Morale damage from attacks should be changed

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

    • Thinking further about this, I think I should specify, that my problem is not so much with the morale effect of bombing and shelling. It is the rebellion mechanism that needs tweaking.

      As for all the pointless arguing about how to prevent bombing and shelling: don't waste your breath trying to explain me how to. Of course I know how, but I challenge you to play a game where you can stop ANY such attacks. Or even most of them. Unless your enemy is noob, there will always be more targets for his bombing than you will have defense.

    • NoobNoobTrain wrote:

      Thinking further about this, I think I should specify, that my problem is not so much with the morale effect of bombing and shelling. It is the rebellion mechanism that needs tweaking.
      The thread's literally titled "Moral damage from attacks should be changed"

      And

      NoobNoobTrain wrote:

      Instead of damage to morale, I think artillery and non-strat bomber attacks should damage only productivity - not morale.

      And garrisons? You could literally just put like 2 units in a province and they would put down any uprising.

      ------

      NoobNoobTrain wrote:

      As for all the pointless arguing about how to prevent bombing and shelling: don't waste your breath trying to explain me how to. Of course I know how, but I challenge you to play a game where you can stop ANY such attacks. Or even most of them. Unless your enemy is noob, there will always be more targets for his bombing than you will have defense.
      Well no offense but that means the enemy's just better than you.

      Apart for doctrines & starting country, everyone's starts out more or less, the same. Everyone starts with the same resources. Everyone starts the same troops. Even the game mechanic that you're complaining about also affects your enemy.

      The only thing the separates players are skill & capability. If your enemy beats you then he's just better.

      Just think of it this way, you & your enemy have the same resources. He invests it in strat bombers and you invest yours in ints. In a war between the 2 of you, your ints will completely shut down his bombers. All you have to do is just build ints. If he bombs you and you can't counter it, it's not because there isn't a counter - it's that you just didn't go for the counter. It's that simple really.

      Could also just be a coiner tho but that's a whole new different topic.

    • The problem with your argument is, that it is valid for any situation. Hence nothing should be tweaked in the game. Any imbalance can with your logic be attributed to 'the enemy is better than you'.

      It would be the perfect world for game developers, I grant you that. Just imagine this: release the game and never bother fixing anything ever! But the world isn't like that (except for Paradox who does this and leaves their games heavily bugged).

    • Okay, that's fair. But cmon, bombarding ground is the probably the most inefficient use of arty. It's not broken at all.

      If he actually advanced then he would've captured your province much sooner. The way I see it, the fact that he chose to bombard your province and wait until daychange with no guarantee of it rebelling to him, is a win for you.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Z. Sakki ().