how to balance the infantry and the game

[papier]

Hey, less and less people are using the heavy infantry, the combination of rifles and artillery seems the way to go, with some support of tanks or healing trucks. The heavy infantry needs a BUFF, before it had more range, but this is not the solution, because people will start using mass heavy infantry once they got range. I think the best thing to do is to increase the troop space of all infantry at around enlightment age. The heavy infantry needs something like troop space x2, health x2, attack x1.5, attack vs defenders same. This is not too beefy and the redoubts will still be trouble, as they are to my raider army. The ranged infantry needs like troop space x2, attack x2, hp same and that's it. This will make the chinese archer viable and as well the machinegunner, because he is much beefier.

 

[GailWho]

I'm curious why you think increasing troops space will help. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are proposing but being able to make less of them will just decrease their effectiveness. The whole idea with 1-space ground troops is to train a whole bunch of them to fight alongside the meat shields and big guns. Heavy infantry need to be more balanced with the ranged so that when training you calculate the best mix of each to overwhelm the base. As it stands, most players use 100% ranged 0% infantry to escort their artillery. The job of the infantry is to take out buildings. Artillery do a fine job of that and ranged are there to protect them. Beef up the hp and dmg/sec on infantry will make them more desirable for swiftly destroying all those pesky buildings getting in the way of the tc while artillery have the range to take it from afar, tanks draw attention of the mortars, riflemen take out defenders, and supply heal them all. This is how it should be but currently we are missing the infantry part of the puzzle.

 

[AbbyVille]

I think you just need to deal with it. Join alliance and ask for cannons donation to protect your base. That's the instant cure for the archers/ footsies spamming. Buffing infantries would only making things more complicated beside we already have the more capable infantries with more powe and range and more troop space it's called heavy tank.

 

[Mr Suplex]

Heavy infantry needs a buff for sure, and archers/riflemen need some sort of change. I think a +1 range buff on heavy infantry would put them in a good place because their damage and health are not the issue (both are good).

I also think riflemen need to be toned down a bit. Someone else suggested and I agree with the idea that they should not be able to shoot over walls, as that should be artillery's specialty. They would still be very powerful, but people would be forced to use them in conjunction with other units instead of just spamming them like we see now (cough British players cough).

 

[Martine]

I agree with nearly everything you have mentioned. Though I am of the opinion that no troops need any modification. The dev have these little messages that pop up, giving us hints on using all units, not just a select few. The way to balance the game surely is to balance your army.

So a simple solution to all those that insist on using a full army of motos, shooters, tanks or whatever could be just to place a limit on the maximum number of any one unit per army. Not including donated troops. Having no computer programming knowledge I can only assume that this is possible. And would hopefully stop all the whinging and moaning about one nation and their only benefit.

Happy hunting

 

[AbbyVille]

I disagree about the archers ability to shoot over walls. I think it should remain, archers already have so little hit points mortars should be able to take of them easily. It doesn't bother me to see Brits spamming my base because usually they fail epically and when I go to revenge I usually take more than taken.

Plus, very few Brit spammers actually have visions and skills, to get the job done, that's why they complain about cannons.

 

[Ravenlord]

Infantry don't need a buff. If you know your military history you should know that, as technology has improved, foot soldiers take on a less attacking role - the soldier takes on a more supportive, overwatch or "clean up" role. These days tanks, artillery, smart weapons, etc do the major damage & infantry supports and protects these weapons. Tanks & artillery can take ground but infantry is needed after the fact to hold and defend that ground.

In this respect Dominations has gotten it exactly right. In the early ages footsies act like footsies should. They are strong and in numbers can topple huts and tents and town halls with ease. That's how it should be when considering armies fighting in the middle ages, iron ages, etc. As you get to Enlightenment and Industrial the weapons are improved and the footsies are better suited to sniping rss, TCs or cleaning up those last few buildings. See the similarity?

Instead of complaining about foot soldiers needing a buff, tailor your army to suit the age you're in - and adapt to the next age, and the next. If you're too inflexible in your thinking try another game - I'm told Candy Crush is popular.

 

[Brand Marrow]

Still think the major improvements should all be on defence. Battles are getting so easy that Im starting to feel like I am playing candy crush....

 

[Ravenlord]

What medal range do you play?

 

[Brand Marrow]

Im still at 1400 medals, it does sound like things get a lot harder above 2000, I dont really care about medals.

 

[Ravenlord]

That's kinda like a sweet spot for me too (before I started climbing) - bases offer good loot and are beatable but challenging enough to make it interesting.

 

[FroggyKilla]

Infantry don't need a buff. If you know your military history you should know that, as technology has improved, foot soldiers take on a less attacking role - the soldier takes on a more supportive, overwatch or "clean up" role. These days tanks, artillery, smart weapons, etc do the major damage & infantry supports and protects these weapons. Tanks & artillery can take ground but infantry is needed after the fact to hold and defend that ground.

In this respect Dominations has gotten it exactly right. In the early ages footsies act like footsies should. They are strong and in numbers can topple huts and tents and town halls with ease. That's how it should be when considering armies fighting in the middle ages, iron ages, etc. As you get to Enlightenment and Industrial the weapons are improved and the footsies are better suited to sniping rss, TCs or cleaning up those last few buildings. See the similarity?

Instead of complaining about foot soldiers needing a buff, tailor your army to suit the age you're in - and adapt to the next age, and the next. If you're too inflexible in your thinking try another game - I'm told Candy Crush is popular.

One small problem...... The Heavy Infantry and the Ranged Infantry carry the same weapons as of Enlightenment Age on. With that in mind, they would have a similar range. If you want to insert history in this, every foot soldier in your virtual army is a musketman. This would go best with what I am about to suggest. As of Enlightenment Age, the Heavy Infantry and Ranged Infantry would assimilate into one single unit.

What would this mean for nations, one may ask? It would mean that it will boil down to either an Infantry or Cavalry/Tank unique. This will radically change the uniques for Infantry, either way. Of course, we would need to balance the stats to make it sound for EA on.

Now back to my attack on this post. Sure they would have some cleanup role (not like that changed since the dawn of time), but I'm pretty sure this would also mean that your city builders would advise placing TC inside. Also, unless I had a shotgun or some other weapon designed to be used close range, why on earth would I intend to shoot my weapon at a close range? I would not. I would try and shoot it as far away as possible without having accuracy a detriment. Speaking of which, I must be training an army of supersoldiers as they have dead-eye accuracy.

Since the cannons have made castles obsolete (as told in the in-game description), I have not seen any change in the structure of the castles nor the walls to reflect angled fortresses that aim to deflect the shells up and not try and resist their force. I might have noticed a slight change in the geometric look in the walls from Lvl 9 on, but it still has that vertical look. Plus, the invention dynamite and other concentrated explosives have made walls obsolete. Actually in any siege ever done, all you would need to do is bust down one segment of wall, and all your troops would go in and kill all the men and..... You get the jist. Oh dear, I almost forgot that gates exist, so wouldn't my army just utilize the gates they can easily bust open and get into parts of segmented military bases? I mean, if history became a huger factor in this game than it already is, then this would happen I'm quite sure. But then again the troops have the brains of Goombas.

About the tanks..... They have equal capabilities of artillery of busting down gates and walls albeit at a closer range. They can just ram the gate if you ask me. So tell me this: Why would I keep walls if they became obsolete? It would be painful to get the funds to repair those walls everytime they get shot down. So as you may read this, you may figure out that history would trump any balance the game has. In fact, tanks are quite good at ramming. They would smash into the buildings just by ramming into them. And don't get me started on ammunition. This game has troops with infinite ammunition, certainly not historically accurate.

So here's the thing: Do not attempt to use actual history to debate balance in a strategy game. It will only end up being used against you.

 

[SourKraut]

You mean that games are not real? Lol

 

[Ravenlord]

Boy, you are taking this WAAAAAAY more seriously than is required. That was quite a reply - do you need to have a lie down now?!!!
As for attacking my post - you're mean!!

 

[FroggyKilla]

No, Im fine. No need for an exorcist or anything.

 

[FroggyKilla]

Pretty much. But here, some of us utilize history to create nation suggestions and maintain the balance of power.

 

[Ravenlord]

lol - I like this green dude!!

 

[Königsberg]

I don't think it's easy in the high medal ranges. Some tough bases up there. Especially if you don't try to use all 5 tactics, generals, blessings, and full merc camp on a single attack.

 

[Morality]

Kinda like Froggy's suggestion... But it would be kinda bland with the uniques. Considering that no one would pick the German and Japanese unique over the British unique. Not as if it's still false today as a Ranged Infantry unique is far better than any other unique. It's something to point out, but this could be the step that we should do if we want a historically accurate infantry regiment. Civilization V kinda made that move to make all the gun units as the bread and butter of an army. You may notice Ranged Units move to more "support-like roles" with the Gatling Gun-Bazooka troops. But it's open for debate.

 

[Mr Suplex]

You actually get to do revenge on people? I've gotten that to work once or twice in two years of playing.