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.

  • Now I'm done.

    crazystoner wrote:

    Railguns can be helicopter deployed, so don't know where your running.

    helicopter deploy into enemy territory is basically an invitation to get shot down by ASF. And what do you mean with "so don't know where your running"?

    crazystoner wrote:

    But hey you want to blindly run into a bunkered city housing my defensive units and airfield with nothing but an armored radar signal. Go for it im sure i'll know excatly whats coming days in advance. Dont forget to take out the roads leading up to the city as i perfer to have movement bonuses if im defensive.
    You know that MRL is made to shoot, not to run into a city blindfolded. That's something single infantry could be used for. Also you obviously don't rush an attack and send in infantry first to make sure the territory is safe for the rest.

    crazystoner wrote:

    5 carrier stacks have over 600 hitpoints and naval strike fighters deal somewhere around 7 damage on naval vessels. There is a reason i freely moved into serbia without any resistance, every single nation that had naval vessels didn't want to engage such overwhelming force because they would inevitably lose. You think cruisers and frigates are good? ahahah pretty sure the default destoriers dominate frigate rushes and as for cruisers ahahaha well thats my secret.
    First of all the carrier damage against basically everything is very weak, so the only dangerous thing about your navy build are the planes.

    Their damage against ships ranges from 5 over 7 to 10(T1, T2, T3) and their hp ranges from 22 over 23 to 25.

    frigates damage against planes ranges from 6 over 8 to 10 and their hp ranges from 28 over 33 to 38.

    And frigates deal their damage every 10 minutes the planes are in their AA range and whenever the planes attack while the planes only deal the damage when they attack and since frigates have a 100 AA range from level 2 on and naval strike fighters have a speed of 12, it takes them 100/12=about 8,3 minutes from entering the AA range to hitting the plane(if I understand speed correctly) and again 8,33 minutes to fly out again. Since they have a patrol area of 50 they only need to fly half of the distance so if the attacker does t right his planes are going to get hit on average 1,833 times per dealing damage ti the frigates if the other player is inactive.
    If he is active he can drive away from the planes while they are approaching and chase them when they are heading back to the carriers which effectively decreases the planes speed to 12-1,75=10,25 in shallow water and to 12-3,5=8,5 in deep water which let's the planes be
    (distance to engage+distance to get out of) AA/speed = 50+50/speed = 100/speed

    shallow water: 100/10,25 = about 9,76 minutes meaning the planes are getting hit on average 1,976 times for any time they hit the frigates
    deep water 100/8,5= about 11,76 minutes meaning the planes are getting hit on average 2,176 times for any time they hit the frigates

    And if the plane user isn't active he needs to actually give an attack command on the ships because if he would just patrol, the frigates user could just get their ships close enough to the patrolling aircraft that they are in AA range but far enough away to not be in the patrol area, sniping the planes.

    So even though their stats against each other are pretty similar in comparison, because of their range frigates are way stronger than planes, not factoring in that they could also sink the carriers causing the planes to reposition. Your enemy probably just didn't have enough frigates.

    crazystoner wrote:

    Not much of an investment, thats about a week or two of 24/7 research to make them useable, longer if you want to counter helicopter counters. But hey invest all you want, don't forget to upgrade those airbases so you can move them.
    1d 3h for MRL, 1d 3h for SAM, 30min for ASF, 1d for mobile radar and if you also want to detect infantry you need additional 2d 7h, 1min 30sec mot. inf or 30min for NG (ground stuff you need pre missiles, you maybe need TDS later on).
    30min for corvettes, 1d 4h for frigates, rest of the build can be chosen and doesn't have to be researched at the beginning)
    Since you can start many researches early on you don't have to stop researching except you run out of rare mat. It takes 4d 10h 30min plus 2d 7h for radar to lvl3 so 6d 17h 30min which you have to divide by 2 because you can research two things at once so that makes just less than half of a week.
    And airfields aren't that expensive.

    crazystoner wrote:

    Land combat works by bringing 5 allies units into one location, waiting for the enemy to amass their troops then in a single day deciding who wins a 1-2 month long game. Here is a hint, its me, im the winner.
    So you are basically saying if you bring 4 players with you then you can win against one player with this strat? Seems like very strict circumstances given that he could joined the game with some friends to form a coalition.

    crazystoner wrote:

    Dont get me wrong, your multiple rocket launchers are good, but they are low hitpoints, nothing a 16hp cruise missile cant take out.
    At the beginning SAM can take care of these since the missiles only have 3 hp. At Tier 2 they have 11 hp, which means that if I have 4 tier 2 Sam to stack with the things you are shooting Point Defense takes down even mass missiles and don't forget that researching missiles takes very long: it takes nearly 4 days just to research lvl1 cruise missiles plus additional 4d 15h to research them to tier 2 where they have a good chunk of hitpoints, not to mention that you also need to build something to launch them from and need to build a lot of warheads, which are both veeery expensive.

    crazystoner wrote:

    We could argue, you have 5 of this 5 of that and i could argue i have attack helicopters maxed out.
    helicopters are very slow for being in the air, speed ranges from 7 to 8. ASF's speed ranges from 12 to 16. Also you might say that ASF only deal 8,5 damage to helicopters on tier 1, but on tier 2 they already deal 11 damage (and also have 16 speed) and at tier 3 they deal 16 damge to helis.
    Because of their speed advantage they are very likely to get at least two attacks on your helis before they touch the artillery) And even if you have enough of them that I don't kill all of them, I can still stack my hard target artillery with soft target infantry decreasing the damage by a lot And then kill the survivors on the way back. And then you have sacrificed probabyly all of your attack helis while I still have many artillery left and ca continue my attack.

    crazystoner wrote:

    End of the day, i dont use artillery because they suck
    they don't

    crazystoner wrote:

    i dominate the seas
    Not with carriers.

    crazystoner wrote:

    i use special forces and i dominate the seas, because they are the only unit in the game that counters the overpowered mortar infantryBut yeah, if you could not upgrade to mortars, that would make my job of defeating you alot easier Cheers!
    special forces aren't particularly a counter to infantry. Yes, they deal about twice the damage infantry does and have the same hp, but they are way more expensive and if the spammer has any ground stealth detection which can just be Combat Recon Vehicles he can kite you using it's bigger RANGE.

    crazystoner wrote:

    Well my spies are going to have a field day destroying your buildings, halting your production
    Of course spies are something everyone uses, but also everyone puts some counter ops in his homeland cities and other important cities. And I am also using offensive spies, you don't have an advantage.

    crazystoner wrote:

    and my naval vessel will eat your transport alive
    If you have more navy around a certain area as I do, I'm not going to send my ground troops over sea. I am also going to build my own navy. Navy is only really counterable by navy.

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

  • Jemandanderes wrote:

    So you are basically saying if you bring 4 players with you then you can win against one player with this strat? Seems like very strict circumstances given that he could joined the game with some friends to form a coalition.
    im actually more concerned by the "waiting for the enemy to amass their troops" lmao

    also: yay we reached more than 100 posts in this thread
    I am the basline for opinions
  • The more the conversation goes forward, the more i'm wondering if Crazystoner is not deeply ironic, as several things he says do not make sense in terms of gameplay, but do make sense if they were told to make a point about the game.

    Please excuse, it's the reason why i don't try to make a wall of argumented text, i'm still unsure if scholar studies are something desired, or if we are in the metaphorical equivalent of a twitter thread on a popular hashtag.
    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.
  • 737373elj wrote:

    This is ridiculous. Can’t we all have different play styles and opinions?
    I respect different playstyles, but i tend to be weary of "presenting anti-beginner farming procedures" as "meta" or "high skill".

    It may look like elitism from afar, but in reality, i have difficulties inside my own alliance to fight and discipline the "lazyness" of some """styles""" that seem to hint "bro, you win 50% of your maps with that, you don't need to train and to be rigorous !"

    Nothing pains me more than to see a rookie not be interested by concepts like mitigation, bubble piercing, plate/mail armor, derivative air defense, speed management, hit&un, etc, because "My strike fighters and my MBTs kill them each time, so why bother ?"

    Meta is a living thing, and i think i could document its changes throughout the years, but meta play is aimed primarly at trying to be able to win against the "2%", and to defend against them. Ironically, playing meta can produce less direct results in public games against beginners and untrained players. It's also by design heavily influenced by collective optimised team play.

    "i do not play meta because i play only public games and it's of the utmost rarity for me to encounter a trained competitive player" is a valid opinion, and a reasonable one.

    ""I'm a lone wolf and can't deploy properly the most efficient units because i prefer to be more cautious, not having allies to back me" is a valid opinion, and a reasonable one.

    "I'm just here for fun and i do fun units. I also like to try to make work things that others find unefficient", same.

    "Meta doesn't work, my way of playing the game ensures high win rate, which demonstrates it's better", is not an opinion : it's fallacy weaponised to flatter egos.

    In front of that, competitive players will always indulge in the "mah duck" contest, if i may say, because it's our BUSINESS, to turn players into killing machines that can then be used on the battlgrounds of international competition.

    Current state of the meta does consider Mortar infantries to be irrelevant. Not bad : irrelevant. It also means that their nerf (or deletion) needs to be seen through the prism of casual players, especially in 4X.
    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.
  • When i see these endless threads, which i enjoy reading mostly because of the contrast of different players and views, i think at times people, especially beginners, ignore two fundamental aspects of this game:

    1. this is a game of rock paper scissors. Most RTSs are designed like that. Every units has strengths and weaknesses (well, aside from the naval AWACs, that one is a developer descending from mutant camels on drugs). If you ever played Starcraft II, that's the ultimate RPS (rock, ..): every unit has one strength and multiple weaknesses. That's why in SCII you combine Colossi with Stalkers, and why in CoN you build stacks of MRLs + SAMs (using different units to fill the gaps of others, while still always needing something else... and there's hardly the perfect answer).

    (fascinating: i just noticed that stalkers blink, and TAs and railguns can too... it's called air assault. but i guess i'm getting carried away with the SCII comparison here).

    That's why play styles change, and that's why people who are active ultimately win: because being active you can maximize strengths and reduce weaknesses (that's exactly what hit & run techniques do);

    2. all of the chat on 'but if you do this then i can counter you with that'. Yes, and generally, on paper, that's also true. The reason why some of the more experienced people i've seen posting say 'no, you can't', is that they have been there, and have (been active and) done that. You can throw what you like at an active player, and most of the times he'll still kill you. Because he's spent hours playing with drones while you were asleep, he's done that by looking at your patterns of movement and when you answered messages to figure-out when you sleep and when you come online, or while you threw your mortar-inf at them in stacks of 10s he spent more hours doing hits and runs. While doing that, he learned, he tuned, he experimented. So when experienced players answer these threads, they look at it from their position, of being active, motivated, and playing to kill.

    You can't talk about units without considering the player. And in that contest, also the d**k pictures above are misleading: they are not 'just' about the build, they are mostly about the player.

  • Everything I didn't manage to put into my earlier post because of too many characters:

    crazystoner wrote:

    But hey these ballastic bombers are fun are they not

    They are planes and therefore weak to SAM (and to frigates if you use them on the sea). If you mean Elite bombers to launch missiles, scroll up to the part where I talked about missiles.

    Of course not, but the MRL+SAM+ASF+TDS(not immediately needed)+any cheap inf is just superior on land. Pls explain why you think I'm arguing about it like it is a boxing match.

    crazystoner wrote:

    Your talking about combat like its a boxing match, like we agree on a field of battle a time of day and the leaders have a 1 on 1 engagment. No, NO thats not how it works, how it works is i defeat you when im good and ready and up until that point your just a toy im playing with.
    Of course not, but the MRL+SAM+ASF+TDS(not immediately needed)+any cheap inf is just superior on land. Pls explain why you think I'm arguing about it like it is a boxing match.

    crazystoner wrote:

    Crazystoner, pls this time take your time and either address every argument I made or say that you were wrong(choose for every argument). Don't act like you did last time I answered and don't just ignore me, who has obviously used way more time answering you than anyone else. Lets keep the artillery duels to naval battles shall we?
    Leave the land battles to the aircraft, spies and missiles.

    artillery is superior as I have shown above. aircraft on foreign ground is an invitation to be shot down by SAM.

    Spies are something to try to weaken your enemies economy, but it doesn't damage troops and are easily counter by counter ops. Of course you can get accurate intelligence on the battlefield but that only helps if you have a threatening army which has to include MRL.

    Missiles are a good way to damage the enemy without risking being damaged, but they

    1. cost a lot

    2. are shot down by TDS

    Crazystoner, pls tobviouslyhis time take your time and either address every argument I made or say that you were wrong(choose for every argument). Don't act like you did last time I answered and you just ignored me, even though have used way more time answering you than anyone else.
  • Ok, i think we have finally reached the peak of "i am a troll and i am just here to create drama".

    Back to topic of mortars infantry, now, or topic closed, and sanctions will be distributed.
    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.
  • Jemandanderes wrote:

    Opulon wrote:

    and sanctions will be distributed.
    What does that mean?
    Ya know how Russia is being Sanctioned over Navalny?
    It means being banned or being suspended or given a warning.
    Please don't sanction me for explaining sanctions :D
    "Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres."-Charles De Gaulle, Leader of Free France in World War 2.
    English: "Patriotism is to love your country. Nationalism is hating that of others."
  • End of the day... YZJQX random letter name.
    vs matching forum/gamename.

    Very active in the forums for someone thats only played 28 games.

    Get back to me when your an officer, sergeant...
    Don't you have ammo to check or something?

    You want to claim which stack is the most powerful, try 1 recon, 1 tank, 1 antitank, 1 mobile, 1 mrl, 1 radar, 1 AA, 1 mech, 1 infantry, 1 anti tank and then have 5/10 of these stacks that all operate together. Tho you can use which ever stack you want, all helicopter deployables? but if you want high hitpoints and to take hits without losing troops.

    Problem is, mortar infantry in masses, like that of a 5 man alliance at the end game overwhelms everything by share numbers. 1 or 2 artillery in a stack doesnt do enough infantry damage to render them afraid of engaging in mortar range offensive because their damage in HUGE and if your AFK/sleeping or playing another map, then you lose entire full stacks because 80% of your units are out of range or your dealing very low offensive damage.

    So yeah seems obvious why you love your meta, of MRL and Infantry, your stats say it all.
    Because the only defensive counter, is the same thing, which leads to the question of which team has more active accounts, not which player is playing better. Who cares about stats, only thing that matters is your accounts level so you can upgrade your commanders to max and have access to seasonal units.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by crazystoner ().