I dont care if it's a super late game feature that's ungodly expensive to produce. I think we should have mobile aerodromes in the water to create new routes for airplanes. The navy would obviously need to defend these new units as they should be very squishy. I'm even down to restrict them to only fighters. This would allow the player to move fighters around in ways they simply cannot due to their range of motion.
Crude Aircraft Carriers and Sea Aerodrome
-
As much as I love the idea, there was no such animal in WW 1 so you're beating a dead horse.
-
As much as I love the idea, there was no such animal in WW 1 so you're beating a dead horse.
Firstly this, also from a gameplay perspective, one could argue aircraft are powerful enough. This would create a whole myriad of balancing issues that frankly aren't worth it I think.
-
Display More
Well, fixed winged bombers weren't used in WW1 either. Plus I said it could be something that only super late game economies could afford. Who's to say we wouldn't have built a floating aerodrome to be used if the war continued?
Plus, https://www.militaryfactory.co…hip_id=HMS-Ark-Royal-1914
Theres an example of a carrier with recon planes taking off and landing during WW1. So it was used during the war.
As far as gameplay balancing i disagree. Especially since most maps have too much distance between N american and Europe to fly planes there. Why cant an economy that can afford it be able to produce a bridge across the ocean to solve that problem?Yeah it's always a matter of time until someone brings up one of the like three vessels that existed at the time and were used for this purpose for varying durations during the war. It was a novelty item regardless, extremely uncommon and did not have any significant impact in the war. Featuring them prominently in this game would be highly anachronistic. So why can't someone who can afford it produce a bridge across the oceans? Because this is a game about World War 1. Such an undertaking just does not fit the time. Aircraft, one could argue, are already a more powerful weapon in the game than they were in the actual war.
And balancing wise, I don't know what you're thinking. Supposing it was outrageously expensive, somebody would still build it at some point (please also remember that Goldmark is a thing) and thereby break the late game balancing. Any country relying on a Navy at that point will then be vastly inferior. Heavy weapons in the form of Bombers could cross the pacific in a matter of hours and deal nearly uncontested damage before returning to safety. No other weapon in the game currently allows you to do this. Balancing would change massively, I'm not sure how you could disagree. You can't just throw a superweapon in the game, make it hella expensive and then rely on the fact most people won't be able to afford it as the only mechanic to prevent it from breaking the game.
-
Display More
Well, fixed winged bombers weren't used in WW1 either. Plus I said it could be something that only super late game economies could afford. Who's to say we wouldn't have built a floating aerodrome to be used if the war continued?
Plus, https://www.militaryfactory.co…hip_id=HMS-Ark-Royal-1914
Theres an example of a carrier with recon planes taking off and landing during WW1. So it was used during the war.
As far as gameplay balancing i disagree. Especially since most maps have too much distance between N american and Europe to fly planes there. Why cant an economy that can afford it be able to produce a bridge across the ocean to solve that problem?Actually, your example were Seaplane carriers which were very different animals from the Aircraft carriers of WW 2. Since those seaplanes were only able to be used in a reconnaissance mode, technically you already have that capability with balloons in the water.
There are many units missing from Supremacy such as machine gun units which would be major for defensive purposes. Heavy and light artillery units. Shock troops, Barrage balloons, destroyers, to name a few. Oh, and let's not forget the miners digging tunnels to lay mega explosive charges to blow up enemy positions from underground.
In any case, I think you're beating a dead horse. I suspect your chances of seeing an Aircraft carrier are as good as when I request that Heavy tanks should be allowed to move faster when traveling south on a map because they're heading downhill.
-
Amphibious landings against aircraft is when you use the Flower Bouquet, essentaially spliting so many units that the planes are forced to target each individual unit split... and with the new Banner View / UI it is impossible to see the different units and target individual units... best planes can then hope for is to do 'splash damage" during the amphibious landing...
here is link explaining this flower exploit > How to greatly Increase Defense - Flower Defense
-
that is more realistic
Nah. Absolutely isn't, though.
If you were to force an aircraft carrier into the game despite the historical inaccuracy, the saving grace might be to have >90% of your fighters just straight up crash into the tides as they attempt to land on it.
Please don't compare something as fundamental as a new unit type to an exploit of the game mechanics. Of course the latter isn't going to be historically accurate or add to the balancing of units in a beneficial way. It's a glorified glitch. It's like comparing Missingno. to the other Pokemon and then complaining about how useless it is.
It is just fact that a navy carrying a fleet or airbourne fighter aircraft with them across thousands of miles of open ocean for protection, starting, landing and harbouring them on a vessel was not a practically possible thing back in 1914, sorry. They had to rely on other tactics to protect their navy and so do you.
-
As for balancing the game Flower Bouquet it is not a Hack it is using the game mechanics to gain an advantage and is probably in top 3 most unbalancing exploits of the game. Do not underestimate the deadly effect of splitting 100"s of inf units against planes, those planes will start dropping from the sky... and opponents will call you a cheater
They will denounce the exploit of Flower Bouquet while clinging to high activity exploit of Shoot n Scoot ( Hit N Run) claiming that SnS (HnR) is the only honorable exploit, all things in this game which turn the tide of a war to your favor are exploits... gather up a dozen of them , take them out use them like tools in a chest , proper tool for proper job and it is merely matter of completing a given task...
I agree planes are totally overpowered in this WW1 scenario, in that era of trench warfare it was the artillery units which did the majority of damage; my suggestion above was a tried and true solution using an exploit to deal with planes, not a lot different from splitting off one single inf unit (between planes Battle Tick) from a big stack to avoid the big stack from taking damage from the planes.
Bytro will not introduce any new mechanical units to S1914, they have already stated that "all exploits are allowed" over a year ago...so mastering use of these exploits is the answer, IMO
-
Even though this has turned into a discussion about something else I want to continue it.
It absolutely is a more realistic battle mechanism than the flower technique. The flower technique is a game mechanic hack. There's no way around that fact. I am not saying it should be removed. I understand its part of the game. But you cannot argue that it isn't a hack in the game mechanics.
As for balancing the game Flower Bouquet it is not a Hack it is using the game mechanics to gain an advantage
This statement clearly points out it is a game mechanic hack.
As for the historical accuracy of the unit i proposed it is just false to claim it did not exist. It did. The boat actually sailed thousands of miles from port and launch and received fighter-like aircraft at sea.
Please don't compare something as fundamental as a new unit type to an exploit of the game mechanics.
I did not bring up the flower technique, and it is a viable comparison because it IS more realistic. Which was my claim.
-
Even though this has turned into a discussion about something else I want to continue it.
It absolutely is a more realistic battle mechanism than the flower technique. The flower technique is a game mechanic hack. There's no way around that fact. I am not saying it should be removed. I understand its part of the game. But you cannot argue that it isn't a hack in the game mechanics.This statement clearly points out it is a game mechanic hack.
As for the historical accuracy of the unit i proposed it is just false to claim it did not exist. It did. The boat actually sailed thousands of miles from port and launch and received fighter-like aircraft at sea.I did not bring up the flower technique, and it is a viable comparison because it IS more realistic. Which was my claim.
Yes, again, carriers existed, we all get it. But they played an extremely minor part in this war, much more minor than many other unit types that aren't in the game in fact. There is absolutely no way you can argue from a historical accuracy point here that these things should play any sort of role in the game.
And for how the flower defense is "realistic" I'm not following you at all, but again, it's an error. It's a mistake in the code. If this game had better developers, it wouldn't exist. You're not going to get a fair comparison out of that with any intended mechanic. -
And for how the flower defense is "realistic"
I meant the carrier would be realistic. the flower technique is not realistic.
argue from a historical accuracy point
Then there should be no bombers either, because they had little to no influence on the war either
-
As a Missing Feature, sure the 'carrier' is missing and likely will never be found.
Flower Bouquet labeled as a "HACK" or an "exploit" is only a description > realistic / not realistic, historically accurate / not accurate > Flower Bouquet does currently exist in the game mechanic's and Bytro called it an 'exploit' for years, seeing as it is available and a 'Carrier" for planes is not available...
IMO, as for this topic > the best focus would be on mastering use of this Flower Exploit which is allowed by Bytro.
-
In defense of the Flower Bouquet it can easily be summarized as a tactical move known as breaking a large force into a group of multiple fire teams raining down fire on a large force from many different positions and ranges. It is also the only known tactic to effectively deal with the wedge offensive. Ergo, this Flower Bouquet in reality is not an exploit and should never have been viewed as such.
-
In defense of the Flower Bouquet it can easily be summarized as a tactical move known as breaking a large force into a group of multiple fire teams raining down fire on a large force from many different positions and ranges. It is also the only known tactic to effectively deal with the wedge offensive. Ergo, this Flower Bouquet in reality is not an exploit and should never have been viewed as such.
imo its an exploit.
-
I would like to remind everyone to remain on topic for their respectful threads. If there is no thread for the new topic feel free so it does not over take what threads are suppose to talk about.
On another note the aircraft carrier idea. Like in another thread that requested such feature this is what I stated. It will likely not happen mainly because in ww1 carriers were late and mostly in prototype stages. In addition they saw limited action. It be best to not add Aircraft carriers as ww1 was different than ww2 and should be. -
I tend to agree. Carrier were only minorly used in ww1, but they did exist. adding them in but making them very expensive would be a good thing I think.
-
Display More
Well, fixed winged bombers weren't used in WW1 either. Plus I said it could be something that only super late game economies could afford. Who's to say we wouldn't have built a floating aerodrome to be used if the war continued?
Plus, https://www.militaryfactory.co…hip_id=HMS-Ark-Royal-1914
Theres an example of a carrier with recon planes taking off and landing during WW1. So it was used during the war.
As far as gameplay balancing i disagree. Especially since most maps have too much distance between N american and Europe to fly planes there. Why cant an economy that can afford it be able to produce a bridge across the ocean to solve that problem?Weeeeellllllll fixed wing bombers were a thing in WW1. Germany actually made some use of them I believe.
