I want to talk about the stealth and de-stealth mechanisms for land units. I wonder why nobody seems to have complained about it.
Stealth and de-stealth capabilities have been added to a number of land units. Units with those capabilities see their strategic significance greatly increased as a result. Nowadays, I have been forced to build a lot more Armored cars and motorized infantries to counter enemy stealth units. Interceptors won't do because they need airports and they can't follow my armies as they move.
There is a big difference between a player's choosing to adopt a strategy v.s. their being forced into one. The former involves strategic planning and rewards the ingenuity of the player. It is also responsive to changes in play-style. The latter however is plain dumb.
I feel that some choices have been taken away from the players, and the game loses some of its strategic depths with the stealth/de-stealth update. Units with stealth or de-stealth capabilities have been singled out as worthy of special attention while the rest of the unit types pale in comparison.
My recommendation would be to reduce the utility or functionality of stealth/de-stealth. In addition to making them detectable when moving (in hostile or friendly territory), for instance, we can reduce the detectability range for stealth units instead of making them disappear completely. Or, we might introduce a detection range for stealth units, say, a medium tank with normal view range of 70km can only detect stealthy units within, say, 15km (for AC maybe longer, like, 25km). If I am a commander of militia, I want to know if I am spotted and who's spotting me. My recommendation applies to submarines too, as naval battle also feel profoundly imbalanced, which is NOT helped (possibly made worse) by bestowing de-stealth capability to Destroyers. Especially since destroyers have very long de-stealth range which can then be used by battleships.
Stealth and de-stealth capabilities have been added to a number of land units. Units with those capabilities see their strategic significance greatly increased as a result. Nowadays, I have been forced to build a lot more Armored cars and motorized infantries to counter enemy stealth units. Interceptors won't do because they need airports and they can't follow my armies as they move.
There is a big difference between a player's choosing to adopt a strategy v.s. their being forced into one. The former involves strategic planning and rewards the ingenuity of the player. It is also responsive to changes in play-style. The latter however is plain dumb.
I feel that some choices have been taken away from the players, and the game loses some of its strategic depths with the stealth/de-stealth update. Units with stealth or de-stealth capabilities have been singled out as worthy of special attention while the rest of the unit types pale in comparison.
My recommendation would be to reduce the utility or functionality of stealth/de-stealth. In addition to making them detectable when moving (in hostile or friendly territory), for instance, we can reduce the detectability range for stealth units instead of making them disappear completely. Or, we might introduce a detection range for stealth units, say, a medium tank with normal view range of 70km can only detect stealthy units within, say, 15km (for AC maybe longer, like, 25km). If I am a commander of militia, I want to know if I am spotted and who's spotting me. My recommendation applies to submarines too, as naval battle also feel profoundly imbalanced, which is NOT helped (possibly made worse) by bestowing de-stealth capability to Destroyers. Especially since destroyers have very long de-stealth range which can then be used by battleships.
The post was edited 5 times, last by Weids ().