Units

Kirjutas House Tleilaxu, 24.03.2011 at 15:03

To be honest, just about all of the new units would fall under roles already covered by current units. Artillery with high attack and low defense are just tanks; heavy infantry with high defense are just infantry, anti-tank units that have attack or defend bonuses against tanks are just tanks/infantry, depending on who is attacking (although with tanks' awful defense, even attacking infantry do just fine against them).

The only new unit I think the game could use are fighters, and a big change to bombers, but this is mainly since bombers seem slightly overpowered. The way the game is right now, bombers are an ideal attack and defense unit, making it too easy to take a city and hold it against a counter-attack the next turn. Making bombers substantially worse defenders would mean you'd see less attacks of 30 bombers and 1 air transport with 3 infantry, but rather balanced attack forces with bombers there for the initial strike, and then initial troops to defend the captured target.
This is where fighters come in; the other use for bombers is to protect transports en route. Adding fighters with high defense and low attack would fill this niche, again without having just 1 all-purpose air unit that can be spammed and abused.
I should stress that this is a pretty minor complaint; yes massive swarms of bombers are a huge pain, but they can be stopped with the current system and they are far from a perfect strategy. However, splitting the roll of bombers and fighters/interceptors would make for a more balanced and more realistic game (because when it comes down to it, the idea that carpet-bombing the area around your city to defend it is kind of silly)

you could just use anti aircraft, it stops a sky menace user pretty quickly

I agree and dis agree with bomber change I feel it should be that as in real life 2000 bombers come in and you got 10 tanks you hide them and wait for the infentry to try and take the city Therefor your ground units should attack enemy ground units first this would make people HAVE to build much more non bomber units and game play would be better.

I like the aircraft carrier idea!

Kirjutas UrlanderPendragon, 16.04.2011 at 05:14

I know its been suggested that we want a Aircraft carrier. I stated then that there is no use in the current game set up for it. Since then i have devised a way to impliment it but it would require some rule changes with planes.
First Planes would no longer be able to end there turn over water Unless there is an aircraft carrier in that spot. this includes All Planes.

Now the air craft carrier is a vital unit and also Navel units are also more inportant to protect them.

Here is what my proposed aircraft carrier looks like.

Att 8
Def 4
Move (as distroyer)
After roll 4
HP 8
Cost 350

Cargo capacity 20(this alows you to land either 20 plains or carry up to 20 land units makeing it an air transport landing site or a troop transport as well as a place to land your aircraft)

Durring attackes this is how its targeted
ACC VS ships. ships and plane's att/defend the aircraft carrier. Ships in AC stack are sunk first then planes. any remaining planes will be able to fly back to land on there next turn and any cargo planes will be alowed to save there amount of troops they can carrie if the ACC is sunk.

ACC VS Plane. Planes are shot down first then boats.

ACC VS Land. All units ingadge and ACC is last unit to go if battle is lost.

Acc VS Subs. Attacking subs get there first strike attack on ACC first then its a regular naval battle like above.

Let me know what you think and Please if you read this Post Vote for or against adding the ACC. Thank you all.

Aircraft carriers have no attack, the power of an aircraft carrier comes from the planes on it. They are also VERY expensive, way more than the overpriced air transport haha.

Aircraft carriers replaced battleships because battleships used to get torn up by guided missiles(tactical bombers) and submarines very easily. And it's high caliber guns were useless against anything but other ships, oh and land targets of course.

Aircraft carriers have defence mechanisms that stop guided missile striking them eg. A laser guided minigun, on the latest ones, and heat seeking missile launchers that shoot missiles out the sky, but the craft on it's own has no attack, it's the planes on it that do the damage. They don't have great defence against submarines though..

Also, to say a destroyer has a good attack, would be wrong, it's main objective is the defend the head of the fleet (formerly the battleship, now the aircraft carrier) from submarines and aircraft. When i mean defence against aircraft i mean, a carrier would shoot any missiles out the sky, but not really destroy the aircraft,and a destroyer would hit it with it's AA guns and so on, or fighter planes would go chase down the bombers Haha.

Also, there needs to be a distinction from Strategic bombers, and Tactical bombers, Tactical bombers have the guided missiles and strike a specific target, while strategic bombers just drop a hell load of bombs and cause trouble, and probably population casualties. (like the blitz)
Tactical bombers are more widely used now of course,

Also bombers only attack land or sea targets, while fighters target aircraft.


Anyways that about it, hope you got something meaningful out of that incoherent ramble.

Yeah I could see more realistic stats being:
Att 1
Def 5 (+1 against bombers)
ARB 3
Hit Points 7
Range 10
Capacity 5 bombers or 15 ground units
Cost 1000

But the thing about an aircraft carrier in this game is that there really is no need for one unless they implement fuel or something to that extent. To make an aircraft carrier useful they could, however, have the carrier be able to spawn a unit when you get new reinforcements like a city would. The unit would be in the stack and act as if loaded on the AC but would not count towards its capacity. This way the carrier would act as a mobile hub for military operations, as a real AC is. The high price would also deter people from using it en mass though making the uniqueness of the unit still unique.

Now, I know its kinda off topic but it is, but it is about new units. I would kinda like to see a land transport, the humvee. Now, to have this happen I'd like it seems like the infantry would have to take a movement penalty. This would make the humvee necessary to move troops around. then you have the movement on a humvee better than a tank. cause we all know a tank is slower than a humvee. To also increase its usage I suggest that it has a higher attack than infantry, but lower than a tank and a little bit better than a tank in defense. Then I would say the humvee should be able to carry 4-5 infantry, militia or marines. If tweaked around a little bit I would think this would be a good addition to the game. thoughts and comments?

Kirjutas Kenneth, 01.06.2011 at 22:03

Now, I know its kinda off topic but it is, but it is about new units. I would kinda like to see a land transport, the humvee. Now, to have this happen I'd like it seems like the infantry would have to take a movement penalty. This would make the humvee necessary to move troops around. then you have the movement on a humvee better than a tank. cause we all know a tank is slower than a humvee. To also increase its usage I suggest that it has a higher attack than infantry, but lower than a tank and a little bit better than a tank in defense. Then I would say the humvee should be able to carry 4-5 infantry, militia or marines. If tweaked around a little bit I would think this would be a good addition to the game. thoughts and comments?

Think ive mentioned this somewhere before, humvees would be great nonetheless

Kirjutas nonames, 28.03.2011 at 07:47

Kirjutas House Tleilaxu, 24.03.2011 at 15:03

To be honest, just about all of the new units would fall under roles already covered by current units. Artillery with high attack and low defense are just tanks; heavy infantry with high defense are just infantry, anti-tank units that have attack or defend bonuses against tanks are just tanks/infantry, depending on who is attacking (although with tanks' awful defense, even attacking infantry do just fine against them).

The only new unit I think the game could use are fighters, and a big change to bombers, but this is mainly since bombers seem slightly overpowered. The way the game is right now, bombers are an ideal attack and defense unit, making it too easy to take a city and hold it against a counter-attack the next turn. Making bombers substantially worse defenders would mean you'd see less attacks of 30 bombers and 1 air transport with 3 infantry, but rather balanced attack forces with bombers there for the initial strike, and then initial troops to defend the captured target.
This is where fighters come in; the other use for bombers is to protect transports en route. Adding fighters with high defense and low attack would fill this niche, again without having just 1 all-purpose air unit that can be spammed and abused.
I should stress that this is a pretty minor complaint; yes massive swarms of bombers are a huge pain, but they can be stopped with the current system and they are far from a perfect strategy. However, splitting the roll of bombers and fighters/interceptors would make for a more balanced and more realistic game (because when it comes down to it, the idea that carpet-bombing the area around your city to defend it is kind of silly)

you could just use anti aircraft, it stops a sky menace user pretty quickly

But not everyone will have access to Anti-aircraft, you have to pay real money for it. I agree with House Tleilaxu, I think having a fighter to fill in the defensive role for air units will help against bombers. Anti-aircraft feels like liability when the invasion is over, similar to Air Transports and Transports.

Really there should be

fighters - air to air only, except vs infantry and marines
tactical bombers - fires cruise missles at land and naval targets, no air defence.

Destroyer - main defense of aircraft carrier, high defense and offense against submarines, aircraft, low attack/defence vs everything else. (no the battleships were not replaced with destroyers, they were replaced with
aircraft carrier - +20% attack for all fighters and bombers on board max cap 5-10? -40% defence to planes when they are onboard, once joined can only act like a artilery, so bombing runs in packs, can never leave (for balance reasons ofc)
submarine - high attack vs all naval units except destroyers. bad defence

land units should be extremely vunerable to air attacks, and anti-air should be much more powerful against air units, and made non-premium.

rare unit:
strategic bombers - drops large amount of ordinance on cities in hope of destroying enemy factories, chance cause pop casualties, economy loss, and reinforcement loss.

Kirjutas nonames, 02.06.2011 at 19:44

Really there should be

fighters - air to air only, except vs infantry and marines
tactical bombers - fires cruise missles at land and naval targets, no air defence.

Destroyer - main defense of aircraft carrier, high defense and offense against submarines, aircraft, low attack/defence vs everything else. (no the battleships were not replaced with destroyers, they were replaced with
aircraft carrier - +20% attack for all fighters and bombers on board max cap 5-10? -40% defence to planes when they are onboard, once joined can only act like a artilery, so bombing runs in packs, can never leave (for balance reasons ofc)
submarine - high attack vs all naval units except destroyers. bad defence

land units should be extremely vunerable to air attacks, and anti-air should be much more powerful against air units, and made non-premium.

rare unit:
strategic bombers - drops large amount of ordinance on cities in hope of destroying enemy factories, chance cause pop casualties, economy loss, and reinforcement loss.

While fighters should only have a good attack against aircraft, it should have a defense comparable to Infantry against everything else. Being so high in the sky is a good defense after all.
Bombers do not need any more adjectives. I agree, it should have very little defense against air units.

I would like the Destroyer to be like that too. Having a Destroyer today assaulting a port seems silly.
I am not sure about the aircraft carrier, they do not do anything in a battle. Aircraft carriers are not suppose to be in the heat of battle either. As Che has said, unless we put a supply line into this game, there is no need for aircraft carriers. Also if we do add supply lines, it will unnecessarily complicate the game a lot.
I agree with your Submarine idea, but I think it should have a high defense except against Destroyers. Submarines are under water for defensive reason.

We assume that the Infantry already carries some form of anti air defense. We just do not see it in the picture.
The Anti-aircraft IS VERY POWERFUL in defense against air units already. Just test it out in a scenario.
Land units ARE vulnerable to air units already. Tanks are easily wiped out, and Infantry are out maneuvered. I do not think having land units be more vulnerable in battle is realistic or more balanced.

The idea of having a rare unit reducing income and reinforcement is cool, but I do not think people will like it after a while. It will be too cheap. Just having it massacre an army is good enough for me.

The current set of unit seems to be perfect to me. It's multifarious enough and not too complicated. The only idea I can suggest is some stealth unit that would be good in defense. All stealth units we have now are only good in attack. Having defensive stealth would be useful for making unexpected ambushes and pissing off blitzkrieg players who like to suddenly buy air transport and attack lightly defended cities in home front. Also, people would have to do some serious reconnaissance before attack just like it supposed to be done in real operation.

Kirjutas nonames, 28.03.2011 at 07:47

you could just use anti aircraft, it stops a sky menace user pretty quickly

Anti Air doesn't do a damn thing. It's expensive and up against a Sky Menace user, the attack/defense are the same. Anti Air is pretty useless.

Kirjutas Ska-boo, 03.06.2011 at 01:19

The current set of unit seems to be perfect to me. It's multifarious enough and not too complicated. The only idea I can suggest is some stealth unit that would be good in defense. All stealth units we have now are only good in attack. Having defensive stealth would be useful for making unexpected ambushes and pissing off blitzkrieg players who like to suddenly buy air transport and attack lightly defended cities in home front. Also, people would have to do some serious reconnaissance before attack just like it supposed to be done in real operation.

I love this idea. Stealthy defense units sound like a great idea.

Perhaps artillery? They cannot move far, but they can fire upon cities or units from a distance without moving

Kirjutas Guest, 06.08.2011 at 23:57

Perhaps artillery? They cannot move far, but they can fire upon cities or units from a distance without moving

yes artillery but they have a limited range in which they are able to shoot a city from maybe 5 or 3 range away from the city and they have 8 attack and 6 artillery shells per artillery BUT they cost 500 moneys and have weak defence and can also go past D lines i hope this gets implemeneted and if you have to have premium to have it it could unbalance the game so make them around 19500 SP it proably wont get put in but this was my 2 cents

Kirjutas Tik-Tok, 06.08.2011 at 19:07

Kirjutas Ska-boo, 03.06.2011 at 01:19

The current set of unit seems to be perfect to me. It's multifarious enough and not too complicated. The only idea I can suggest is some stealth unit that would be good in defense. All stealth units we have now are only good in attack. Having defensive stealth would be useful for making unexpected ambushes and pissing off blitzkrieg players who like to suddenly buy air transport and attack lightly defended cities in home front. Also, people would have to do some serious reconnaissance before attack just like it supposed to be done in real operation.

I love this idea. Stealthy defense units sound like a great idea.

Me too.

Aircraft Carrier

The unit would have exceptionally low defence and attack by itself, and could carry 20 units. It's primary purpose would be to provide a naval transport with a submarine's movement, meaning conventional units can be deployed rapidly elsewhere. The units carried should not affect the carrier's ATT/DEF, making destroyer defence lines potentially necessary and adding a new dimension to naval warfare. However, carriers would be incredibly expensive (1000-2000, I'm thinking), reflecting two facts; first, only militaries with sufficient budgets operate carriers, and secondly, that carriers are only constructed when it is part of a state's strategic interests. Due to their cost, only players who absolutely need them will build carriers.

Att 1
Def 3
ARB 3
Hit Points 5
Range 10-15
Capacity 15 units
Cost 1000-2000

Attack infantry


guest(numbers, the mod dude, yeah) said it would be better suited as a strategy, but I still think that we should get a different infantry with more attacking power.


The stats would be:

ARB:4

Cost: 90

Attack: 6

Defense: 4

Hit points: 7

Range: 6

...

This game is like Rock, Paper, Scissors. It's not open to much strategy at all. If any more units were to be added, we would need terrain specifications. That would be hell for any programmer to input.

Kirjutas ABox, 27.08.2011 at 13:22

...

This game is like Rock, Paper, Scissors. It's not open to much strategy at all. If any more units were to be added, we would need terrain specifications. That would be hell for any programmer to input.

The last thing I read this wrong was one of Michelle Bachmann's speeches.

The Russian (former USSR) carrier has weapons of it;s own and a s aircraft carrying cruiser... So yes Aircraft carriers can have their own attack...

Also, to balance the game I think having attack infantry (mechanized infantry is a good idea ... cheaper attack unit since we have 2 defense units militia and infantry.

Aircraft Carrier $$1500-2000$$

2/ attk
4/ deff
8/ hp
4/ ARB
comes with 15 bombers (with 5 additional carrying space for more bombers or land units) and a 2 destroyer escort
this would also eliminate the hasle of clicking the button 15 times for bombers in different cities.
would have range of destroyer unless running Naval Commander

buy upgrade with sp= 35K sp 40k for non premium players

Kirjutas DURRHUNTER, 24.12.2011 at 21:48

4/ ARB

Kinda low don't you think? Price is realistic though.

I like the idea of the Aircraft Carrier providing reinforcements on reinforcement week. They could work like this:

$800

1 Attack
5 Defence
4 ARB
10 hp
12 range

Can build planes (and perhaps marines?) 2 reinforcements per reinforcement week.

Another vote for Aircraft Carrier -- I've always been partial to naval combat in this game, and I think it would enhance that aspect. Also, if it is possible to program it as a "mobile city" as others have discussed, where you can produce units/reinforcements, it would boost combat in the pacific and other water heavy regions.

so when you have some time Amok ....

I don't like playing the Pacific because of the fact that I can't get my forces anywhere quick, but carrier might make me change that

Here's another shot at balancing the carrier:

$ 800 (-50 on NC and SM, +200 on GW)
1 Attack
5 Defence (-4 against submarines)
4 ARB
10 HP (+2 on NC, -2 on GW)
12 Range (+2 on NC and SM, -2 on GW)

Can build planes and marines, 4 reinforcements per reinforcement week.

This way it forces unprotected carriers to be really vulnerable against submarines, forcing players to really protect their carriers stack. And with 4 reinforcements, I think it becomes a more appealing choice to the player.

Kirjutas Gen. Wolfshield, 22.02.2012 at 21:22

I don't like playing the Pacific because of the fact that I can't get my forces anywhere quick, but carrier might make me change that

Exactly how I feel.