Poll: What changes would you like to see on the Missile Silo?

[Manifesto]

Hopefully we can keep the missile silo debate to a single post. Feel free to re-post your ideas here and hopefully the devs will listen.

Having faced a few before I get mine I agree with others who say it's too powerful. These are a few modifications I think we can live with.

 

[SiuYin]

Stop whinning
Just keep it as current,
It narrow down the gap in defense between me and maxed base

 

[Tower]

Keep it as it is; but perhaps turn it off or make it weaker in pvp or make it cost oil to recharge it.

 

[Manifesto]

Allright, as long as it helps YOU.

 

[Lord P]

Sooooo.....you’re saying keep it exactly as it is but perhaps completely change it. That’s a fence sitting answer if ever I’ve seen one

 

[Gargantuar]

I think making it cost oil to recharge is an excellent idea . And why not. Missiles are far more fuel guzzlers than heavy tanks.

OK realism aside, this is the simplest solution to "Good for war , bearable for PvP" . If you want supercharged defense , arm the silo and sleep at night .
Then the silo will fire on every attacker's army , till the first one (or 2)who destroys the silo. After that the silo has to be recharged again with oil. Pretty much like HT bunker. Just that HT bunker gives you a chance to spawn three HTs (until all spawned HTs killed by attacking forces), maybe we can keep the count for silo at 2 (if 1 is too less). So if two attackers were able to destroy the silo in their individual attacks, the silo falls silent until charged again.

1000 oil to charge silo fully. 500 to charge partially (if it got used up in only one battle and destroyed).

Edit 2: BTW i voted for option 3, but i dont want option 2 , want rechargeable silo , and rate of fire at 20 sec (30 would be too slow ) .

 

[Frankenstein]

What about buffing the protect tactic or some kind of new tactic called Missile Shield that would drastically reduce damage from silo?

 

[Frankenstein]

To obtain the tactic could cost a lot of gold or a fair amount of oil would be needed. So that one who has such tactic would limit its use only to world wars and not when raiding.

 

[melheor]

There is no option in the poll to both reduce the damage and firing rate. I'd honestly rather see those 2 changes with the need to rearm than messing with its flight time.

 

[Shadowrunner]

I realy dont get it? The new missile silo dosent have much more DPS than a singel mortar, but it can be avoided 1/3 of the time, and has a huge blind spot. It also takes up 6 more squares than a regular tower, making it more area experience to place within walls, and not to mention, it's expensive to build. This is really a buff to tanks, a nerf to artilery/infantry combo and advantages to defense. A balance domination needed! I say god work! Way to solv several things with one simple building.

 

[Quovatis]

The DPS might be the same, but the raw damage is enough to 1-shot the majority of units. A mortar doesn't have that kind of power.

 

[yemen]

One new building requiring a complete redesign of army construction from the previous 6 ages, and becoming the central focus of all attacks where it is present is ludicrous. If it stays in the game, it needs to be made it into a real, balanced building appropriate for regular pvp as well as war.

To do that almost certainly requires some combination of:
Limited range - there should be a significant drop zone that it just can't see, and won't active until the appropriate HP are inside the range.
No or very limited splash damage - only hits the top 2-3 highest HP units in range.
Limited damage - low enough to not instakill a howitzer. Maybe scaled to unit - 2000 damage max, but can take no more than 50% of an individual unit's HP in one shot.
Reduced firing frequency
Reloading cost.

I don't know what the best combination of those is, but I see this as a game breaking building. For a mobile game where your ability to continue playing is limited by your ability to keep troops and planes alive and not use too many tactics, a building with this level of unstoppable troop killing capability makes no sense.

If the designers want to keep it, rescale all training times so I can rebuild my entire army (including generals, planes, tactics and all troops) for a reasonable price in less than 15 minutes, and 5 on a training blessing. Then I can attack and deal with the probable loss of all troops and use of all tactics, and continue playing the game without taking a minimum 2 hour break for planes.

 

[melheor]

It doesn't matter what its DPS is if I have no chance to heal my units after a hit. With mortars I can. Moreover, it does NOT encourage a balanced army. Watch some of the youtube videos, it tends to wipe out all of the squishier units guarding your tanks in 1 hit, leaving tanks completely exposed to the swarm of oncoming defenders (with archers and healing trucks gone). Your tanks alone have no chance to take down the swarm of defenders or the garrisons while attacked.

 

[yemen]

It has unlimited range. The damage per shot is more than twice what a field howitzer can survive, at level 1 of the building (2000 damage, 2800 at level 3). It has well over twice the HP of an atomic mortar, again at level 1 (7500HP) - almost four times at level 3 (11,215HP).

Protect reduces damage by 50%. So useless on your lower troops. Rallying together means they all take that same full damage, so suicide. Tanks (mercenary or part of your main army) are now required, but have to be carefully managed to avoid clumping at all costs. APCs instantly die in one shot - just enough HP to draw fire if tanks aren't available, not enough to survive. Decoys don't seem to work reliably in testing - sometimes draw fire, sometimes being ignored despite clearly being the highest concentration of HP on the board.

So no, not balanced at all. In fact, the opposite - it will drive out the remaining troop diversity in the game, in favor of heavy tanks. The only unit mostly immune to this building.

 

[Quovatis]

Make it have only 1 shot in multiplayer. In war, it can stay as is.

 

[Visenya]

Agreed, and clever solutions (though I'd prefer for them to get rid of it permanently and refund any crowns and oil to people who rushed it).

 

[Visenya]

We've told them the bazooka tower needed to be nerfed and they responded by giving us a permanent, long-range one.

This one defensive building could totally destroy the game for the higher ages. As is, and at least for myself, I foresee a drop in pvp and more dependence on the boosted resources they've given us. Right now it seems inevitable that the long wait times and prices for upgrades combined with my refusal to spend actual money on a free-to-play game will end with my interest in the game waning.

 

[BeerMan]

Make it have only 1 shot in multiplayer. In war, it can stay as is.

This is the best answer I've seen so far. I had similar thoughts of nerfing the damage/fire rate for MP only, but your idea of a single shot is even better.

 

[Motaz Tarek]

lol I don't think it's a problem if u don't have strong base so basically it's no good for u, it's more useful for players with max defenses +/- bazooka sentry that u would barely 5 star them, this silo makes it impossible now

 

[Motaz Tarek]

stupidly high hp
stupidly high damage
stupidly high range

idk what logic is that? those who want to keep it as it still haven't tried the hell of lvl 3 silo, most players cried out when they tested lvl 1 silo, now wait for lvl 3 silos and more to come in coldwar age, when it beats the s**t out of u don't ask for mercy if u supported that stupidity

and stick to abandoned bases in MP with no oil or trade goods to loot in a month or two