Convoy Armor Class

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

    • Convoy Armor Class

      It is past due to reevaluate the Armor class of Aircraft and Rocket convoys. Currently they are considered Light Armor. These units would be in unarmored trucks and unarmored cars when moving from bases to base, in fact they would probably be using the SAME trucks and cars that Motorized Infantry use which btw are considered UNARMORED. But for the planes themselves I cannot understand the justification of giving convoys an Armor Class equal to Armored Cars and Light Tanks.

      I bring this up because I was recently attacked in a non Core City by 3 Flying Bombs against an Armored Car defender. The AC defender was previously damaged into the 18 to 21 HP area and was a L2 AC when the combat started. Here is the combat in pics for you.

      I was asleep when the combat started but two other facts I also want to provide as details. First is that this AC was split from another AC that I sent as a scout and defend this and another city. Second there was a day change during this combat and but for the healing that this unit got it probably would have lost the combat. Now lets look at this somewhat realistically, there is no way a unit of truck drivers and mechanics would have been able to almost destroy an AC unit and that is not counting the fueling trucks of extremely flammable rocket fuel, the ONLY reason it lasted as long as it did and did as much damage as it did is the erroneously given Armor Class of Light Armor. So I call for this long standing error to finally be corrected.
      "Strategy is the art of making use of time and space. I am less concerned about the later than the former. Space we can recover, lost time never." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

      "Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success." ~ Erwin Rommel

      The post was edited 1 time, last by S Schmidt ().

    • This issue was raised many times, Bytro doesn't want to change it, they say players shouldn't be punished TOO hard for making mistakes that cost them their air base.

      It is also a case for the impopular light tank, which is better at fighting armor when it catches them after a rush.
      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.

    • jubjub bird wrote:

      Agreed with KR. If realism is your only lens, just pretend the airstrip had some additional units to help defend it from being taken over and it's more than just mechanics and truck drivers.
      Even then, "Every Marine a Fighter" could have applied, or something similar, where all people on base must know how to operate basic weaponry.
      "I have not failed, i have just found 10,000 ways that wont work." - Thomas Edison

      Need Support? Send a Ticket here! - Support Form.
      Forum Rules - Forum Rules.
      Chat Rules - Chat Rules.

    • Maybe I should have been clearer, the flying bomb convoy was not in the city in the image when it was captured so there was not an airbase in the city. The convoy travelled by sea, disembarked and the travelled into the city where it attacked the Armored Car. So if I wanted to use my imagination, it would have been to envision the convoy driving into an ambush set up by soldiers that had a few years of wartime experience where they would have been wiped out to a man with no losses but instead I got a badly designed combat with erroneous results.

      Regardless the Armor class of a convoy is currently EXCESSIVE in the extreme, it should not be able to withstand hours of combat vs an Armored Car, esp one defending. Once again the convoy would be made up of the same vehicles as a Motorized Infantry unit. So if the armor class isnt going to change then the damage a convoy does needs to be reduced, or reduce to HP of a convoy. It is a simple one of the three, I would suggest the most logical, for many reasons, is to change the armor class.

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      This issue was raised many times, Bytro doesn't want to change it
      Fine, it has been raised many times before but that does not mean that it should continue to be ignored, games that ignore and fail to correct legit problems brought up by their gaming community soon have no community. From what I am seeing the community is already growing smaller. So maybe its time for Bytro to wake up and realize it cannot continue to ignore its community before it is gone. Just because they don't want to change something does not mean it should not be changed.
      "Strategy is the art of making use of time and space. I am less concerned about the later than the former. Space we can recover, lost time never." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

      "Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success." ~ Erwin Rommel

    • Lol I don't think changing the convoy armor class is what's going to reinvigorate this community. Of all the issues to get worked up about this one has to be near the bottom of the list.

      If you want to use your imagination, pretend moving convoys are escorted with small arms. Seems reasonable that three convoy escorts could do OK against a single armored car. The result certainly isn't "excessive in the extreme"--the armored car still won!

    • Let's not over exaggerate, this is a very small issue. It also depends on the unit, if we change the armor class some units will perform better vs convoys, while some others will perform worse vs convoys. Then maybe another player will complain why unit XY now is worse vs convoys.
      Nevertheless you have a point that unarmored might make more sense. I will at least write it down as topic for a potential future balancing update.

    • While you're there, please also consider the ocean transports. They are OP and get more OP with higher research. This is not what I want as an attacker, or as a defender.

      As an attacker, I want my subs to be able to sink unescorted convoys. Sure, better transports should be able to survive longer (more HP) but they should not be sinking my subs, destroyers, cruisers, etc. Longer battles will give more time for the defender to bring some ships or naval bombers to save their convoy. If the defender has no interest in building ships or bombers, then they should not be at sea. Pretty basic stuff.

      As a defender, I want my research investment to translate into faster embark/disembark times. That would be a real benefit worth investing in.

      As for "not punishing players too much", I don't agree with this at all. New players should learn the basics by using conventional troops against their neighbors, not by building air forces close to the front or sending unescorted transports into unexplored directions. Those moves are dumb, and they should result in disaster so players are not tempted to repeat them.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      While you're there, please also consider the ocean transports. They are OP and get more OP with higher research. This is not what I want as an attacker, or as a defender.

      As an attacker, I want my subs to be able to sink unescorted convoys. Sure, better transports should be able to survive longer (more HP) but they should not be sinking my subs, destroyers, cruisers, etc. Longer battles will give more time for the defender to bring some ships or naval bombers to save their convoy. If the defender has no interest in building ships or bombers, then they should not be at sea. Pretty basic stuff.

      As a defender, I want my research investment to translate into faster embark/disembark times. That would be a real benefit worth investing in.

      As for "not punishing players too much", I don't agree with this at all. New players should learn the basics by using conventional troops against their neighbors, not by building air forces close to the front or sending unescorted transports into unexplored directions. Those moves are dumb, and they should result in disaster so players are not tempted to repeat them.
      I do think transports are not totally unarmed converted cruise vessels yes, but also when war proceeded they became equipped with fast firing guns, and subs had to show their periscope in order to attack, and after the first torpedoes surprise is gone and ships know where to look for the sub(s).

      The embarkment, disembarkment is to be handles carefully, landings with a gazillion of troops out of nowhere is just IMBA, then there should at least be coastal visibility because landings do not go unseen by civilians .,

    • freezy wrote:

      Let's not over exaggerate, this is a very small issue. It also depends on the unit, if we change the armor class some units will perform better vs convoys, while some others will perform worse vs convoys. Then maybe another player will complain why unit XY now is worse vs convoys.
      Nevertheless you have a point that unarmored might make more sense. I will at least write it down as topic for a potential future balancing update.
      There is one thing that I still dont get on turning to convoy. they (for example planes) were in defensive position when the airbase got destroyed, if they were already there there is no reason to make them attackers, for returning planes this could be different, but for forces already there it seems weird as a battle mechanic.

    • - Ground troops comes to airbase;
      - It is undefended (air units don't count as defender);
      - Province changes hands, planes change to trucks;
      - Trucks (a land unit) find themselves in enemy territory now, which means they attack.
      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.

    • I understand it from the game mechanics point of view as you describe it, yet , planes on the grounds have support and in that role the base can be ovccupied just like that, even if they scrambled from the flight tower to the main gate.

      I want to say the order should be different they are in the base, and they stay in the base, for the stats of the convoy it does not matter so much, but for an armored car attacking it does, because now suddenly he is in a favoured role instead of attacking. A tank can simply switch using the attack command. Anyway, it should just not happen ;)