|
Masdus Posts: 68
5/8/2016
|
In my opinion making ground forces more expensive relative to ships does nothing to address the issues. Right now for naval battles it is decided not by whom has the bigger navy, but by whom can bring the most troops in hangers. Again logistics is just too simple a mechanic, treatig a corvette the same as a monolith and the same as a fully upgraded Armoured. The fix really would have been to make naval vessels more effective in their own domain. For an example look to battle 614.
There is a massive disconnect between how ground troopps function with their exponential growth in size and power, and how ships work. Sure it might "balance" with on going cost, but it certainly doesn't make a lot of sense that a fully upgraded "bomber and fighter defender" can't even go toe to toe with a single level 8 veritech.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Doctor Dread Administrator Posts: 1478
5/8/2016
|
Masdus wrote:
In my opinion making ground forces more expensive relative to ships does nothing to address the issues. Right now for naval battles it is decided not by whom has the bigger navy, but by whom can bring the most troops in hangers. Again logistics is just too simple a mechanic, treatig a corvette the same as a monolith and the same as a fully upgraded Armoured. The fix really would have been to make naval vessels more effective in their own domain. For an example look to battle 614.
There is a massive disconnect between how ground troopps function with their exponential growth in size and power, and how ships work. Sure it might "balance" with on going cost, but it certainly doesn't make a lot of sense that a fully upgraded "bomber and fighter defender" can't even go toe to toe with a single level 8 veritech.
I think its just that the levels are shown prominent and not the size of the units
Upgraded ground units are just more of them. A level 10 ground unit is 100 of them, a level 8 is like only 50. Upgrading a single unit instead of making 300 individual ones was a mechanic to help take burden off the system and the players. The upgrade scale goes up sharply, its like 1,2,5,8,10,15,25,50,75,100. I think you sent 50 variteks against 100 fighters and 100 bombers. Perhaps the levels should be more evened out or it should be more prominently displayed how "many" are in the unit. Sending a level 8 counter against two level 10 units sounds like you should be whomping them but is misleading because numbers wise you're like 50 against 200.
Hey, battle 614 is your 50 variteks going up against like half adozen corvettes a c couple of destroyers and ac cruiser, that's like a counter against your variteks =)
edited by DrDread on 5/8/2016
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Masdus Posts: 68
5/9/2016
|
No it is his 50 Varitechs, mostly holding their own, against a fleet that represents a fairly lengthy build time and investment of cash. I get the size factor, but when you do the sums, it just doesn't make sense to spend on a navy in most cases. You simply can't produce enough navy to counter troops,and since troops can fight in naval battles they will dominate. It doesn't help that we have no indication of base attack strengths. We know the percentage multiplier due to level, and the adjustment for troops types, but not the actual base number.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Doctor Dread Administrator Posts: 1478
5/9/2016
|
On the site under the GUIDE page there is a sub section for Combat, it has a matrix that shows how much damage every unit type inflicts against every other unit type. It also tries to explain how your attacks gets directed by the size of the defending units. Bigger units draw more of the fire.
I hear you when you say that the current logistics is unfair. Making a battleship cost the same logistics as a unit of mechanized whether that mechanized is a 1x or a 100x. Its not like you can easily 100x stack a destroyer. We could count the size of ships and perhaps the level of ground units instead of just the unit itself for logistics. that would make a 100x stack level 10 unit count like 10 and a battleship count as 4. I didn't want to get to complicated with logistics, it was put in to be a nudge against making 100s of small units and clogging up the system.
The real "logistics" penalty was supposed to be the upkeep cost of the units. It wasn't supposed to be difficult to make a large army but it would be impossible to maintain it. a 100x stack of variteks is like 150 million dollar investment (now) . That's the cost of 3 battleships with a similar upkeep. That many should be able to take on 4-5 corvettes and destroyers and break even, even though they counter variteks Maybe we should even make "repair" cost money so even though a huge varitek stack might win a fight like that they would take a lot of damage and cost a lot more to repair back to full.
The construction time on ships vs ground: Probably a good point, the construction times on grounds units might have to double like the price did. There are too many ground units being made to quickly. I can't "stack" the ships so I have to make the ground units less numerous. having a level 10 100x stack of something was supposed to be a big deal, like you're nto supposed to shoot for max level because its "too many" unless you're massing for something huge
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Masdus Posts: 68
5/9/2016
|
Yes I have read the guide. I had assumed the matrix was in % of damage dealt. I understand it better now.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Doctor Dread Administrator Posts: 1478
5/9/2016
|
Masdus wrote:
Yes I have read the guide. I had assumed the matrix was in % of damage dealt. I understand it better now.
Just FYI, I know the matrix probably isn't balanced in certain matchups. A lot of stuff has been changed especially when doubling the cost of half the units. This will probably be tweaked over time, it's already gotten a couple of dramatic changes. I'm probably going to split the matrix into two grids, one that shows just the combat values and another that shows all the other information,costs, construction time, size, level up cost % and maybe even the brief description of the unit and what it is supposed to be good for so we can tweak the combat scores more objectively
|
|
|
0
link
|