yeah, learned about the High command tactics available after seeing this. It wasn't me doing it, watching someone else
Thanks guys!
Posts by twts
-
-
I have this phenomenon happening and I don't know what's going on. It's so strange that I thought my units were being GMed to 0 morale and disappearing...
Okay two examples but the same thing seems to be occurring:
1) I had two units (only troops, no mech) one 10 strong and the other 4 strong. They were marching along on separate paths to attack a province with a unit 4 strong in it. No bombardment occurred and there are no planes/naval units around. The 10 strong unit dropped to 7 and has significantly decreased moral, and the 4 strong unit disappeared... all before any combat occurred. (this same thing happened in the ocean as well, while attacking the same player several days prior)2) I had a unit about 6 strong stationed on the shore (just prior to embarking) so i can stand against an army trying to disembark there. Well, without any combat occurring and confirmed no planes or naval units bombarding (checked the enemies killed on unit description) 5 of these 6 units disappeared and the remaining unit has about 30% morale. They started at 100%
Any help or insight to what is happen/what i am doing wrong would be greatly appreciated!
-
edit: just noticed the counter goes down for a while then resets back up to a higher count. SO i am assuming they are "waiting" there while they bombard. I thought the game should when enemies were waiting, but i guess not.
-
Fair enough.
-
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
-
So, i am playing a game where I just noticed someone marching with artillery stacked with troops and tanks. Their marching clock is counting down and they are actively bombarding the other army. Is this a new feature i do not know how to use? or is something wrong?
-
You know, a lot of answer shutting down new ideas seem to be players who've been around and just don't want the game to change. Not having a retreat option makes the game less dynamic. I know good players like to know their forces will lock in with lesser players and make their take over easier, but it is just not as dynamic as having the option to retreat from a failed attack. Of course there can be penalties for it in morale, even bonus for the none retreating army.
The battle just ends and everyone goes home?
Yeah... actually that would be exactly what would happen in a real battle wouldn't it?
which is also more than a dead horse at this point, by the way
This perspective is ridiculous. Why even have this section of the forums then? If everything is just "beating a dead horse" when players want to make realistic, dynamic game play changes to an outdated (yet amazing) game then why even have this forum? Just get rid of it.. stop looking in it if the game is perfect the way you like it. Even with clunky mechanics that don't let you utilize dynamic techniques that were available even before WW1. You can't call this a true tactical RTS without having true tactical options.
-
Well, you seem to like pulling my comments out. Considering I just added to the OP i don't see why you felt the need to quote what I had to say. Seemed like you're trying to give me a lecture on the game as it stands, which I know. OP proposed a new feature and I even agreed with you by questioning how it would work. Only added to the conversation, didn't start it.
-
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.
-
Not sure what mechanic would drive this. Given that prices are set by players, not true supply-demand principles. Maybe it could calculate the average of all prices available for a resource? then plot that? I mean you could almost manipulate the market by placing an order for a cheap price and pulling it back at day change, if someone doesn't grab it. Like sell 1 grain or 0.02 silver at day change and the graph would represent that and it would be incorrect against the actual market.
-
If you're not spying on your allies as well you're doing it wrong. Never trust in this game. It'll ruin you.
-
I think its a great idea. On your last point (with your force retreating and the enemy force advancing) maybe they could stay in combat mode (normal dice roll every 60 minutes with A:D ratio) but the combat can move at reduced rate. So lets say two forces (fA and fB) meet between province A and B and and fB wants to retreat while fA wants to press province B. I think fA and fB should stay in combat but move toward province B. This could be used to bait into arty, RG, or BS fire.
-
i understand the tactic. but that isn't a game balancing thing rather a hack into the game mechanics. It's unrealistic (not saying it shouldnt be utilized) just saying that isn't a balancing issue its a game hack.
It also doesn't resist against the air force you are attacking. They may not do damage to you but you dont do damage to them either. Tactically, and i think realistically, a fleet of "plane carrying ships" adds in a new tactic that is more realistic and capable of countering the air force rather than tricking the game mechanic into surviving against it. -
I think that factories should have a scaled repairing feature for machinery that we produce; rather than moral being the only mechanism. So, if you have a tank nearly dead and you park it in a province with a factory it should repair faster than if it was elsewhere. Same goes for boats except a harbor is required as well. If you park your boat at the harbor point (where a boat would spawn when produced) and there is a factory in the province it should be repaired faster than out to sea. same for artillery, railguns, cars, heavy tanks, etc..
-
yeah. I do agree with that. it adds so much to the game
-
I know I am beating a dead horse. But, I never said bombers should be able to land and take off. I said fighters. since we can't even land full sized bombers on carriers today. I think it's crazy that you cannot move fighters around to help defend a navy. There are no balancing issue there. Amphibious invasions are nearly impossible against a strong air force when you only have a navy and units. It's especially annoying when you also have a strong air fighter corp just sitting at home watching your navy get demolished by bombers. The fact is the boats WERE USED and aren't fictitious for that time era.
I get the devs wont put it in because they are more focused on S1 than S1914 anyway. -
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? -
Doesn't have to be a huge radius of effect, but c'mon. it just doesn't make sense for them to not have some sub spotting mechanic.
-
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.
-
What do you think about needing to build transport ships/trucks for trade? Rather than the market being a magical and "instant" thing players would work out a deal and need to physically ship the goods and receive compensation. Possibly transporting goods from resource provinces to the trading port (boarder province or harbor). This would provide another use for the navy protecting sea trade routes and require serious diplomatic relations when routes are mixed together (like the mediterranean). This could also promote economic alliances that simply are not required in the game as it is.
