Concrete artillery shouldn't have a moss chance anymore

Post Reply
User avatar
DreJaDe
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 10:19 pm

Concrete artillery shouldn't have a moss chance anymore

Post by DreJaDe » Wed May 11, 2022 12:36 am

Playing some multiplayer, I noticed that.... It's kinda useless now besides defence.

I literally can't hit anything at all.

It's honestly now better to just build the concrete bunker that cannot be taken.

What do you think?
@Jasondunkel
@TntAttack

Stratego (dev)
Site Admin
Posts: 14165
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: Concrete artillery shouldn't have a moss chance anymore

Post by Stratego (dev) » Wed May 11, 2022 3:18 pm

i support it - i dont like any randomness in the first place.

others?

TntAttack
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:49 am

Re: Concrete artillery shouldn't have a moss chance anymore

Post by TntAttack » Wed May 11, 2022 3:36 pm

Am fine with it. On the topic of bluffing concrete towers, do you think it should get an area of affect damage as well to balance its usage as currently I don't see much use to using them if they can only fire at one unit given how vulnerable they are now.

Stratego (dev)
Site Admin
Posts: 14165
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: Concrete artillery shouldn't have a moss chance anymore

Post by Stratego (dev) » Wed May 11, 2022 3:38 pm

wait, we nerfed it too much?

User avatar
DreJaDe
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 10:19 pm

Re: Concrete artillery shouldn't have a moss chance anymore

Post by DreJaDe » Wed May 11, 2022 9:24 pm

What about adding 150% bonus against infantry? Basically one hitting every infantry. Concrete bunkers already can 1 hit 2 infantry but maybe this could bale the range version.

Maybe also increase it's anti ship carrier and battleship by +1000%
@TntAttack ?

TntAttack
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:49 am

Re: Concrete artillery shouldn't have a moss chance anymore

Post by TntAttack » Thu May 12, 2022 4:16 am

Stratego (dev) wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 3:38 pm
wait, we nerfed it too much?
To be fair I haven't fought anyone recently in ground maps, only naval maps due to the recent sub changes so I can't really say for sure but it's possible that due to the fact only engineers can start the production has quite limited it usage.

That and it's ineffectiveness as a defensive unit has quite made it an unpopular option, I am fighting Freddy right now, and he is spamming flak tower (I believe that what they were called) for defense whilst I am spamming bunkers back on my main island.

Maybe give concrete bunkers that build from inside ability/function I mentioned before to foster in a better environment to build more and more static defenses which in turn could increase the usage of concrete towers (aa/arty).

Alternatively, we can increase concrete towers range to 5 to make it a somewhat powerful.

TntAttack
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:49 am

Re: Concrete artillery shouldn't have a moss chance anymore

Post by TntAttack » Thu May 12, 2022 4:29 am

DreJaDe wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 9:24 pm
What about adding 150% bonus against infantry? Basically one hitting every infantry. Concrete bunkers already can 1 hit 2 infantry but maybe this could bale the range version.

Maybe also increase it's anti ship carrier and battleship by +1000%
@TntAttack ?
Maybe we just give every nation coastal arty instead.

User avatar
DreJaDe
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 10:19 pm

Re: Concrete artillery shouldn't have a moss chance anymore

Post by DreJaDe » Thu May 12, 2022 4:37 am

TntAttack wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 4:29 am
Maybe we just give every nation coastal arty instead
Definitely possible but the image is your problem

Honestly, my next goal in buildings are the AA like the germans.

Jasondunkel
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:52 pm

Re: Concrete artillery shouldn't have a moss chance anymore

Post by Jasondunkel » Fri May 13, 2022 10:21 am

the main task of the concrete artillery is defence. now that it has only one shot, it has become weaker.
(was a wish of yours)

so if you think you can't kill the units that aren't infantry right away, that's the whole point of it, that should be the whole point of the one shot.

if you mean it doesn't hit the target it's aiming at and does so very often, that's certainly something that shouldn't be the case, since stratego doesn't like probabilities. the question is whether this has anything to do with the coding of the json? @stratego

the artillery already has a bonus of 1000% against aircraft carriers and battleships, so do you want to have 2000% there? or do you want to have 1000% against the other ships like destroyers ect, where we currently have 150%?

for the other ships the 1000% would be too much but we could do 200-250%.

Otherwise I think it does the job.

@Drejade
@TNT

Stratego (dev)
Site Admin
Posts: 14165
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: Concrete artillery shouldn't have a moss chance anymore

Post by Stratego (dev) » Fri May 13, 2022 10:27 am

if you mean it doesn't hit the target it's aiming at and does so very often, that's certainly something that shouldn't be the case, since stratego doesn't like probabilities. the question is whether this has anything to do with the coding of the json?
i did it already, so now the concrete artilleries have no miss chance.

User avatar
DreJaDe
Posts: 1727
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 10:19 pm

Re: Concrete artillery shouldn't have a moss chance anymore

Post by DreJaDe » Fri May 13, 2022 10:37 am

Stratego (dev) wrote:
Fri May 13, 2022 10:27 am
the artillery already has a bonus of 1000% against aircraft carriers and battleships, so do you want to have 2000% there? or do you want to have 1000% against the other ships like destroyers ect, where we currently have 150%?
I think my message was quite clear.

But to be clear. What I want is to add +1000% bonus against Aircraft Carrier and Battleships.

Ships might honestly be okay.

This is suggested because they only now have 1 turn attack so I suggested to double it to kinda bring the damage back. Though it's kinda useless anyway since BS have bigger range.

Post Reply

Return to “Balancing discussions”