Do the unspeakable: Nerf the MRLS

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

    • Do the unspeakable: Nerf the MRLS

      Everyone knows about it: the meta MRLS stack. Hard to counter, and obliterates most other combos. The state of MRLS is very controversial. It makes units like Towed Arty and Mobile Arty useless by taking their combined strength and slapping a huge range on it. I propose a change that is realistic and would help balance this out:

      Towed and Mobile Arty have relatively small ranges, so they can hit their targets fairly soon after firing. MRLS has a massive range, and these rockets could be taking minutes to reach their targets.

      MRLS does 50% less (maybe less if 50% is overkill) damage to moving targets. Here is my reasoning:
      Artillery in war is used with the main purpose of breaking enemy entrenchment. If the enemy is fortified to hell d-day style and your units can’t plow through, artillery is a key component that can force them out of their fortification and into the open where they are vulnerable. MRLS is hell for the enemy units. Their fortifications are suddenly not very useful when rocket rain is killing them left right and center. But there is a big factor the game is not taking into account: Moving targets. Traditional artillery is ineffective vs moving targets. No amount of skill will allow artillery men to consistently score direct hits on moving trucks and tanks. This is stuff only futuristic guided artillery and guided missiles can pull off.
      Artillery, from my knowledge, is usually guided with fire missions. Infantry scout calls the fire mission in, and the artillery shoots exactly where the scout wants. If the artillery missed and hit 20m west of the target, the scout tells him to adjust 20m east and fire again. For moving targets, this is not realistic. When your MRLS rockets take minutes to get there, the chance of you actually hitting the thing could be millions to one. You would have to fire rockets all over the place and hope it hits something along the path, considerably less effective than nailing them when they are still. Remember that this is not world war 2. Armies are not slowly marching up to the Arty, they are high tailing it with trucks and tanks at speeds of 40+ MPH. Take into consideration that for these rockets to travel as far as they do they have to carry a light payload, meaning tanks would need direct hits to take critical damage.

      I think the game needs something like this to keep MRLS in check. With the nerf, it would lean more towards the CoW railroad gun, a more strategic weapon for dealing with distant armies. The MRLS would retain its role as a powerful weapon for ruining enemy entrenchment, but would not be a killing machine with 100 radius and need units protecting it from a rush. It would also mean that there would be more space for tactics to use in conjunction. I could use an infantry unit to roadblock the enemy tank, forcing it to stop and get rocketed until it retreats or dies. With the new season 6 landmine rumors, I could use land mines to protect my MRLS from a rush and blow up those pesky infantry.

      Thoughts?
      Yee Haw
    • Does seem this MRL meta is going to only increase with landmines, as the only way to defeat this stack is to make a stack of the same thing, or rush the enemy. But there are a couple of factors id argue, first and foremost is radar, we are along way from the vietnam war, the Armenia war last year showed how ineffective trench warfare is with lingering muntion scoring direct hits on groups of infantry in trenches. Second to that is the game has to make allowances for bombardments, you don't shoot a volley then reload for an hour but more about coding convenience. Otherwise your doing rocket science calculations where damage output and hp are changing every second, like the weight of arocket as it burns fuel and its changing acceleration.

      Going to be honest, in all my games i've never seen a MRL stack work.
      I've seen these stacks, but i've never seen them be effective, iv seen railguns dominate a game, seen towed artillery used to great effect but MRL's. Mostly i've seen a couple just bombard afk player, never witnessed them really be all that effective so maybe im just bias, maybe im just dumb but honestly i kind of think they need a buff.

      Only time will tell but i can say this, im not looking forward to bloody landmines, its sounds a bit like the rush function where you can have a 10 stack and left on rush it disintergrates into nothing.
    • We can disagree on a lot of things, and debate on how to use things, but i am an extensive user of MRLs from day 18 to end game : trust me on my word, MRLs shouldn't, oh god no, be buffed. It's not a problem if nobody understands how to use them in a X4, because X4 are for fun anyway. A friend of me told me he tried a map as japan and his build was only navy + national guards, and he roflstomped the whole world with it anyway.

      When you are a good player, litteraly anything works in a 4X filled with people that don't have the activity to play CoN in X1.

      Buffing MRLs will not make them used better by players, it will only increase "to what extent it's used as a doomsday weapon by people that know how to exploit game mechanisms"

      And to be honest, if people here and there think that the MRL isn't that good, then "phew, it's okay"
      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.
    • situations on MRLs is really weird and complicated to balance

      it is intended to be high power level unit, demand high resources and building.
      then then due to being high power level, it run itself into OP mode. but when if you want to nerf it.
      it won’t match resources and building demanded for their power level.

      with current idea of each artillery just being a better on of each other we can not balance this units.
      all artillery should be alternative with clear advantage and disadvantage, not a better version.
      no meta, I do what meta don't do and YEET them with ridiculous tactic. - IT YEET OR BE YEETED
    • MRL is the strongest artillery in game, no idea why it would need a buff. If people can't play with it correctly, it is less likely a problem with the unit itself.


      Giving artillery a damage debuff on moving targets, would not really work well. In challenges units tend to stay in move all the time anyway, so you would just prolongue the wars artificial and you would make zerg rush tactics more efficient. It might be a buff to tanks, but not that much, it would just prolongue the time to kill of a stack and make countries like Portugal and Tunisia with low retreat space weaker.

      Thinking about it, it would make it easier to catch up to MRL with MA, though would it be reasonable to give the drawback only to MRL? from a realistic perspectiv, rockets should be more accurate than ballistic shots anyway?
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      MRL is the strongest artillery in game, no idea why it would need a buff. If people can't play with it correctly, it is less likely a problem with the unit itself.


      Giving artillery a damage debuff on moving targets, would not really work well. In challenges units tend to stay in move all the time anyway, so you would just prolongue the wars artificial and you would make zerg rush tactics more efficient. It might be a buff to tanks, but not that much, it would just prolongue the time to kill of a stack and make countries like Portugal and Tunisia with low retreat space weaker.

      Thinking about it, it would make it easier to catch up to MRL with MA, though would it be reasonable to give the drawback only to MRL? from a realistic perspectiv, rockets should be more accurate than ballistic shots anyway?
      One of the intended changes of the nerf would be to force new combat composition. Instead of having the typical MRLS+AA doomsday stack people would be forced to add more infantry and armor to defend their rockets, making counters more viable. As of right now there isn’t exactly a “hard” counter. Attack helis get shot down by ASF, CM shot down by TDS, your own MRLS at disadvantage.

      My argument for only MRLS getting the debuff is that Towed Arty and Mobile Arty have a low range; they aren’t shooting at anything too far away, so moving targets is plausible. With the massive range of MRLS it will take a long time for the rockets to get there. Also, by nerfing MRLS specifically Towed and Mobile Arty become viable options again instead of useless units. For countries for low retreat space, conventional Arty is the answer. Their low range and high damage would make them the best option for advancing armies, so nerfing them as well would make it worse for those countries. Regarding Zerg rushes, this is what you want no? Like I stated above the main purpose of artillery is to force enemies from their entrenchment. If the enemy units are high in numbers and I can’t fight them head-on, I can force a rush leading them right to my fortified units, or make them retreat and advance the front line. It is not a change to make MRLS useless, but to encourage using the other artillery and make countering MRLS more consistent. After all, if MRLS is so good like in CoN, why does the US still use so much conventional artillery?
      Yee Haw

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Colonel Waffles ().

    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      MRL is the strongest artillery in game, no idea why it would need a buff. If people can't play with it correctly, it is less likely a problem with the unit itself.


      Giving artillery a damage debuff on moving targets, would not really work well. In challenges units tend to stay in move all the time anyway, so you would just prolongue the wars artificial and you would make zerg rush tactics more efficient. It might be a buff to tanks, but not that much, it would just prolongue the time to kill of a stack and make countries like Portugal and Tunisia with low retreat space weaker.

      Thinking about it, it would make it easier to catch up to MRL with MA, though would it be reasonable to give the drawback only to MRL? from a realistic perspectiv, rockets should be more accurate than ballistic shots anyway?
      One of the intended changes of the nerf would be to force new combat composition. Instead of having the typical MRLS+AA doomsday stack people would be forced to add more infantry and armor to defend their rockets, making counters more viable. As of right now there isn’t exactly a “hard” counter. Attack helis get shot down by ASF, CM shot down by TDS, your own MRLS at disadvantage.
      My argument for only MRLS getting the debuff is that Towed Arty and Mobile Arty have a low range; they aren’t shooting at anything too far away, so moving targets is plausible. With the massive range of MRLS it will take a long time for the rockets to get there. Also, by nerfing MRLS specifically Towed and Mobile Arty become viable options again instead of useless units. For countries for low retreat space, conventional Arty is the answer. Their low range and high damage would make them the best option for advancing armies, so nerfing them as well would make it worse for those countries. Regarding Zerg rushes, this is what you want no? Like I stated above the main purpose of artillery is to force enemies from their entrenchment. If the enemy units are high in numbers and I can’t fight them head-on, I can force a rush leading them right to my fortified units, or make them retreat and advance the front line. It is not a change to make MRLS useless, but to encourage using the other artillery and make countering MRLS more consistent. After all, if MRLS is so good like in CoN, why does the US still use so much conventional artillery?
      Ranges
      075 RG
      075 Towed
      085 MA
      100 MRL

      Yeah, Range of other Artillery is extremely much lower *cough*

      Even a towed can kill your troops from far away, 25 is not such a huge difference, also it was much worse before they put out the general range nerf for arti a while ago. In old times MRL had a max range of 125 like cruisers, both got nerfed to 100 max.

      Zerg-Rushes you mainly kill with airforce anyway, not artillery though.

      And I do not know, why the US army does what is does.
    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Everyone knows about it: the meta
      ...
      those pesky infantry.

      Thoughts?
      Anyone recommending nerfing any of my toys should be punished by supernatural forces with incurable jock itch and cold sores.
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

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

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Everyone knows about it: the meta
      ...
      those pesky infantry.

      Thoughts?
      Anyone recommending nerfing any of my toys should be punished by supernatural forces with incurable jock itch and cold sores.
      I was expecting your message about toys lmao
      toybot.jpg
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • NO! Listen up, waffles...
      Mobile arty range: 85.
      Damage to armor vs MRL: +
      Damage to infantry vs MRL: -+(0.5 dmg less)
      HP vs MRL: +++
      Speed vs MRL: +
      Resources: ~
      That should explain it. MRL has bigger range, worse on everything else.
      "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."
    • ewac123 wrote:

      NO! Listen up, waffles...
      Mobile arty range: 85.
      Damage to armor vs MRL: +
      Damage to infantry vs MRL: -+(0.5 dmg less)
      HP vs MRL: +++
      Speed vs MRL: +
      Resources: ~
      That should explain it. MRL has bigger range, worse on everything else.
      These typically don’t matter when range is the determining factor. MRLS obliterates infantry and armor alike at 100 range. No one uses Mobile Arty. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone use Mobile Arty ever. “Worse on everything else” is not really an argument. The nerf I propose does not directly affect the unit’s capabilities, but it’s effectiveness in certain situations so it can actually be comparable to Mobile Arty
      Yee Haw
    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      ewac123 wrote:

      NO! Listen up, waffles...
      Mobile arty range: 85.
      Damage to armor vs MRL: +
      Damage to infantry vs MRL: -+(0.5 dmg less)
      HP vs MRL: +++
      Speed vs MRL: +
      Resources: ~
      That should explain it. MRL has bigger range, worse on everything else.
      These typically don’t matter when range is the determining factor. MRLS obliterates infantry and armor alike at 100 range. No one uses Mobile Arty. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone use Mobile Arty ever. “Worse on everything else” is not really an argument. The nerf I propose does not directly affect the unit’s capabilities, but it’s effectiveness in certain situations so it can actually be comparable to Mobile Arty
      They are used by artillery players in team before transitioning to MRL Rang 100, as the "turnpoint" is around day 18. But once the MRL Rang 100 hits the Order of Battle, the Mobile artillery suddenly becomes cannon fodder
      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:

      His build was only navy + national guards, and he roflstomped the whole world with it anyway.
      When you are a good player, litteraly anything works in a 4X filled with people that don't have the activity to play CoN in X1.
      I'll give you that X1 players are more active then X4 players, where disembarking is very difficult.
      But the world is 2/3 ocean and most naval vessels have 100 range, the same as MRL so its more plausable to roflstomp a game with a huge naval force then it is with MRL. Lifewise a navy is much more maneuverable, and doesnt resort to a defensless worthless unit when transported.

      So im not sure what your trying to get at?

      MRL's are slow and static where a navy can surround your island, your continent, bombard your dock cities and MRLs are landlocked.
      Doesnt matter if its 4x or 1x, MRL's are not getting past a naval blockade, or flying off to some foreign air base.

      Infact i tend to think Naval asset are rather overpowered considering countries like China flaunts hypersonic ballistic missiles as carrier killers and ballistic missile can't even target a ship. Let alone bypass its passive and point defenses against missiles that render even maxxed cruise missiles rather worthless.

      Dont get me wrong MRL's are strong, with the right supporting units, but offensively they are a joke.
      Its not that you can't kill them, its that you don't have too unless your a landlocked country on the same continent and then you can just maneuver around them for mutual destruction because they are so far out of position. Or better yet just throw everything you have at them at some last ditch attempt to stop it. I just feel like railguns, despite their lack of range make MRL look pathetic!