive capability over any and all defensive unit you defend with and there is literally no way to stop them getting built.

    I didn't lose these game because they played better, it was simply because i maxed a different infantry unit and couldn't defend myself.
    You can literally smash every enemy home city to dust, the next day they just start building infantry units again like it never happened.

    You could aruge, why did i just build infantry, well i could but then its purely a numbers game.
    Biggest alliance wins, hence game becomes less about playing the game, more about talking in chat.
    You have obviously never played against a player with an iq above 20 and knows how to use artillery :D
    If you did, then you wouldn't be claiming that railguns are overpowered. Fancy aa at best.
  • yzjqx wrote:

    You have obviously never played against a player with an iq above 20 and knows how to use artillery :D If you did, then you wouldn't be claiming that railguns are overpowered. Fancy aa at best.
    I can play you if you like.
    How many artillery pieaces are you going to produce, thats if you make it past day 5 alive.

    Maneuverability, you don't think railguns are viable? why because they lack range. You send a stack of rocketlaunchers at me, my radars will know your coming, hell you'll show me your coming and ill send a decoy unit in advance to take intital barrage and then proceed to smash your artillery to pieces, then just helicopter deploy away.

    There are some better starting countries then others, likewise the strategy of Russia is different to say DR Congo or New Zealand.

    I have won games simply by sitting in New Zealand, completing a stack of 5 carriers, rolling up into europe with 40 naval strike aircraft onboard my 5 carriers. WHAT CAN YOU DO!? Nothing...

    Also the issue that artillery destories your moral, lowering your economic income.

    Don't get me wrong, AA and Artillery can be effective, but the upkeep, the building requirements and the lack of maneuverability means spy action, intelligence and clever maneuvering can overcome them.

    I suppose if your India and push West it could be effective, you can sustain a single front offensive with a viable number of troops, yet it will be slow going. I personally tend towards fighting on 3 fronts, and expanding at speed, i don't mind losing troops, because i use the market, i use moral and i cycle through unit types depending on the game day. I can always just build attack choppers if your just AA and Artillery, but like i said, that kind of investment into military hardware puts you at a massive disadvantage. Highly likely you will die before day 5 and by day 20/30 your upkeep will decimate your offensive ability. More with the threat of ballistic missiles requiring investment into theatre defense.

    This is fundmentally why mortar infantry are so strong, because they act like artillery, yet lack all of its downsides, like building investment, lack of maneuverability, lack of capture, they are even somewhat okay against aircraft all while forcing your enemy into these subpar units to counter them. Unless of course you go railguns and just clean up everything they throw at you everywhere.
  • I recognize 2 most critical game phases:
    Survive till day 5
    Surivive midgame around day 15

    During surviving till day 5 artillery has no influence on your chances. Also if you start on day1 with developing and building armybase, there will be on day 5 just a very limited number of artillery available and perhaps spread over your map. A concentrated attack will not be stopped by a single or 2 artillery units.

    In midgame artillery is nice, but no poison without antidote. If you have concentrated on air control, artillery won t be a big issue. And guys who have artillery and AA usually don t live so long to be a threat.
  • crazystoner wrote:

    I have won games simply by sitting in New Zealand, completing a stack of 5 carriers, rolling up into europe with 40 naval strike aircraft onboard my 5 carriers. WHAT CAN YOU DO!? Nothing...
    First of all having SAM to destroy your aircraft, SAM has a big range and high damage. Also just destroying your carriers with ships and if not using frigates as main ship, then people will at least have frigates as protection against aircraft. MRL+SAM+radar+ASF is just the composition for ground warfare, only because you are using this strat, doesn't mean you have no navy. Of course you have to still build navy.

    crazystoner wrote:

    Also the issue that artillery destories your moral, lowering your economic income.
    Yes, artillery causes civilian casaulties, but everythng does. Yes, some things deal more than
    other, but MRL is about average.

    crazystoner wrote:

    I suppose if your India and push West it could be effective, you can sustain a single front offensive with a viable number of troops, yet it will be slow going.
    Without losing troops you can go way faster.

    crazystoner wrote:

    because i use the market
    I don't know with which persons you are in your games, but selling something at the market is rarely useful and buying stuff doesn't require not using artillery.

    crazystoner wrote:

    I can always just build attack choppers if your just AA and Artillery
    That are getting shot down by ASF.

    crazystoner wrote:

    that kind of investment into military hardware puts you at a massive disadvantage.
    Which investment are you talking of? Do you mean that building MRL is worse than building other stuff?

    crazystoner wrote:

    by day 20/30 your upkeep will decimate your offensive ability.
    Uhm, no

    crazystoner wrote:

    More with the threat of ballistic missiles requiring investment into theatre defense.
    Yes, that's true, but if you have nothing to oppose the MRL you will lose.


    crazystoner wrote:

    You send a stack of rocketlaunchers at me, my radars will know your coming, hell you'll show me your coming and ill send a decoy unit in advance to take intital barrage and then proceed to smash your artillery to pieces, then just helicopter deploy away.
    First of all you can't just deploy away immediatly, first you are going to be locked in combat, so I can see you. Since your SAS is still a helicopter, ASF deals much damage to it. just 8,5 at lvl1, but at lvl4 11 and at max lvl 17 damage. And since you can easily fly 2 attacks on the SAS (because you build enough airfields) you are going to deal a lot of damage, the low AA defense is not big enough to make troubles.
    I'm not sure if this is true, please tell me if yes or no, but I think that stuff that can reveal aircraft Stealth can also reveal stealth helicopters, so I could move my artillery away from the point you are Air Assaulting to and then kite your SAS(mobile radar can detect air and ground Stealth from level5 on). But of course that only works if you can detect them while still in the Air, or if you just sometimes move your stacks around a little bit.

    And even if I have to kill your just landed stack with ASF, then you would have lost many expensive SAS troops.
  • Joke on that, I just 1v3 a whole top game coalition that spam inf, TD, striker and shit ton of stealth striker.
    and you know what? I completely beat their ass with a stack consisted with 7 MRLs, 2 SAM, inf officer with mob radar and 4 sam following it.
    Heli? piss off I got ASF, naval? somehow I win with stupid corvettes. hell one of them msg me saying I spam Gold.

    MRLs, SAM and ASF are meta units for a reason. cuz when in the right hand you can't do shit

    Sidellan wrote:

    In midgame artillery is nice, but no poison without antidote. If you have concentrated on air control, artillery won t be a big issue. And guys who have artillery and AA usually don t live so long to be a threat
    no meta, I do what meta don't do and YEET them with ridiculous tactic. - IT YEET OR BE YEETED
  • playbabe wrote:

    Joke on that, I just 1v3 a whole top game coalition that spam inf, TD, striker and shit ton of stealth striker.
    and you know what? I completely beat their ass with a stack consisted with 7 MRLs, 2 SAM, inf officer with mob radar and 4 sam following it.
    Heli? piss off I got ASF, naval? somehow I win with stupid corvettes. hell one of them msg me saying I spam Gold.

    MRLs, SAM and ASF are meta units for a reason. cuz when in the right hand you can't do shit

    Sidellan wrote:

    In midgame artillery is nice, but no poison without antidote. If you have concentrated on air control, artillery won t be a big issue. And guys who have artillery and AA usually don t live so long to be a threat
    I believe you, that AFTER you have that stack it is nearly invincible.
    BUT how do you manage to survive until that point? Do you take some far away nations where you have a serious chance to stay unharmed for the first 10-15 days? How do you handle the different forms of attacks (planes, choppers, ballistics?).
  • wut? u don’t even need spy.
    News and looking at their base pretty much tell u everything u need.

    and lastly their play style all same. spam basic ground troop and air units.
    basically what you say it is superior but now 3 times stronger yet i still beat them.

    but not gonna lie they quite newbie make a mistake here and there and managed to put me in the struggle
    no meta, I do what meta don't do and YEET them with ridiculous tactic. - IT YEET OR BE YEETED
  • playbabe wrote:

    Joke on that, I just 1v3 a whole top game coalition that spam inf, TD, striker and shit ton of stealth striker.
    and you know what? I completely beat their ass with a stack consisted with 7 MRLs, 2 SAM, inf officer with mob radar and 4 sam following it.
    Heli? piss off I got ASF, naval? somehow I win with stupid corvettes. hell one of them msg me saying I spam Gold.

    MRLs, SAM and ASF are meta units for a reason. cuz when in the right hand you can't do shit
    of course, but your argument is like his: "I won once with that so it's good." or "I win most of the times with that so it's good." And we all know, that that isn't true, so if you want to convince him, this doesn't work.
  • >This is fundmentally why mortar infantry are so strong, because they act like artillery, yet lack all of its downsides
    they do have plenty of other downsides; downsides that artillery does not have
    the argument that X unit lacks downsides of unit Y is kinda dumb cuz they're different units to begin with lmao :D
    I am the basline for opinions
  • At the time you infantry is able to learn mortar, even mobile artillery is able to learn to use airtransport.

    So not sure, what downsides you are talking about? AA-Def? Sure, artillery has none, but infantry is not that great either.

    Range? Artillery is always superior
    Fire Control? Infantry does not have that.
    Being soft target? There are more units strong against soft that otherwise, I would suspect.
    Low signature? Your range is so low, it hardly matters.

    Guess the only thing remaining, might be: can capture territory...
  • I don't believe Motorized Infantry Mortars are inherently OP. They definitely have counters, the problem then becomes the age old balancing problem in many games of melee vs ranged combat. In this game since every other infantry type at Level 6 is melee that means when going against Level 6 Motorized you are fighting them at reduced effectiveness and if you do close the gap, they still have the superior defensive stats of almost all infantry except Mechanized Infantry. I say if they get caught because the other problem that I see with almost all artillery in this game is that it's not only long range but it's also fast. Motorized Infantry Level 6 also move at 1.50 speed and while all other infantry minus some doctrine specific infantry, tend to move at the same as well. When you have a unit that can not only deal damage from range and thus takes no damage back, and is also quick to get away that unit will always be superior inherently to melee based units.

    This problem is usually solved in other games by giving melee units a form of gap closer, such as a speed boost or dash, however since we are in the realm of realism a dash is out the question and if you rush your army the enemy can just do the same and you are back to square one. So the only other way this could be balanced out would be if units with ranged attacks would have to move slower than melee units to be balanced or given some sort of downside. I also see that infantry is referred to as being off meta and I think that's frankly kind of silly in a game of war that infantry units are considered obsolete. There's a reason we still use them in real life and that wars aren't just fought with MLRS, Mobile SAMs and Air Superiority Fighters in real life. If anything that probably means that infantry and all other melee units need a buff to keep up with ranged as it has dominated the game since the beginning.

    I believe a way to balance infantry into a stronger position would be to further strengthen their role. I.E Motorized Infantry is described as good at holding strategic targets so they should receive better bonuses on defense of cities and urban like in the realm of +50% but then nerf their offense since they are a defensive unit. Mechanized Infantry I believe is perfect, it has fantastic offense and defense values but as a consequence is slow. It's a tank unit so that suits it just fine. Naval Infantry are described as a heavy infantry that can deploy via land or sea, trained in amphibious landings and urban warfare that bring the fight to the enemy. Their current stats are very far from what I imagine bringing the fight the enemy is and currently they are only good if in an urban environment. I envision them as a specialist unit and their specialty should be urban environments/those with water, would like to see something like 100% on attack in urban/50% on defense in urban. If these guys want your city you should be scared and if they are defending a city you should expect great difficultly getting it from them. Airborne Infantry seem balanced enough and good at their role, they move rapidly via helicopter but have terrible ground speed. Maybe a slight buff to their ground speed would be nice. Special Forces I feel pull off the assassin role well. They are fast, unseen and can airdrop on you. I suppose if you wanted to turn up the lethality on them you could give them 100% on offense on all difficult terrain and through in tundra as well, I am thinking Winter War style like Finland vs Russia. Lastly National Guard I also believe is balanced. They are quick to train, not terrible good but will fight to defend their cities to the last, possible to give them a slight bump in urban defense to maybe 75%, since they are fighting for their homeland.


    TLDR: Motorized Infantry mortar is not OP, the problem is melee vs ranged. We require some way to address it either buffing all melee or nerfing the way ranged works. Lastly my ideas on balancing infantry to really give them specialized roles in which they excel so that they can see more use and feel better.
  • Teburu wrote:

    you'd have to delete ranged units from the game to give melee a chance against them lmao; they're pretty much the hardcounter against groundunits and in return they get shit on by literally any aircraft
    Yes they are supposed to be a way to counter ground since artillery in it's description says it's made to be used against fortified positions. However we know in practice it's not just used for that purpose it's ran as MLRS, Mobile SAMs/TDS/Railgun and ASF. This is pretty much what we call a doom stack, once you assemble artillery with a defensive support it's very difficult to dislodge since it can't be fought on the ground, they'll kite away, it shreds all aircraft and helicopters and it has missile defense. Where as ground melee there's never really a doom stack version of it. There's always at least some angle you can play around whether it be aircraft, helicopters, missiles and you can still fight on the ground or play around the terrain. Artillery makes the terrain irrelevant since it's ranged and at best only loses -25% of it's attack power on jungle or forest and if the other player is active or security council you'll never get close to it to engage it in melee without taking heavy losses. There definitely exists a way to balance it either with more severe terrain penalties or reduced speed. This goes back to the main topic that Level 6 Motorized Infantry while not OP with 20 range mortar, is definitely a significant advantage over all the other melee range infantry and also doesn't make sense that a defensive unit gets a ranged attack but still has great defenses. You have to pick strengths and give appropriate weaknesses, example if you have range then as a consequence you should have low speed/low HP so that it gives melee a chance to close the distance against it. By ranged remaining strong it effectively makes every melee unit weak which is about 20+ units, while if melee is strong I believe it would still allow for greater interactivity and interplay of units without crowding out other options.

    TLDR: Artillery does it's job a little too well against ground and by giving it to Motorized Infantry gives them an inherent advantage over all other infantry at higher levels. Ranged requires some more meaningful drawbacks to allow greater unit interactivity to shine or else we'll be stuck with Artillery and support being the answer to all land combat always.