Units

This game is not meant to be realistic.

But your idea for NC is not bad. It's a really weak strategy IMO. This needs to be fixed, and badly.

Since Amok and Ivan want Nuclear Warfare to be more present, I think it'd be cool to add a Nuclear Submarine. It could work like this:

$500
7 attack
5 defence
10 range
7 hp
No transporting marines

Can build 2 units (Nukes) on reinforcement week, that would stay stealthed as long as it was in a stack with a Nuke Sub. If there was a way to limit the amount of nukes a sub could carry it could be 3, with an upgrade for loads of SP to increase it by 1. Any more nukes than that and the submarine would not be stealthed anymore. The nukes would be:

Non Nuclear Missile $240 (18/1, range 10)
Short Range Missile $1100 (80/1, range 4)
Long Range Missile $810 (60/1, range 10)


Having this Nuke Sub and the Aircraft Carrier with discounts and perhaps some bonuses to Naval Commander would be pretty cool.

Why are there no amphibious vehicles!!!

My suggestion is to correct that

Написано от YOBA, 23.02.2012 at 13:39

This game is not meant to be realistic.

But your idea for NC is not bad. It's a really weak strategy IMO. This needs to be fixed, and badly.

The Arkbirdfrom Ace Combat 5

$900
10 Attack
10 Defense(can be taken down by fighters)
100 HP
5 ARB
Stealth
15 Range

I know this would probably be a big pain, but I'd like to see a spy unit.

The point of a spy would be that they are stealth, even to your allies, and can attack, even your allies.

I see them being more expensive, with less attack than marines, but with better range. (easier to move 1 guy then a squad of marines)

It'd make backstabbing a bigger part of the game.

I support the fighter as a normal unit option... I think the reasons have been stated. I know obviously the fighter attack/ bomber defence has been talked about but it should also be that the bombers can't bomb the fighters mid air too, attack wise, unless you want to simulate them being bombed just sitting there, in which case the fighters should have a turn blocking advantage? if thats possible?

Should the fighters also have an advantage vs helis?

i like the idea of the aircraft carrier in general, though i understand its not as cut and dried necessary as the fighter.

With that included, and with cheaper and non premium AA, i'd actually support a boost to the bomber. oooh oooh! with cheaper AA, maybe the stealth bomber could be immune to these things! which would finally make the stealth bomber more relevant! cheap AA and immune stealth bomber! though given the U.S.A only has 20 B2s im not sure they're that relevant anyway... so if they became op you could just make them super expensive, given a b2 costs like 2billion usd.

Edit Addition - what gives the fighter more credibility, is that the bomber, which is currently the only standard fixed wing unit, is rarely in a modern air force, so having it as the main aerial unit leaves a little to be desired.

Also, I support the Artillery as a main unit. It was said that this unit doesn't give what we don't already have, but I disagree. Ground attack aircraft, Non-tank armoured vehicles - these are examples of different military units to ones in the game that wouldn't enrich it. But artillery serve a specific purpose in terms of range and to break fortifications. You could increase the city defence for units, and have artillery nullify it. or something.

- edit - and by nullyify the city defence, i mean specifically, that just as some units get a city defence in some situations which could be buffed, the artillery could have a bonus vs city.

a note on air craft carriers too - if they could be introduced, and air unit gameplay modified to them, it may make the seas relevant again.

Another idea for a main unit would be the Frigate, which is in many cases the main component of modern navies. At the moment, as well as the seas being a little obsolete, the submarine kinda dominates the destroyer. The frigate is often used as an anti submarine vessel in a modern navy, so why not have a frigate that is dominated by a destroyer but that is good against submarines... with good detection too? therefore we would have a A>B>C>A situation in the seas.

I guess this many naval units would only be relevant if the seas became more important... see post above.

N.B. I wrote the above post before I learned the game engine doesn't support that mechanic for the artillery.

>themartinmcfly
"Why are there no amphibious vehicles!!!"
"My suggestion is to correct that "

Amphibious vehicules ? What's the point ? If it's flying over-seas you want, we already have Naval and Air transport.

--I suggest adding a great new unit, the APC, that is well known for being a safe troop transport.
What I suggest, is that we add APC's units that will allow us to transport Troops (Militia, Infantry, and Marines only) quicker to battle, this might be very usefull for some huge maps like Asia, and Africa.

The APC unit will have:
Attack:(5) Defence:(5) Crit.:(5) HP:(7) Range:(8) View:(16) Capacity:(8) Cost:(90)

I also suggest that, to make the game a bit more realistic, Tanks should have a -2 defence bonus against Helicopters, since in real life, Tanks are very easy targets for Helicopters (and at least, the Helicopters will be a bit more usfull in this game, because personnaly, I'v almost never saw someone use Helicopters).
And if we add the APC's, it should have a -1 defence bonus against Helicopters.

What about Building a type of General? Maybe not one like we start off with (the one's that carry our names), but perhaps a simpler version, and only allowed at capitals? And perhaps certain types of Generals at certain types of capitals? i.e., at a capital of a nation surrounded primarily by water, you could build an (expensive) Admiral there, whereas in other places (such as capitals deep in S America) you could buy normal land Generals, while in Northern Russia or USA you could buy Air Commanders (or w.e. they're called).

Furthermore, someone said that prems could buy Generals already? Dunno if that's true or not....

And obviously, the features that you can buy for your own General (through SP), would not be available for these other Generals, as they are not the same.

What about settler units able to make a city? Inputting this into normal gameplay might frustrate balance but could you add as an option for custom units maybe? Each settler could found a city that produces one unit or improve population and production of an existing city. And maybe you could choose the capital for that city.

I know this is sounding like civilizations and would prolly be difficult to program but it would be cool to implement in scenarios like colonial empires, space maps, etc.

Написано от Idonoghue, 10.05.2013 at 16:20

What about settler units able to make a city? Inputting this into normal gameplay might frustrate balance but could you add as an option for custom units maybe? Each settler could found a city that produces one unit or improve population and production of an existing city. And maybe you could choose the capital for that city.

I know this is sounding like civilizations and would prolly be difficult to program but it would be cool to implement in scenarios like colonial empires, space maps, etc.

Would encourage ally fagging unless there is some limit.

Написано от Guest, 11.05.2013 at 14:12

Would encourage ally fagging unless there is some limit.

Still trying to understand the link between player-made cities and ally-fagging. Anyway as for limit that would be up to the mapper's discretion. They could make them outrageously expensive or maybe non-spawnable and can only be given via the scenario if that is what it is. Yes this gives the creator the potential to imbalance a map but also the potential to add a whole new level of strategy if implemented correctly.

How about a heli transport its like the air transport but its range is less but can carry more troops maybe about 10 also it gets stronger from DS. they should also add the fighters as a anti-air unit that gets stronger from SM and yes it has to get stronger from it because SM is about air units and has a pic of fighters on it.

Написано от Idonoghue, 16.05.2013 at 00:16

Написано от Guest, 11.05.2013 at 14:12

Would encourage ally fagging unless there is some limit.

Still trying to understand the link between player-made cities and ally-fagging. Anyway as for limit that would be up to the mapper's discretion. They could make them outrageously expensive or maybe non-spawnable and can only be given via the scenario if that is what it is. Yes this gives the creator the potential to imbalance a map but also the potential to add a whole new level of strategy if implemented correctly.

I mean is that someone would ally fag an entire game to peacefully build cities. There needs to be a maximum you can ally, depending how many players there are.

Beginners need ally to win some of them can't win alone...I mean this is realistic...

Got an idea for another rare unit. I noticed the forest brothers partisans which I think is awsome, so why not do the same for other countries. My idea was Wolverines! (Yes with the explamation mark if they like it). Same thing as partisans but only can be found in USA: Mountains. Just something that I thought would be cool.

Написано от Wildchild92, 20.09.2013 at 03:14

Got an idea for another rare unit. I noticed the forest brothers partisans which I think is awsome, so why not do the same for other countries. My idea was Wolverines! (Yes with the explamation mark if they like it). Same thing as partisans but only can be found in USA: Mountains. Just something that I thought would be cool.

you watched red dawn didnt you...

Написано от 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.

I really like this idea here. I always found it very unrealistic and strange how planes just can stop and go on water for weeks here. Later on people also often just spam bombers the whole time, because of the better range, but with this, it would make naval combats a lot more interesting. Would love to see this implemented.

Instead of just bombers:

Bombers have 1 attack/1 defense but can carry ? armaments each. Armament can consist of a bomb (+? attack, +? def vs ground, 1 def vs air) or a missile (+? attack vs air, 1 attack vs ground, 1 def vs ground, +? def vs air). Armaments can only be transported by bombers and this would essentially limit how far bombers can go before having to go back and reload their equipment in cities.

I'll be making a Europe+ map to test this idea .

^ why would you listen to a guy who cant make good military decisions for america... lelelele

People, people, we need landships

^^^

What if seamines?

Написано от 4Chan, 20.01.2014 at 19:17

What if seamines?

Huh?

Sea Mines?

Написано от 4Chan, 20.01.2014 at 19:17

What if seamines?

Yeah, sea mines. Stealth units in the water. They would function like a broken missile. It would take transport ships to place them in the sea.

Написано от Tortuguero, 31.01.2014 at 04:14

Написано от 4Chan, 20.01.2014 at 19:17

What if seamines?

Yeah, sea mines. Stealth units in the water. They would function like a broken missile. It would take transport ships to place them in the sea.

Already implemented in some maps/scenarios (Lunar Colonization, some WWII versions, etc.).

Написано от stmpeng. mk.1, 18.01.2014 at 11:57

People, people, we need landships

Basically a heavy tank with transport capacity. Just give some "capacity" to tanks...

Написано от Columna Durruti, 31.01.2014 at 08:07

Написано от Tortuguero, 31.01.2014 at 04:14

Написано от 4Chan, 20.01.2014 at 19:17

What if seamines?

Yeah, sea mines. Stealth units in the water. They would function like a broken missile. It would take transport ships to place them in the sea.

Already implemented in some maps/scenarios (Lunar Colonization, some WWII versions, etc.).

Oh cool. I'm assuming they would be a naval unit with no range, but is transportable?