Age of Strategy Forums

Ok here the list I guess
*Destroyer

5 turn destroyer would become 4 since most of their stat advantage against 4 turn destroyer is negligible anyway and I think that then being 1 turn costlier is too much.

With torpedo
-Can't hit submerged sub with torpedo
-2 range
-depending on the ships will be their CD, if the ship has the same numbers as a normal sub then 1 should do.

More miss chance from BS and Cruiser bullets.

Survival against torpedo.

*Cruisers

2 turn hit (for balance)

Have torpedo
-cant hit submerged sub
-2 range
-cd depending on the number of tubes

Miss chance against BS
(They're way to easily destroyed by them after all)

*Carriers
Only fighter bombers is the allowed bombers to enter.

Cost would go back besides the pricy ones

*Battleships

ALL CURRENT BS COST WILL INCREASE BY 1 BESIDES 10 turn BS.

Limited by TC number like carrier

Can carry biplane

An ability of smoke screen which would make it invisible for 1-2 turns.


I read some stuff and it seems that many of the Ship battles really like Torpedo from surface ships even as far as to close in just to fire one.

sharkguy what do you say to drejade's proposal?

Destroyers:
the destroyers should still be more expensive than the sub-killer ships. but the bonus of the destroyers should be increased against ships so that they are improved against other ships.
in any case, torpedoes are intended for destroyers.
the survival chance against torpedoes is already increased there.
in dev version they are already
probability hits has already been rejected by stratego in many other comments, so that won't happen.

cruiser:

at the moment, i don't see any need for action there. i actually only like to reserve torpedoes for destroyers.

aircraft carriers:

I agree with you that not all bombers should be allowed to land on carriers.
I am of the opinion that we had already narrowed this down.

Light bombers have been launched from aircraft carriers, see the us "Doolittle Raid".

why should some aircraft carriers fall in price?

battleships:

why should some battleships become more expensive and others not. i don't understand the logic.

besides, if the more expensive BS become even more expensive why should they be built. it already takes a long time from 14-17 rounds.

if we also set a limit here, it will be at the expense of the factories. with the aircraft carriers, it's logical because they function like a factory, which is not the case with the BS.

I would definitely not use torpedoes for the battleships. they are already very strong and should only be used for long-range combat. yes, I know they had some too.

and what do you want with the biplanes? in the game they would only be reconnaissance ships, but we can already see almost everything. besides, their combat power would be so low. they would always be a shooting victim.

Jasondunkel wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:07 am sharkguy what do you say to drejade's proposal?

Destroyers:
the destroyers should still be more expensive than the sub-killer ships. but the bonus of the destroyers should be increased against ships so that they are improved against other ships.
in any case, torpedoes are intended for destroyers.
the survival chance against torpedoes is already increased there.
in dev version they are already
probability hits has already been rejected by stratego in many other comments, so that won't happen.

cruiser:

at the moment, i don't see any need for action there. i actually only like to reserve torpedoes for destroyers.

aircraft carriers:

I agree with you that not all bombers should be allowed to land on carriers.
I am of the opinion that we had already narrowed this down.

Light bombers have been launched from aircraft carriers, see the us "Doolittle Raid".

why should some aircraft carriers fall in price?

battleships:

why should some battleships become more expensive and others not. i don't understand the logic.

besides, if the more expensive BS become even more expensive why should they be built. it already takes a long time from 14-17 rounds.

if we also set a limit here, it will be at the expense of the factories. with the aircraft carriers, it's logical because they function like a factory, which is not the case with the BS.

I would definitely not use torpedoes for the battleships. they are already very strong and should only be used for long-range combat. yes, I know they had some too.

and what do you want with the biplanes? in the game they would only be reconnaissance ships, but we can already see almost everything. besides, their combat power would be so low. they would always be a shooting victim.

Dang. This is kinda hard to understand.

I don't understand how you put realism then game balance in this game at all.

This is the same case as to the new sub of germans that you refuse to become more pricy because their fast to make IRL even though they're way too OP though you don't like BS being more pricy because it's not going to be used even though they should be IRL.

What I think is that the Naval battle should be given some love instead of this current where it's kinda tasteless.


For destroyers, it's no use making the ship bonus of destroyer higher. They're one hit by others anyway. If they're not going to survive other ship hits then their survivability would still be low.

Why I want them to become more unhittable by other ships is because I keep reading that they can actually engage cruisers and even sometimes battleships at close range enough for them to fire their torpedos. In this game though, unless it's suicidal they can't. They also last long in the battle even enough to defeat cruisers themselves.

If we keep this thing where they are constantly one hitted, they're not going to be that useful as I see them in real life.

Cruisers

Pls include the torpedos to them. I think this would be really good for balance. Even without the 2 hits I think torpedos would be really good. This is for both realism and flavor.

Carriers

Yes I actually saw that. I just forgot to put it there.

Why they should be cheaper? Their survivability ingame is just the same as cruisers namely the French and the Japanese one. I think that there isn't even a plane available at industry one for the Japanese so making them cheaper is more balanced.

The GB one, I'm actually ok of them being 9 turn

Battleships
Well, they will have an ability to be invisible after all based on my suggestion.

They're also more expensive IRL than aircraft carrier.

The logic of them being limited follows realism where they are actually too costly to maintain.

If they also have biplane then they are basically factory aren't they?

The other one. This is basically the same case with GB mega right? They are not a factory at all but they are considered a mega?

I didn't suggest for BS to have torpedos. But for fun, why not 1 range torpedo that is locked by a high cost tech? This could satisfy both realism and the game balance slightly.

Why biplane? As you say, its for reconnaissance. Many of my naval games focus on battleships since they're cheap to make more than cruisers. Them having some assisting plane would be nice for flavor.

There's not even a reason to make cruisers ingame. Only noobs make them. Well, there's also emergency case or total domination where making them doesn't hurt.

I agree with the destroyer proposal, it seems like an improvement.

Cruisers need some work in my opinion. There is a very wide variety of cruisers currently in the game, ranging from the pocket battleships of Germany to the light cruisers of Britain. Ideally, I would want both heavy and light cruisers, but the current system works fine. I actually like cruisers because they aren't too expensive and you can build them in TCS.

I agree with the aircraft carriers, too. Only fighter sized aircraft should be able to land on them. We can add a tech that lets you land certain bombers on the carriers.

For battleships, I think that most should be the same price. For example, KGV, Bismarck, and North Carolina (I think that's what it's called) should be the same price. Richelieu should be one turn cheaper, and Fuso should be the cheapest, because if I remember correctly, it was an upgraded dreadnought. If you want battleships that can launch torpedoes, we could add battlecrusiers like HMS Renown or dreadnoughts, like USS Texas because these usually had torpedoes. Super battleships are fine for me, except Yamato should be more expensive than the others. Also, we should consider replacing Vanguard with Lion for the British, or at least add it in for the map editor.

Shark guy 35 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 4:09 pm I agree with the destroyer proposal, it seems like an improvement.

Cruisers need some work in my opinion. There is a very wide variety of cruisers currently in the game, ranging from the pocket battleships of Germany to the light cruisers of Britain. Ideally, I would want both heavy and light cruisers, but the current system works fine. I actually like cruisers because they aren't too expensive and you can build them in TCS.

I agree with the aircraft carriers, too. Only fighter sized aircraft should be able to land on them. We can add a tech that lets you land certain bombers on the carriers.

For battleships, I think that most should be the same price. For example, KGV, Bismarck, and North Carolina (I think that's what it's called) should be the same price. Richelieu should be one turn cheaper, and Fuso should be the cheapest, because if I remember correctly, it was an upgraded dreadnought. If you want battleships that can launch torpedoes, we could add battlecrusiers like HMS Renown or dreadnoughts, like USS Texas because these usually had torpedoes. Super battleships are fine for me, except Yamato should be more expensive than the others. Also, we should consider replacing Vanguard with Lion for the British, or at least add it in for the map editor.

Why should richelieu be cheaper when it's more powerful than the both KGV and Bismarck ingame?

aircraft carrier:
the japanese can now build aircraft there.
in real life, the chance of survival alone at sea is also low. besides, their hp is significantly higher than that of the cruisers.
in general, all carriers are always cheaper than BS.
as I said, the reference value here is the weight.

we can better adjust the bonuses of the ships in general so that the ships can survive all ships a little better

and as you can see, other people with the cruisers see it a little differently than you do.

DreJaDe wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 6:57 pm

Shark guy 35 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 21, 2021 4:09 pm I agree with the destroyer proposal, it seems like an improvement.

Cruisers need some work in my opinion. There is a very wide variety of cruisers currently in the game, ranging from the pocket battleships of Germany to the light cruisers of Britain. Ideally, I would want both heavy and light cruisers, but the current system works fine. I actually like cruisers because they aren't too expensive and you can build them in TCS.

I agree with the aircraft carriers, too. Only fighter sized aircraft should be able to land on them. We can add a tech that lets you land certain bombers on the carriers.

For battleships, I think that most should be the same price. For example, KGV, Bismarck, and North Carolina (I think that's what it's called) should be the same price. Richelieu should be one turn cheaper, and Fuso should be the cheapest, because if I remember correctly, it was an upgraded dreadnought. If you want battleships that can launch torpedoes, we could add battlecrusiers like HMS Renown or dreadnoughts, like USS Texas because these usually had torpedoes. Super battleships are fine for me, except Yamato should be more expensive than the others. Also, we should consider replacing Vanguard with Lion for the British, or at least add it in for the map editor.

Why should richelieu be cheaper when it's more powerful than the both KGV and Bismarck ingame?

I thought Richelieu was a treaty battleship but maybe not.

@DreJaDe is here usable idea?