N3rull

I'm looking for answers, not theories. I had double checked all naval units and even tac bombers and spy planes. None of them has submarine sight range above zero. I wouldn't ask that question if the answer was that obvious. edit. I hav checked all top class units in the game now. None can spot subs.

I think it might not help if suddenly everyone would try to make everyone else play their own ruleset. It might, in fact, completely screw up the whole beta process, cause Brit would likely be flooded with bug reports caused by someone's faulty Ruleset. It would also be hard to find a sensible game. I think that one person should tweak the ruleset. Only that it doesn't really have to be Brit, since it's just about sitting over the Ruleset editor for a few hours, which is a tool we are going to be given anyway (soooo it ought to be usable without 230 IQ and a PhD in IT, right?)

Well you do upgrade your cities with factories, robotic factories, nuclear power plants and shipyards/barracks for increased production, but is their population really affected?

I'm sorry for posting so much lately, but I'm quite excited about eos ;p. I have a few question I haven't found an answer to. 1. Population and cities. I have noticed that using artillery against a city may bring its population down, even though it doesn't say that it kills population in its combat charts. I know it makes sense, but this raises some questions about this particular aspect of the combat mechanics: What exactly can kill population? At what rate? What will not cause civilian casualties? Is the population loss permanent or does it recover over time? Or is there any extra way to bring the pop (not production) back up? If it is permanent, bombarding enemy cities into oblivion will completely disable the opponent forever, because he won't be able to build anything - game over, right? Is that why strat bombers die so easily? 2. Subs. No unit that I've seen has positive (above zero) submarine sight range. Is there any way whatsoever to discover a submarine that doesn't want to fight (i.e. has "No Field Orders" set)? 3. Rulesets. I know we will have a lot of power over the rules with the ruleset editor. But what actually are the limits? Is it true we will be able to redesign the research tree? Is it true we will be able to redesign the unit roster? If so, will we be able to supply the game with out own icons for units? Is it true we will be able to fully control all unit statistics? Will we be able to control stuff from point 1. of this thread? I would like to figure out the limits of this system. Will the below be possible (not that I really want that in the game, I'm just wondering if it would be possible)? + create new unit type - commando; + create a unit of commando type (say, Navy SEALs) + give class 4/5/.. submarine the ability to transport and unload a commando class unit (like a transport) ++ if yes, would it be possible to give the sub a limit of up to one commando type unit and up to two missiles (so that the sub can take 1 commando and 2 missiles but not three missiles or three commando units)? + create an air unit called Blackhawk that has a movement rate o 100 and a total range of 500. (like a very long range zeppelin) If yes, would it be possible to: ++ let the Blackhawk transport one commando class unit ++ give the blackhawk an option to refuel on carriers whilst having commandos on board ++ give the blackhawk an ability to transfer that said commando unit to a submarine (which is capable of carrying them) while the sub is at sea (for example by flying the blackhawk over the sub and moving the commandos from the blackhawk to the sub) I know these are a lot of questions but I am just so damn curious. Delete the thread if you think it's spam

Thanks for responding, boss. As I think of it, you're right. Flying blobs would screw the game up by quite a bit. As you're doing that, please run some test on missiles (V2 -> drone, nukes and nuke bombers) because they seem to be somewhat messed up, always running out of fuel, never really hurting anything. I haven't seen them hurt anything yet anyway, and I fired quite a few.

Ad.1 - no, it was just an unlucky roll on my part and I'm aware of that. War doesn't always go as odds dictate and some stuff is pretty random, which this game reflects very well. This time, the docked BB might have scored a lucky shot against the incoming BB (like Bismarck did against HMS Hood - the shell landed in an extremely unlikely manner and hit the munitions depot, blowing Hood up instantly). Some things are not just about unlucky rolls, because they just almost always happen. Tac bombers almost always die. Ad.2 - no, tac bombers would not be uber. If anything, upgrading TAC bombers would make building fighters and SAM sites less pointless. Another thing that came to my mind that could sort out the artillery-aircraft imbalance: I believe that infantry should be separated from artillery. Right now, they're both "Soft" target type. They shouldn't. And artillery emplacement is a very good target for aircraft, infantry is not. Infantry can hide, take cover and is spread over an area. Artillery is static and hitting it from air is no big deal. I suggest a new unit type for artillery and missile launchers. A slow moving (or immobile), large and clumsy vehicle/cannon is a very good target for aircraft. Tactical bombers should have their effectiveness increased by 50% against Armored and this new unit type. Artillery should have its effectiveness reduced against aircraft by 15-20%. SAM sites and Infantry should stay "Soft" and tac bombers effectiveness against these should be unchanged (as in - relatively sucky). That would put tac bombers in their place and make SAM sites/fighters necessary for defense against airborne assaults, as they should be. I think the biggest problem with fixing the ruleset imbalance is that Brit would like to devote his time for stuff like fixing crashes and killing bugs rather than tweaking a ruleset which any of us could do on his own with the full game's ruleset editor. Brit - maybe you could give some trustd person access to the ruleset editor and let him tweak it for you? Someone from the beta testers maybe.

1. I lost a battleship class 3, a destroyer, a sub and two tac bombers to a docked class2 battleship. I know battles are very random. What I'm saying is because I've seen it happen consistently. I won't give you the exact numbers cause I haven't programmed this game. 2. I have sent three or four tac bombers against tanks and arty throughout the number of games I have played and yeah, the tank goes down most of the time, but usually taking one or two tac bombers with him. Tactical bombers go down en masse in this game and aren't really dangerous to anything, maybe except naval transports. It's much more cost-effective to get one-two fighters for escort, a transport and two tanks. Enough said that in the last 3 games that I can recall I have seen the AI build a total of 5 Flak cannons and 5 fighters (from upgraded zeppelins). These never scored a single kill on my aircraft. And still I have usually lost a third of the tac bombers I built, always attacking in favourable conditions. You don't need sam sites or fighters in this game cause tactical bombers die fast to anything. Ain't that wrong?

UAV tac bomber is not some completely imaginative unit. It's just the Class 5 tactical bomber. Its name got changed cause Brit correctly assumed that future aircraft are likely to be unmanned. Just as Class 5 tank is just a class 5 tank and jet fighter class 1 is just a fighter class 3. Secondly - what is the tac bomber supposed to be good against, then? Aircraft? Come on. Cities? It's the strat bomber's job. I don't think you have any doubt about it? Ground units? Just look into the unit analysis chart. Tanks are a fair match for tac bombers of equal class. Infantry just as well. Artillery is supposedly well countered by tac bombers due to the chart, but that does not include the range advantage the artillery has. A UAV c2 tac bomber has to fly over an enemy arty unit to deal damage to it, artillery has 85 range against air units. Also look at the to-hit ratios. UAV c2 tac bomber against Soft targets has 1.3 to-hit. Artillery class 6 has 5.5 to-hit against aircraft. From my experience, getting anywhere near enemy artillery is a death sentence to aircraft. So it's not ground units either. Ships? Destroyers and transports, maybe. We all know a battleship/cruiser just screws tac bombers. So no, tac bombers are not to be used against ships either. Conclusion - tac bombers don't really have any good use. They are fast and they die fast, that's it. I think it's wrong.

Just order your transport to get close to the beach so the yellow circle appears. Then select units on the ship, right-click that yellow circle and CTRL-rightclick somewhere else on the target island. During the turn execution, the ship will hit the shore and the units will immediately disembark and move as ordered. Is something wrong with that?

What was that supposed to mean? I don't understand. Tactical bombers aka attack aircraft were designed to eliminate things like artillery and tanks. I would expect that the second best tac bomber in the game wouldn't have too much trouble against a technologically inferior tank, but it's exactly the opposite. What is the point of tactical bombers anyway if everything is a problem for them?

It's called a rally point. Nice idea.

Yaaah. In my last game I had used dozens of missiles, from V2 to Drones to Nuclear ICBMs and Nuclear Bombers. Nothing. I haven't noticed a single kill. All "ran out of fuel" or "self destructed" or (very rarely) "shot down" without any casualties on the enemy side. I launched most of the missiles from subs and cruisers parked right on the enemy's doorstep, so there is zero chance they actually ran out of fuel. Oh and another thing about the missiles - don't you think the AI has some sort of sixth sense in evading missiles? It happened a few times that there was an AI city with 3 units inside camping there for a number of turns, but when I launched my missiles at'em, they suddenly decided to go sunbathing on the other side of the island. W00t?

If, say, 4 class1 UAV Tac bombers could down a Battleship class 2, then carriers would truly be king.

As he said (above). Also, is there any serious reason not to give us the ability to pan the view with arrow keys? I didn't mind using the middle mouse, but now that accidentally pushing the wheel causes the map to zoom, it's a bit irritating. Particularly because the view is being pushed half a map west when you move the wheel.

I think ships should defend themselves against aircraft to some extent. Tranports should have a miserable chance of downing an aircraft, Destroyers only a little better (so they have a counter), but Cruisers and Battleships should be floating SAM sites (as they are in reality). I wanted to add another question to this thread - don't you think that bombers and tac bombers get... laughably better with each upgrade? I mean, their speed goes up significantly, but their combat effectiveness is more or less unchanged (very small increases in the vital combat stats). It's a bit unnerving to see two UAV Tac bombers take 3 turns to down a tank class 5 and lose one plane in due course ;s.

I think ships move about as fast as they should - maybe battleships could be slightly slower (~5 points down) while cruisers could be slightly closer to destroyers in speed (~5 points up). Intercepting ships with attack aircraft would be undoable if they were significantly faster - it is already hard to queue enough points for your tac bomber so it a] finds and attacks the target ship as it moves through the FOW and b] manages to get back to base without running out of fuel. Uninterceptable transports and destroyers would really be a thorn in the ass ;s. Carriers are funny blokes. They're utterly useless on the Demomap since it is much easier, safer and cheaper to drop paratroopers on an island somewhere near your enemy and tell them to build an airfield. If the map is really a big continent-type though, they could become a necessity. Of course, only if aircraft are made at least a little tougher and battleships are not the standard counter to EVERYTHING.

I wrote my thread when yours wasn't up yet. I had to leave my PC for an hour though and added the last few words later. I don't mind how battleships own ass at sea. They should. Destroyers (in my opinion) and subs should build a little faster than they do now, Cruisers should be slightly tougher and closer to destroyers in speed and all would be nice AT SEA. However, the most irritating crap about battleships is that they own everything on land. Yeah they should be able to bombard cities with some effectiveness, but arty should be able to give them a very nasty surprise. That's why operation Overlord took so many lives on the shores of Normandy - because if a cruiser/battleship came close to the shore to support them, the coastal batteries would sink it in a blink of an eye.

Okay, I don't know if you guys think it's alright, but I think it could use a little remaking. Sorry if I sound like a smartass, but I'm just trying to help Brit makes this game the best it could be. I also know that we'll be allowed to make our own rulesets. But I still believe it wouldn't harm anyone if the official ruleset was more realistic. 1. Aircraft. Too much stuff takes down aircraft too easily. A c5 tank downs a c1 UAV Tac bomber. A c3 tac bomber gets shot down when attacking a neutral town with militia in it. Three c3 tac bombers die without scoring a single kill on two c3 artillery units. There is no point in making any SAM units in this game. Artillery, tanks and - lol - even infantry does the job well. There is even less sense in making fighters, cause they counter what doesn't really need to be countered and are shot down retardedly easy. My thoughts are: - Tanks - should be main targets for tac bombers. By now, they seem to be a fair match. I think it's wrong. - Artillery - this one's just insane. Howitzers and mortars were NEVER a good weapon to deal with aircraft. Yeah, the famous Flak88, the German AA gun, turned out to be perfect at killing tanks because of it's long barrel and high initial velocity of the shell. It doesn't work the other way though, i.e. you could not eradicate aircraft with an M2 105mil Howi. That kind of artillery should NOT be good against aircraft. Very very VERY far from good. - ships - actually, this one is fine. Ever since aircraft saw their first use in war, ships were being stuffed with anti-aircraft weaponry. Since there is no dedicated AA ship (there shouldn't be, really), what we get here is fine. - AA guns and fighters might even get a slight boost. - Infantry - slightly reduce their effectiveness against aircraft. Infantry can use machine guns and shoulder-launched AA missiles, so they ought to have some use in that fight, but not as much as it has now. A sensible thing to consider is dividing aircraft into Low-alt and High-alt. Low-altitude aircraft would be those that often get closer to the ground to kill their targets, which means tac bombers and early (non-jet) fighters. Those aircraft are vulnerable to machine guns and short range AA weaponry used by infantry. High-altitude aircraft are those that stay away from the ground for the most part. This category would include jets, spy planes and strategic bombers. High-alt aircraft would be invulnerable (or barely vulnerable) to short range AA fire (infantry, tanks) and would require fighters and SAM units to be protected against. 2. Ships versus Artillery. This is another imbalance that I find a little unnerving. I've seen a class 2 battleship eliminate FOUR class 3 artillery units in one turn without losing a single hit point. This is completely historically inaccurate, because coastline artillery was a huge threat to ships. Besides, there is no better way to take over an island in the current beta than to build a battleship and just take a tour along the coastline, wiping everything the defender might have foolishly left in the range of the battleship's cannons. Nothing on the ground has any chance - tanks, infantry, artillery, whatever - everything just dies. I believe that artillery should be much better against ships than it is. If its anti-air effectiveness is reduced as I suggested, then the player would really have to combine arms to invade a defended island, not just ride a battleship around the island, killing everything on its way. What do you guys think? Am I just being paranoid?

Thanks boss!

You don't have to repeat yourself Smaragdadler. This forum sees ten new posts each day, Brit can easily read through all of them without you posting the same feedback in each active thread . Another tiny tweak from me: the turn number is visible only in the messages window (upgrades, orders, research...). When you click the second tab, select Foreign Relations and you want to offer some timed agreement (like a non-aggression pact until turn XYZ) you realize the turn number is nowhere to be seen on the game screen. You have to use the [v] button and see what the minimal deadline value is to figure out the current turn number ;p. I think it would be cool to have the current turn number visible on or right next to the "Submit Orders" button.

One more tiny thing The "reminders" list is a little unhandy. Units are in seemingly random order and clicking on them doesn't mark which unit you clicked. When you're going through that list you often don't know which units you have already checked. Say, you have a list "cruiser, infantry, inf, inf, cr, inf, inf, arty, inf, cr, ...". You select an infantry unit and decide it should stay as it is. You look back at the list and you don't know which unit you've just checked. Sure, when you check one unit you can remember which one it was, when you check dozens of them every turn, it gets unnecessarily confusing. I suggest that selecting a unit causes it to be somehow indicated, for example with a simple red boundary around it: or by greying it out or something.

One - I think it may not hurt if there was an option to turn off resources, but I also think holding too much to what already has been done is sometimes a blunt idea. I mean, why bother making/purchasing a new game if you just want it to be a clone of something you already have? Gotta move on people ;p. Two - you did notice the "research speed" option in the "New Game" starting window, did ya?

The higher the attrition in a unit's chart, the better it is against that opponent. For example - Tactical Bomber class 2 has attrition of 28 against a SAM vehicle, which means it sucks against it. On the other hand it has 70 attrition against artillery class 3, so it will very like wipe the floor with that artillery unit. The exact mechanics are higher, under "Attack". Tactical Bomber class 2 has 2.0 to-hit against air targets, meaning it's quite sensible against other airborne units. But then, fighter class 2 has 3.8 to-hit against air targets, which means it's 90% better. Of course you have to calculate other factors - are the units entrenched, in city, docked/landed etc. That's what the unit analysis tool is for. It allows you to check how good one unit fares against another. You can look at attrition as "chance that I'll win" while the time given below is "how long the fight is likely to last".

Well, ships were never the fastest hot rods out there. Planes cross the map in a few turns, but ships aren't really meant to jump from one part of the globe to another. I would say doubling/tripling the map size maximum is not a bad idea, at least so that someone has the option to make a huge map in the editor if he wants to.

Well, I'm no long time pro in this kind of gaming. I won't mind if the player is given an option to remove resources.