Announcement For more variety on the battlefield!

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

    • King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

      in real life, the level 2/3/4 rockets did not have a effective counter, but the rockets themselves were ineffective...
      Quite right. The real life V-2s were great for destroying city blocks of rowhouses and terrorizing the civilian populations of major cities, but the accuracy of the long-range guidance systems was simply not good enough to be used as a tactical weapon against combat units or specific military installations. With an effective blast radius of a couple hundred meters, a V-2's 1000-kg warhead could not hope to inflict significant damage on an infantry regiment or armor brigade in the field -- unless 1,500 soldiers were lined up in formation on a parade ground. The all-time highest body count for a single V-2 was 126 (all civilians) when a V-2 fell on a Woolworth's in London. It simply was not suitable for use as a tactical weapon; the one time the Germans were known to have tried to use the rocket against a specific structure, it failed miserably. In March 1945, after the U.S. Army had captured the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen -- the last bridge across the Rhine still intact -- the Germans launched a furious barrage of 11 V-2s against the bridge. All 11 missed; the nearest strike fell 1500 meters away, the farthest was 40+ kilometers (25+ miles). When it mattered most, most of the rockets fell several kilometers away. The guidance systems simply were not yet accurate enough, nor the payload powerful enough, to be used as a tactical weapon against troops.
    • Restrisiko wrote:

      Perhaps, in the course of the reform of the units, they could at last correct the classification of the nuclear submarines and change it from ship to submarine.
      Thanks, this will be fixed as well.

      miech wrote:



      Since we are changing the game anyway, may I dare raise the tac bomber issue? Its funny that its basically the only untouched unit, yet has the most complaints in the forum (not only by me;) ) Since its basically the unit that does the most damage by far (in terms of raw total damage vs damage recieved). Yes AA is raised in defense, but my first guess is that it still may not be enough. If the stats will not be changed, perhaps SBDE is a nice alternative?
      Not sure if this is really needed after we already increased anti air damage of anti air units and some ships, as well as buffed the rocket interceptor and the strat bomber (which can be used to destroy the airports the tacs are starting from).
    • freezy wrote:

      Not sure if this is really needed after we already increased anti air damage of anti air units and some ships, as well as buffed the rocket interceptor and the strat bomber (which can be used to destroy the airports the tacs are starting from).
      The biggest problem with the in-game tactical bomber unit is most players seem to be completely clueless as to how they should employ current-level interceptor squadrons to inflict unsustainable levels of damage on tactical bomber squadrons. Of course, there is also the problem of the so-called "gold bomber," where some of our friends re-charge the combat effectiveness of their tactical bomber wings after every attack, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion . . . .

      The "buff" for the rocket fighter is a ridiculous over-compensation for the complained-of "over-powered" capabilities of the tactical bomber unit. In reality, the ME 163 rocket fighter was pretty much a failure as an interceptor, and it was nearly as dangerous to its own pilot as it was to enemy bombers. The best powered flight duration was 7.5 minutes, with a maximum range of about 40 km (~25 miles). In comparison, you have now "buffed" the in-game version whereby it has a range of 250 km (more than 6x reality), and given it super hero anti-aircraft capabilities. In reality, over 300 ME 163s were built, and they were responsible for shooting down fewer than 20 enemy bombers.

      I really wish Bytro would stick to something resembling reality when designing in-game units. I have few doubts that the in-game rocket fighter, if left at this level of strengths, is going to create a whole host of unanticipated "imbalances" -- the usual result when we depart so far from reality.
    • Just delete the rocket fighter. It Was next to useless. Germany's best test pilot nearly lost his life in one. I think the buff was just an attempt o make a useless unit viable in the game. I built some in one game one time. I will never build them again
      “I am the flail of god. Had you not created great sins, god would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”


      Genghis Khan
    • MontanaBB wrote:

      I really wish Bytro would stick to something resembling reality when designing in-game units. I have few doubts that the in-game rocket fighter, if left at this level of strengths, is going to create a whole host of unanticipated "imbalances" -- the usual result when we depart so far from reality.
      Maybe for our next games :P Doing this for one unit only would not work and changing all units to their realistic historic values would make a whole new game out of this, which we don't want to do.

      So we will go with the current changes and see how it goes, if necessary rebalance more at a later point.

      Oh and one thing I forgot to mention: We also added upkeep costs for rockets, atomic bomber and atomic rocket, which were missing.
    • Is there a timeline for when any of these updates will go live on the regular, non-pioneer games? I know that's a bit much to ask, just curious, or even an educated guess on how long it would be before any other changes are implemented would be appreciated

      Obviously many kinks still need to be worked out, but with the exception of a handful of units, I thought the new balance changes were a vast improvement over how they currently operate.
    • F. Marion wrote:

      freezy wrote:

      Most likely next tuesday.
      How will that happen?
      Will existing games continue to use the old values or will all games start using the new values?

      (thinking about building units that will gain value post change over)
      All games will use the new values

      MontanaBB wrote:

      freezy wrote:

      rocket: 150 oil
      atomic rocket: 200 oil
      atomic bomber: 100 grain, 200 oil
      @freezy: Am I understanding this correctly -- these values represent the daily upkeep for these units?
      yes, comparable to all the other units. Though we lowered the upkeep for normal rockets to 100 now after some feedback.

      And keep in mind that it is an abstraction for all units, there is also service personel, additional equipment etc. that is not shown on the map, the upkeep costs simulate that. Also it should be another slight debuff for rockets in case the build requirements were not enough for you guys :)
    • freezy wrote:

      Also it should be another slight debuff for rockets in case the build requirements were not enough for you guys
      Well, I suppose you can justify the daily oil upkeep for the rockets as part of their mobile launcher transporter requirements . . . . The oil upkeep for the atomic bomber unit is comparable to other aircraft squadrons, but sounds a bit high for a single four-engine heavy bomber. That said, this should prevent some of our friends from spamming and stockpiling ridiculous numbers of rockets, etc. There was a recent thread where the OP said that he had 7,000+ L4 rockets in a single game; I thought he was kidding. Then he showed the screenshot. Insane. I started doing the calculations of how many L5 industrial complex production hours were required, and quickly realized the bigger issue was the rare materials requirement to produce 7,229 rockets (500 tons x 7,229 = 3,614,500) . . . . The daily oil upkeep should help curtail that kind of spam-insanity.

      BTW, the simpler, more straightforward way to "debuff" rockets would be to simply reduce their effectiveness against combat units, and leave them as primarily an anti-buildings weapon, right? Consistent with the historical reality, right?
    • DxC wrote:

      Restrisiko wrote:

      ...correct the classification of the nuclear submarines..
      I wouldn't be surprised if the client is just showing the wrong icon, while they are actually treated as subs in a battle, but it's a good question. Anyone notice nuk subs being weak against BB/CL?
      Unfortunately it's not just a wrong icon.
      Yesterday I've made screens of battles between submarines and battleships.

      Click if you want to see the results...
      ...regular subs vs. battleships

      5/4/2017 // TEST AREA PACIFIC MAP 1577169 // DAY 279 // SOUTHERN BISMARCK SEA // WIND 0 // SWELL 0 // CLEAR SKY AND ABSOLUTE SIGHT

      ...nuclear subs vs. battleships

      5/4/2017 // TEST AREA PACIFIC MAP 1577169 // DAY 279 // CORAL SEA 25 SEA MILES SOUTH OF PORT MORESBY // WIND 0 // SWELL 0 // CLEAR SKY AND ABSOLUTE SIGHT

      freezy wrote:

      Thanks, this will be fixed as well.
      Hopefully not just the icon...

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money -
      - more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game sometimes.
      So beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps.
      Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony!

    • Thanks for chasing this down, documenting it and bringing it back here.

      These are the bugs that will slip past the arcade players.

      I did wonder why my diesel boats just chewed up nuke boats. Hopefully this will fix it.

      Of course, they still have absolutely unrealistic AA values. Show me one class of nuclear submarines with AA capability. The point of the nuke plant is to not _have_ to be on the surface charging batteries and vulnerable to patrol aircraft and HK groups.