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...
For more variety on the battlefield!
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
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.
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?
-
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 "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 -
May I join the beta testing of these changes plz? Would greatly appreciate it - deeply interested in these tweaks along with (especially) the speed map. I couldn't get a hold of any of these maps yet but I'm diehard on it haha.
-
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.
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. -
Can we please get an announcement on the status of the Beta map? The server went down ~ Friday iirc, and the map has been frozen since. It actually got majorly bugged, time traveling all the way to day 35. Nobody has given an official explanation about it, many of the players are getting restless
Much appreciated. -
Sadly we had to close the beta speed map since it was also affected by the freezing bug. Sorry
If you wanna know more about the future of speed maps you can give more feedback here and also find more information:
Speedrounds? WE WANT MORE! but not right nowSarah / Sasri
Ex-Community Manager -
freezy wrote:
Oh and one thing I forgot to mention: We also added upkeep costs for rockets, atomic bomber and atomic rocket, which were missing.
Thanks. -
rocket: 150 oil
atomic rocket: 200 oil
atomic bomber: 100 grain, 200 oil -
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. -
Most likely next tuesday.
-
freezy wrote:
Most likely next tuesday.
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) -
freezy wrote:
rocket: 150 oil
atomic rocket: 200 oil
atomic bomber: 100 grain, 200 oil
-
MontanaBB wrote:
freezy wrote:
rocket: 150 oil
atomic rocket: 200 oil
atomic bomber: 100 grain, 200 oil
This player may have been reactivated in October 27th 2017 -
F. Marion wrote:
freezy wrote:
Most likely next tuesday.
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)
MontanaBB wrote:
freezy wrote:
rocket: 150 oil
atomic rocket: 200 oil
atomic bomber: 100 grain, 200 oil
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
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? -
Oil for rocket maintenance? Ouch, that hurt. It was one of the last high-tech units that didn't need oil... so even more AT guns for many people on the 100p map I guess.When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
- BIG DADDY. -
DxC wrote:
Restrisiko wrote:
...correct the classification of the nuclear submarines..
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.
Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
.... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps.
Warning! 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.
-
Share
- Facebook 0
- Twitter 0
- Google Plus 0
- Reddit 0