damage potential against transport ships

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

    • damage potential against transport ships

      why a battleship or cruiser give same damage against an armored ship and unarmored transport ship ?

      even level 6 cruiser cant destroy level 4 transport ship at one attack

      imagine it with low level battleships and cruisers

      players should protect them and naval invasions shouldn't be easy
      but even with armored big gunships , sink them is very hard

    • It gets worse.

      Land units have low attack values versus ships. Try to repel a landing before it finishes, and you are likely to lose your ground unit versus the transport. Often, it's easier to beat the attacker if you let him land and attack you when he is full force.

      That makes even LESS sense.

      Transports are indeed overpowered and stupidity is being rewarded.

    • Both trucked planes and transport ships have become much harder to kill since 1.0, but apparently this is intentional.
      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.

    • Probably, but they are still easy to kill overall. Let's no exaggerate the difficulty of killing them.

      Regarding land units vs transports: Even an Infantry lvl1 beats a transport lvl1. They both deal 0.5 attack damage against each other, but the Inf deals 0.25 more defense damage than the transport. The Inf also has 15 HP, the transport has 10 HP. Heck, even a Militia would do it, same stats when fighting against transports as Inf. You can of course bring some better units to the fight.

      If the argument is that 1 land unit should be able to kill 10 transports, then: "no".

    • Not ten, but I guess three would be reasonable.
      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 think the current values are reasonable already. I only showed what 1 Inf or Militia lvl1 is capable of doing. You can increase your odds even further by placing other stronger units at the coastline, then you get your threefold or fivefold result.
      The balancing problem is that there is only 1 transport ship unit no matter which unit is transported. So right now 1 Militia lvl1 can already defeat a Heavy tank lvl4 in transport mode, which is an extremely favourable result (the tank costs 7 times more). The current values have to be a middle ground, we cannot balance everything around 1 Inf vs 1 transported Inf.

      Other food for thought: 1 anti tank gun, a hard counter unit against tanks, also loses against 3 tanks (doesnt matter which). And thats true for most other hard counter as well, that they still lose vs 3 of the targets they are supposed to counter. So I dont see why transport ships should be special in that regard. Everything is a hard counter against transport ships so you don't even need to plan. Transport ships and transport trucks are already the weakest units in the game and it already is very punishing to lose your transports vs. a force that is 10 times smaller than yours.

      I know some of you guys want freebies like 1 light tank being able to shred 20 grounded planes but that's just insane from a resource balancing angle. That's why we don't allow extreme stuff like that, cos it is just too punishing. Even with the current balancing its possible to make these mistakes very punishing, you just have to invest a little bit.

    • It's not reasonable. A unit busy disembarking should not be nearly as effective as a fully deployed army unit. What was the tactical (local) ratio of attacker to defender during D-Day? Even with overwhelming air and navy support, it took multiple times as many attackers to dislodge the defenders, at heavy cost. Let's not even get into other, failed amphibious assaults.

      Disembarking transports should be extremely vulnerable. The current behavior is completely wrong.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      It's not reasonable. A unit busy disembarking should not be nearly as effective as a fully deployed army unit. What was the tactical (local) ratio of attacker to defender during D-Day? Even with overwhelming air and navy support, it took multiple times as many attackers to dislodge the defenders, at heavy cost. Let's not even get into other, failed amphibious assaults.

      Disembarking transports should be extremely vulnerable. The current behavior is completely wrong.
      There are 4 patterns of situations when a land unit engages with an intercepting unit and when land units engage with each other.
      And pointing out "this is too complicated" and pointing out "this is lacking reality" may be different contexts.
      So it might be better to talk about and divide into them as distinctly as possible.

    • Let's set aside the idea of an "armed transport convoy" appearing out of nowhere, capable of fighting off subs and destroyers. This is also ludicrous, but let's set it aside for now.

      Let's talk about cases where a transport (disembarking) runs into defenders on the beach. How effectively are the disembarking troops going to fight? This is not a Commando or Specnaz brigade landing at night, just a regular infantry or artillery or armor unit. How effective are they going to be, as they arrive on the beach in small groups, unload, and then send the landing craft back for more? Not very effective. Most of them are going to die before they can get the water out of their boots.

      Or, let's talk about a unit embarking, but still labeled as an army unit. How many of them are already on boats? How many are packing up and carrying equipment? Are they able to fight effectively against a fully formed army brigade charging at them from the nearby city? They'll be cut down like wheat. History is full of examples of army units getting mauled while attempting a river crossing. Or just consider the WW2 example of Dunkirk. Embarking while under fire is *extremely* dangerous.

      Both of these cases (embarking, disembarking) put units in precarious positions. They should be extremely vulnerable, and not at all able to mount a solid resistance. An army unit that catches one of these vulnerable units should win easily, suffering little to no damage.

    • Originally, it was difficult for a unit intended to attack a unit on the ground to intercept a unit on coast.
      On the other hand, it is certainly dangerous to be attacked during landing.
      Both of these stories are true.
      However, both story have exaggeration.
      The former might be rounded off by stories of being hard to hit.

      The latter might be rounded off the issue of armor or shields.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Let's set aside the idea of an "armed transport convoy" appearing out of nowhere, capable of fighting off subs and destroyers. This is also ludicrous, but let's set it aside for now.

      Let's talk about cases where a transport (disembarking) runs into defenders on the beach. How effectively are the disembarking troops going to fight? This is not a Commando or Specnaz brigade landing at night, just a regular infantry or artillery or armor unit. How effective are they going to be, as they arrive on the beach in small groups, unload, and then send the landing craft back for more? Not very effective. Most of them are going to die before they can get the water out of their boots.

      Or, let's talk about a unit embarking, but still labeled as an army unit. How many of them are already on boats? How many are packing up and carrying equipment? Are they able to fight effectively against a fully formed army brigade charging at them from the nearby city? They'll be cut down like wheat. History is full of examples of army units getting mauled while attempting a river crossing. Or just consider the WW2 example of Dunkirk. Embarking while under fire is *extremely* dangerous.

      Both of these cases (embarking, disembarking) put units in precarious positions. They should be extremely vulnerable, and not at all able to mount a solid resistance. An army unit that catches one of these vulnerable units should win easily, suffering little to no damage.
      Now use the realism argument to take apart all the other non-realistic mechanics in CoW (there are many) and then you won't have CoW anymore. CoW is not a reality simulation, so gameplay and balancing always trump realism. Realism is there to inform the balancing and gameplay, however. But overall the gameplay in CoW is an abstraction, you should not take everything at face value. Many "hidden" things are not shown and are just assumed. Like transport ships being escorted by other naval vessels.

      Even with the current balancing disembarking transports get mauled, you need multiple times as many transported units to defeat the land units on the coast. In my earlier post I did the math with the weakest units in the game (to showcase that a transport loses against even the weakest land units), but you can use much better units to get much better results vs transports. Not many people level up their transports, but many people level up their land units, so chances are that in most situations the disembarking force has to be multiple times larger than the coastline defenders to win. You even get your home defense bonus if its your own soil. To me this is fine and reasonable, and informed by realism. Is it the most realistic it can be? Maybe not, but as said before, realism only informs, but its more important that it fits into the current balancing approach in CoW.

      Embarking units are not more vulnerable because no feature for it exists to make them so. You are right they probably should be, but it also doesnt have high prio to introduce this. There are many other (potential) situations and mechanics in the game for which we can say the same actually.

      I also have to say that it shouldn't become too easy to prevent landings with land units, otherwise the already underrepresented naval units would lose one more of their roles. I rather want people to build more naval units to prevent enemy landings.

    • I agree most people don't defend their coastline and remember their is a time factor involved in disembarking / embarking units which gives you time to adjust your Strategy. the only change I would make is to adjust the time of the landings on friendly or enemy provinces it is easer to disembark on a friendly province. As for commandos they to should be quicker to Disembark then Regular units

    • 1101Pathfinder wrote:

      I agree most people don't defend their coastline and remember their is a time factor involved in disembarking / embarking units which gives you time to adjust your Strategy. the only change I would make is to adjust the time of the landings on friendly or enemy provinces it is easer to disembark on a friendly province. As for commandos they to should be quicker to Disembark then Regular units
      commando is a dead unit , noone use them , level 1 armored car interceptor motorized infantry can see them and you have to wait 6 days for them , when you started to train them enemy might have level 3 armored cars , interceptors

    • in don't consider them dead but should be used for special missions as intended not as regular army. They could use some enhancements though 1-Quicker time to disembark, 2-Stealth on the sea, 3-Airborne like a paratrooper 4-Make them scout capable with these changes it would make them a very formidable force

    • 1101Pathfinder wrote:

      in don't consider them dead but should be used for special missions as intended not as regular army. They could use some enhancements though 1-Quicker time to disembark, 2-Stealth on the sea, 3-Airborne like a paratrooper 4-Make them scout capable with these changes it would make them a very formidable force
      if I want stealth unit militia is cheaper and have more level , for anti stealth units reveal it hard

      special missions ? they are dead