| John Galt | Tuesday, June 19, 2018 - 04:24 pm 
When utilizing land based arms out of an offensive base, their fighting level displays as 0, and they receive no benefit of quality while in combat. The same weapons placed into a division show the correct fighting level and recieve all the benefits of their quality. Is this a bug or a feature? I feel like it will decrease the value of conventional missile batteries since there is no way to put them into divisions without using mobile units. |
| John Galt | Tuesday, June 19, 2018 - 04:28 pm
Here is the proof if required:
Hostilities between Objectivism and The Kingdom of Bentano
Thu Aug 7, 4082 Ground- or Airforce attacks the town of 'Samplon'
The Kingdom of Bentano (the attacked country,C3WL3) reports:
The country lost 200 helicopters.
357 soldiers were killed and 888 were wounded.
The defence was assisted by the Defense helicopter Wing Meral.
The attack added 0.02 damage points. The War Index is now 63.30
Objectivism (the attacker,WL2) reports:
The country lost 304 offensive aa batteries.
The attack may have been reduced or eliminated by Anti Missile Missiles.
698 soldiers were killed and 1804 were wounded.
The War Index remains 100.00
Hostilities between Objectivism and The Kingdom of Bentano
Thu Aug 7, 4082 Long Range Division 'Malaka' attacks the town of 'Samplon'
The Kingdom of Bentano (the attacked country,C3WL3) reports:
The country lost 200 helicopters.
228 soldiers were killed and 627 were wounded.
The defence was assisted by the Defense helicopter Wing Martina.
The War Index remains 63.32
Objectivism (the attacker,WL2) reports:
Malaka lost 28 offensive aa batteries.
Malaka lost trucks, gasoline and military supplies.
The attack may have been reduced or eliminated by Anti Missile Missiles.
66 soldiers were killed and 138 were wounded.
The War Index remains 100.00 |
| John Galt | Friday, June 22, 2018 - 10:52 pm
Any comment from developers on this? It seems that quality has no impact on land based weapons, which is a big deal. |
| III IIII IIIII | Saturday, June 23, 2018 - 12:28 am
Yeah... i noted this awhile back. I had cracked a joke about it going on to write "LAND BASED CRUISE FOR MOBILES!!" because of this issue. There is no real setting of quality for land based launched arms, as such the result is usually a lot more losses, such as with mid range missle batteries. Something i had argued a bit about to no avail; as usual.
My point was to add a feature that ofcourse some might consider a little much but at this point is benefical to all: Upgrading weapons without units and this problem could be solved, as it would also work on working in unit levels for weapons such as nuclear or land base cruise that cannot ever be upgraded; let alone if the quality even matters to large extent over units.
It would be more helpful achieveing weapons that players could actually battle with, since as a also put; the new players who think they can use mid range missiles from land; are horrible sadly mistaken; and will take losses that will make them whimper. |
| III IIII IIIII | Saturday, June 23, 2018 - 12:30 am
I mean the feature was added for mid range missiles and offensive anti aircraft and to use them via land is just a plain outrageous waste that is horrifying. Example of things that W3C needs to be more careful about. Like the nuclear defense batterys in garrisons. Sure! just blow the target up and the garrison goes with it! but that is extra cost most players are not effectively trying to waste when they are not experienced. |
| John Galt | Saturday, June 23, 2018 - 02:12 pm
What are your concerns with NDB in garrisons? They've been that way since the new war engine. I do know that the stealth bombers can destroy NDB now, which I'm not so sure is a good thing to be honest. |
| III IIII IIIII | Saturday, June 23, 2018 - 03:16 pm
And your concerns about my concerns? Players have to use alot more ammunition to destroy something that technically had no use in the game (can you nuke c3s anymore? i know you can't but should this just be ignored, like my newspaper button?). They can't just clear a garrison on a level 1 C3, they either have to clear a garrison and destroy the target, or do a second stage attack to clear the garrison to continue occupying. Why no NEW player wins a war past level 1. But i guess more crap no one understands or reads around here (AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH CAN ANYBODYR READ OR PLAY THE GAME!?!?!?!)
Whats not a good thing? Nuclear defense batterys should be indestructive? to what are now worthless nukes? Good concept.. Ill remember that when no one uses them for anything other then preventing occupation. They might have always been there, but garrisons did not always stop occupation. |
| III IIII IIIII | Saturday, June 23, 2018 - 03:37 pm
Besides my concerns also with nuclear defense batterys is that what makes them so strong? Bad stealth bombers can destroy them? So what? Make it even more limited; for a nuke safe zone???
Last time i check they were weapons and not made of indestructible. They should be just as valuable as any other battery at the end of the day, they are just the "big bad" battery that takes out the nukes... the big bad weapon. So it has to be tough. I don't think it should just be ignored by other weapons such a bombers, as why should it get a clear pass??? It defends nukes! Back then nukes were something that i guess had a safe spot since there power, but at this point! Its just clogging up players who are trying to start out. Players are not here to struggle an act like they are in the wrong.
My point is here players are subjected to losses and figure that are not exactly reasonable. As new players are not even equipped for nuclear defense batterys properly and let alone experienced enough to know how much waste is used from land based attacks vs units when using other weapons such as mid range missle batteries. |
| John Galt | Sunday, June 24, 2018 - 06:50 am
Destroyable NDBs is pretty much a throwback to the days of the 99% nuke bug. Just my opinion of course. I think a better solution to destroyable NDBs is to make NDB missiles cost more than nukes, so that you have to pay dearly for the protection they provide. |
