Barcelona 1936 Posted June 8, 2006 Share Posted June 8, 2006 Exel; I agree with you , and I want to add that aircrafts , bombers, wouldn´t have to damage any strength point of land units, only would have to reduce their readiness, moral and/or supply. Let the army do their work¡¡¡ and airforce and navy do their own¡¡¡. SFMBE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellraiser Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Barcelona1936, it seems you missed the manual description of the 'air force' unit. It is a complex unit, comprised of fighters, tactical bombers, etc. To my knowledge, tactical bombers were responsible for knocking out huge numbers of tanks and different vehicles so it makes sense for the SC2 'Air Fleet' to be able to hit directly at the strength of a unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellraiser Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Originally posted by Exel: Yes, damage to ships from bombing coastal tiles should definitely go. It's enough that carriers take damage from attacking (actually, too much). Couldn't agree more. Fortresses, OTOH, should be able to have a chance of attacking back a naval unit, but vanilla tiles, no way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Yep lower carrier damage when attacking and drop the damage surafce ships take when attacing units not in a city or fortress. I do think the weakist part of this game is the navy warfare, form subs and convoys to surface fleet action. It either needs to be refind or made abstract but as it is now it is very non historical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Rolend, ships can not take damage from units not in a city or fortification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolend Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 Blashy ahh that is right now that I think about it, half a sleep here today, played SC 2 tell 2 in the morning, I have to stop that LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 What I would like to see as far as carriers are concerned, is that the first 5 strength points of reinforcement be at a more significantly lowered MPP cost, representing the CAG replacements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted June 9, 2006 Share Posted June 9, 2006 I have brought this up before SC2 was released, saying that SC1 Big Guns were too heavy. Of course the Battleships of WW2 didn't do anywhere near the damage that they do in SC. So should it be phazed back, sure, altogether no. As is strategic bombing as is Heavy Guns firing blind on a coastal region. If the Guns have to fire on Mountains, their effectiveness should be reduced. Similarly upon cities, entrenched units, forests... If firing on a unit in the open their damage should be increased. They should also possibly take damage from land units, not major damage but some. As carriers do representing Coastal Batteries, Heavy Guns on Land, etc... if one argues the value of Coastal PopShots, I tell you in a whole game of SC from start a Navy on the Allied side may inflict as much as 30-40 strength point Kills may be several... In a very massive game. Pretty Hardcore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts