| Saturday, December 13, 2003 - 03:27 pm |
In the past few game years a lot of uis haev had some time to etest things estenseively. Most everything works the way it should, and I think w3dc has done an excellent job of balancing things (with the exception of the limits, as everyone knows )
A few things arent so well balanced, however. Im only posthing the ones that are easy to change.
In the distant past, fortifications were uselss. They did not server their intended purpose. This has changed , and most countries need to lose all of the their fortifcations before being conquered. They are also very difficult targets to destroy.
These are both good thigns!
However, with the current prices and manpower costs, they are very easy to acquie in large numbers.
In a single month, a country may purchase 500 of them. They only use 18 men pwer location.
Staffing a ten thousand fortifications requires an army of 180 thousand men. this is very small considering the fact that 2500 attack rounds would be requieed to destroy them all, taking many many many real days of constant attacking, 24/7. Thisd is clearly impossible.
Stocking up hundreds of these locations is desireable in my eye, but only at great cost and at a much slower rate. MUCH slower. Newly conquered ocuntris should not be able to be made impregnable immediately.
I suggest a cost of 1 billion per fortification and a staffing cost of 1000 people each. They will of course be expected to add more to the defensive index. At this rate, havbing 100-500 fortifications si still possible, but only after great time an expense. Having thousands is not feasible, and building them faster than it is theoretically possible to destroy them also is not feasible.
2. defenseive Land units
I think that the new units offer a perrect role for defnesive land units (jeeps, artilelry, tanks). These units are very rarely usedd in the game due to their limits role. Increasing the hit and damage rate on Rapid deploy,ent units and special forces by a factor of 10-30 would make them effective in defending aginst these unitrs...but only in large numbers.
Defenders would need to choose locations to defnd with them carefully, or predict locations of attack and deploy them dynamically. This would add a lot of strategy and thinking into defense, while making it easier to defend against these units. both are good, and the change is very easy to implement.
3. Tactical weapons launchers
these weapons are almost uselss. Anything that theyc an do is more easily and cheaply completeled using other weapons.
If they were much harder to hit by defensive aircraft, while remaingin as expensive as they are, they would have some use.
4. Rapid deployment units.
These weapons are fine as things stand in my opinion..but only with current rules.
If the attakc limits are lifted, they will need to use more manpower to operate. If and when the limits are lifted, I think the manpower costs needs to be tripled. This will make using them in large numbers extremely difficult and impossible. Given their very short range, large numbers will be used in very few cases (stocking 1000 of these units would then require approximately 1 million men in the army!), and in those cases, the defender(s) will avhe a very long time to react.
hope this isnt too long. cheers.