concrete arty/aa op IMPLEMENTED

[Stratego (dev)]

Tnt:

One example of this would be concrete arty/aa. As of the time of writing, it's pretty broken and on the competitive scene, players can spam such buildings and not be penalised.

[Stratego (dev)]

please everyone suggest here the change that will make it less op.

eg. 50% hp?

[TntAttack]

It's late. Going to drop a reply to get the discussion going.


Idea: Remove such towers. New building, Concrete emplacement with hp is slightly more than bunker. Connects with bunker sprite wise and has a 3 turn (debatable) production queue to make an aa or arty.

Additional idea:
Dropping a arty or aa into a concrete emplacement would instantly convert the bunker into a arty or aa type bunker.

Additional idea:
Bunkers should get special bonuses when an arty or aa is housed inside.

Additional idea:
To prevent bunkers and concrete towers from being one tapped by powerful bombers and aircraft, give them a advanced version of first strike.

Instantly fires whenever an enemy is one tile nearby. It is a structure after all. Perhaps if this concept is translated into mega buildings, we could have a more defense applications for them other then meat shield and unit producer.

[Stratego (dev)]

all ideas are intersting but all is out of current mechanics.
(at least i have no quick idea how to set those with current mechanics.)

there must be a way to balance them using current mechanics (hp, range, power, build time, carry capacity, occpiability, and such),
we dont even have any "historical" restriction on these as these "towers" are basically fictive.
also most importantly: in all other alternatives we have properly balanced towers (eg. in AOS there is not problem if player starts spamming towers easily counterable).

what is the diffeerence here?

[Stratego (dev)]

eg. what is we give better bonus for ranged artilleries against concrete bunkers?
and also flamethrover units should easily wipe them out maybe?

[Jasondunkel]

To tackle the spam problem, here are a few suggestions
we can considered linking the fixed artillery to the number of megabuiligs
another suggestion, double or triple the number of the concrete arty to tc's you have
next suggestion The number of fixed artillery is linked to the map size, so if we have an 11x11 map, the number is 11 if we have a 30x25 card then the number is 30

The flamethrowers already have the ability to almost completely destroy the fixed artillery with one hit

[Stratego (dev)]

To tackle the spam problem, here are a few suggestions
we can considered linking the fixed artillery to the number of megabuiligs
another suggestion, double or triple the number of the concrete arty to tc's you have
next suggestion The number of fixed artillery is linked to the map size, so if we have an 11x11 map, the number is 11 if we have a 30x25 card then the number is 30

neither of these are possible without engine changes.

[DreJaDe]

Heres some idea that I think is possible with the current engine.

Mixing and going for multiple suggestion is okay for the balance. Nothing is standalone in the ideas but can be if needed.

1. Make the concrete artillery not owned when not garrisoned. This would make people more careful with spamming it.

Or possible, disallow them to attack when not gardisoned. That's basically how it worked IRL anyway.

2. Change their number of attack to 1.

3. Make artillery buildable by workers. Not necessarily accurate but so does making concrete artillery build so fast. This could easily be explained though by setting up artillery and not really building it. This would though be naturally more expensive as towed artillery can be carried.

4. Make concrete artillery more expensive to build. Tbh, they are simply to fast to build... But so does destroying them anyway.

5. Disallow rifleman to build them but instead just let them help build it. Make it unique to engineers.

6. Like my other suggestion, make the flamethrower kill the units inside of it when hit.

[Stratego (dev)]

1. Make the concrete artillery not owned when not garrisoned. This would make people more careful with spamming it.
Or possible, disallow them to attack when not gardisoned. That's basically how it worked IRL anyway.

good idea, but this is also not possible without engine changes

2. Change their number of attack to 1.

good!

3. Make artillery buildable by workers. Not necessarily accurate but so does making concrete artillery build so fast. This could easily be explained though by setting up artillery and not really building it. This would though be naturally more expensive as towed artillery can be carried.

you mean artillery units like pak 40?
if so the idea here is to build an "anti" concrete bunker unit with workers?

4. Make concrete artillery more expensive to build. Tbh, they are simply to fast to build... But so does destroying them anyway.

good! how long should be?

5. Disallow rifleman to build them but instead just let them help build it. Make it unique to engineers.

also good!

6. Like my other suggestion, make the flamethrower kill the units inside of it when hit.

good, but this way it will be never destroyable only occupiable iu think (but i am not sure)


so which of these we should set, others?
@TntAttack
Banzai?

[DreJaDe]

good idea, but this is also not possible without engine changes

1. I thought it was possible cause you can set a unit to not able to attack when garrisoned. Apparently, the opposite doesn't apply.

2. I think, only anti building Artillery only.

6. There's already an ability to kill unit inside of building using the assassins of AOS. Therez no need to set up the building like a TC. But on cases of wanting to destroy building, flamethrower could have a normal attack to just burn the building or artillery will be the best unit to do so.

But this obvious unit buff to flamethrowers will mean that it will now cost higher like 3 Turn cost.

[Stratego (dev)]

There's already an ability to kill unit inside of building using the assassins of AOS

no there is no such possbility in AOS.

Therez no need to set up the building like a TC

the only way is to set the building like TC (but not exactly, TC is more than that, building here needs to set only like units will get dmage not the building)

I thought a little and if i set "units will be shot first" will still let you destroy the building too (not like TC as that is indestructible), ii think viking ship is set this way already in AOS
- you can occupy it
- you can kill units inside first
- but you still can shoot the viking ship too if empty.

[TntAttack]

I just thought of a ridiculous idea.

Concrete Buildings Requires Engineer Ability

Engineers can build everything else normally, but for concrete structures, have a separate ability that lays the foundation of such structures at the cost of that engineer.

So the player loses 3 value before gaining 3 (debatable) turn concrete arty/aa?

Additionally:

You could nerf concrete arty/aa to about the concrete bunker, bluff bunker and give all such concrete buildings self healing ability (as lore wise, there is still an engineer inside).


P.S Is it possibly to change the mega building sizes. I know for AOS it was funny twist you added it in, but honestly for a "historical accurate" game like AOWW, it's a bit unrealistic.

A better change would be 2 by 2 special building that's more of a Strategical defensive building than a large glorified defensive tc.

[Stratego (dev)]

Engineers can build everything else normally, but for concrete structures, have a separate ability that lays the foundation of such structures at the cost of that engineer.

but isnt that the same as starting the consntuction by engineer normally?

So the player loses 3 value before gaining 3 (debatable) turn concrete arty/aa?

what u mean 3 value? what is the 3?

ou could nerf concrete arty/aa to about the concrete bunker, bluff bunker and give all such concrete buildings self healing ability (as lore wise, there is still an engineer inside).

ok, can you help with exact values as i am not sure what values you mean to change.

Is it possibly to change the mega building sizes. I know for AOS it was funny twist you added it in, but honestly for a "historical accurate" game like AOWW, it's a bit unrealistic.A better change would be 2 by 2 special building that's more of a Strategical defensive building than a large glorified defensive tc.

Is it a banace issue currently or only a flavour suggestion (to be more historical)?

[DreJaDe]

At the cost of the engineer (3 value), you'll get an concrete artillery (4 cost)

Don't agree as this is too much.

Healing is ok but I'm not sure if it's needed. Male the healer unit even more useless.

[TntAttack]

Basically what I meant was that the engineer unit is lost if he starts the construction of an concrete building.

Example: 4 Engineers to make a concrete tower

The first sacrifices himself to became the initial building. The 3 others can assist production normally.

The tower is equivalent to a powerful 4 turn arty, but can't move and costed one Engineer. Makes it more risky to build, esp if you are short on Engineers.

Concrete arty/aa tower health should be 50 ish. Concrete bunkers should be about 70-80 ish.

Additional: Researching the bunker complex increases the concrete structures health by plus 20 or something. (As of right now, bunker complex only affects bunkers)

Additional: Healing itself
Cue the aircraft carrier ability a long time ago. Instead of attacking, they could repair themselves.


P.S About the mega buildings changes, its more flavour then balancing really. If anything I rather larger gameplay changes occasionally to spice things up.
Pity that would ruin campaign.

P.S How did I forgot about medics. That a major balancing change just waiting to happen.

[Stratego (dev)]

Basically what I meant was that the engineer unit is lost if he starts the construction of an concrete building.
Example: 4 Engineers to make a concrete tower
The first sacrifices himself to became the initial building. The 3 others can assist production normally.

gosh, this case no one would build any towers imho.
also engine can only spawn "completed"building with ability (that you dont need to construct further)

mega buildings:

so if not balance problem please open a topicabout megas in "others" section.

medics

please open separate topic thos one should be about concrete turrets only.

[Stratego (dev)]

ok i try to summarize:
1. both AA and AT concrete tower has only 1 action (1 attack)
2. flamethrower have a new ability to swipw out enemy from bunkers (concrete AA and AT and maybe the bunkers + sandbag bunkers too? - additionally flamethrowers have 3 turn to build)
3. concrete AA and AT turret can only be started by engineers
4. construction time increase: how much? (or no longer needed?)

so here are all changes we can make so far (tell me if i missed any that is possible withouit engine change)
tell me which should i make - all?

[TntAttack]

ok i try to summarize:
1. both AA and AT concrete tower has only 1 action (1 attack)
2. flamethrower have a new ability to swipw out enemy from bunkers (concrete AA and AT and maybe the bunkers + sandbag bunkers too? - additionally flamethrowers have 3 turn to build)
3. concrete AA and AT turret can only be started by engineers
4. construction time increase: how much? (or no longer needed?)

so here are all changes we can make so far (tell me if i missed any that is possible withouit engine change)
tell me which should i make - all?

1 is okay. Wouldn't be as useful in singleplayer and in multiplayer it's not really an offensive weapon anymore so that is good.

2. Will the flame ability wipe all units e.g. concrete bunkers with 3 infantry?
If so, some ability cooldown is needed approximately 2 to 3 turns.

Side question: Is it possible to enable engineers and riflemen to build new structures and repair adjacent units inside a concrete bunkers?

How I am envisioning this is that in order to defend against flamer throwers, engineers inside bunkers (now that concrete arty is nerfed) can build and expand new concrete bunkers and or place landmines around their bunker hideout. Makes static defenses pose more of a problem to anti building infantry.

Side question 2: Will this special ability be extended to towns as well? If one flamethrower can rock up to a concrete bunkers and neutralise it, while not towns?

I am neither against or supporting flamethrower ability usage on towns, just stating that it's logically the next step.

3. Yes. Please. But maybe keep it for officers as they too cost 3 turns, but then again maybe not.

4. At this point, I don't. I am fine as it is now, perhaps in the future nerf or bluff accordingly.


Also look into removing flamethrower base attack bonus and flame burning effect on concrete structures. Keep it for production buildings e.g. barracks, airport, etc.

[Stratego (dev)]

Side question: Is it possible to enable engineers and riflemen to build new structures and repair adjacent units inside a concrete bunkers?

How I am envisioning this is that in order to defend against flamer throwers, engineers inside bunkers (now that concrete arty is nerfed) can build and expand new concrete bunkers and or place landmines around their bunker hideout. Makes static defenses pose more of a problem to anti building infantry.

it can be set that units can shoot (or build) out from the bunker - but than all units wil lbe able to shoot out! (like from a Town)

Side question 2: Will this special ability be extended to towns as well? If one flamethrower can rock up to a concrete bunkers and neutralise it, while not towns?

towns? not sure, would be too op killing everyone (eg. 4 tanks or 4 officers) in one shot imho - flamethrower would be a joker unit

[Stratego (dev)]

i am still not sure what u think about this: "and maybe the bunkers + sandbag bunkers too?"
shall flamethrowers be able?
-----------------------------------------------
so we are here now:

1. both AA and AT concrete tower has only 1 action (1 attack)
2. flamethrower have a new ability to swipe out enemy from bunkers
- concrete AA and AT Q1 and maybe the bunkers + sandbag bunkers too?
- flamethrowers cost 2->3
- also flamethrover new ability will have Cooldown 2
- Q2: will flamethrower tanks have same ability?
3. concrete AA and AT turret can only be started by engineers

[DreJaDe]

Q1 and maybe the bunkers + sandbag bunkers too?

Kinda agree but there's no use against Bunkers because you can't occupy them as that is intended for balance.

Q2: will flamethrower tanks have same ability?

I would say yes. They currently doesn't have much use so this would be good.

And I agree with others.

And just to add, pls also include the new AA building of the germans. And the Coastal artillery of UK in the unique buildable of UK

[TntAttack]

Q1 and maybe the bunkers + sandbag bunkers too?

Kinda agree but there's no use against Bunkers because you can't occupy them as that is intended for balance.

Actually, it's pretty useful if, going the direction I suggested, we can build inside bunkers, players will spam concrete bunkers around their towns.

Even if you can't occupy a concrete bunkers, destroying its defenders e.g. mg, arty or aa is quite the counter.

Q2: will flamethrower tanks have same ability?

Search flame tanks wiki and its surprising found effective flame tanks were against fortifications. Demoralising and quite the range too! (In real life range, for a flamethrower)

All fractions except the french it seems actually have flame tanks so it's pretty interesting and balanced.

[DreJaDe]

Actually, it's pretty useful if, going the direction I suggested, we can build inside bunkers, players will spam concrete bunkers around their towns.

I don't agree with being able to build inside bunkers... That's kinda too protective.

Even if you can't occupy a concrete bunkers, destroying its defenders e.g. mg, arty or aa is quite the counter.

Ok, that sounds fair.

[TntAttack]

Actually, it's pretty useful if, going the direction I suggested, we can build inside bunkers, players will spam concrete bunkers around their towns.

I don't agree with being able to build inside bunkers... That's kinda too protective.

It's quite hard to make a uniform defensive line due to the nature of tiles. Engineers have to be placed around a certain tile in order to build. This is hard due to terrain blockages, risk of enemy fire, tile in use e.g. friendly unit so I think this change is fair esp if we are moving towards anti building counters.

Just imagine it like a temporary town without production capabilities.

As for whether this move would be favour static defenses too much, we have powerful bombers and arty to counter them. Esp since concrete towers are nerfed.

[DreJaDe]

Defensive lines are made in the back or are prepared before an expected attack.

They aren't build while the guys are fighting in front. Maybe when Engineers are the only one who can build complex building such as Tank factory, and the bunkers, we could increase the mend rate of the soldiers to be able to build trench faster.

Another idea though is just to make trenches faster to build.

[Stratego (dev)]

And just to add, pls also include the new AA building of the germans. And the Coastal artillery of UK in the unique buildable of UK

you mean the 2x3 mega Flak tower?
(i am not sure adding anything that is not "univerally usable among all nations... @TntAttack , Bazai?)

so we are here now:

1. both AA and AT concrete tower has only 1 action (1 attack)
2. flamethrower have a new ability to swipe out enemy from bunkers
- concrete AA and AT and the bunkers + sandbag bunkers too
- flamethrowers cost 2->3
- also flamethrover new ability will have Cooldown 2
- also flamethrower tanks have same ability (Q1: without turn cost change?)
3. concrete AA and AT turret can only be started by engineers


(Q2: btw anyone heard about Banzai? i would love to know his ideas about the topics - he has yet emailed me.)

[TntAttack]

Defensive lines are made in the back or are prepared before an expected attack.

They aren't build while the guys are fighting in front. Maybe when Engineers are the only one who can build complex building such as Tank factory, and the bunkers, we could increase the mend rate of the soldiers to be able to build trench faster.

Another idea though is just to make trenches faster to build.

Absolutely not! Apologies but trenches are horrible to work with. They limit unit mobility, some armour units get stuck in them, and its a pain to defence with. Also it has a numerical unit density of 1 tile to 1 unit.

Oh, that nice MG in trench position you just had? It's in the hands of the enemy now. What's that, the trench is right next to your town? Enemy units get free protection.

Key factors that makes building in concrete bunkers ideal is that it has 2 or 3 unit spaces. An increase in numerical unit density.

P.S "Defensive lines are made in the back or are prepared before an expected attack" - Drejade

That is what I was talking about. Static defenses in the backlines or to reinforce the front. I want to improve players ability to build static defenses like bunkers without being hampered by other factors.

[DreJaDe]

That is what I was talking about. Static defenses in the backlines or to reinforce the front. I want to improve players ability to build static defenses like bunkers without being hampered by other factors.

To each their own I guess but...

I think this can't be done since bunkers will need to work like a tc to be able to do so... Which it isn't currently.

[TntAttack]

TntAttack Wrote:

Side question: Is it possible to enable engineers and riflemen to build new structures and repair adjacent units inside a concrete bunkers?

How I am envisioning this is that in order to defend against flamer throwers, engineers inside bunkers (now that concrete arty is nerfed) can build and expand new concrete bunkers and or place landmines around their bunker hideout. Makes static defenses pose more of a problem to anti building infantry.

it can be set that units can shoot (or build) out from the bunker - but than all units wil lbe able to shoot out! (like from a Town)

Here man.

[DreJaDe]

Here man.

This is what I said to you...

They need to be occupiable which they are not currently.