I'm of the opinion that the new units still need some tweaks.  For starters, I think "who can attack whom" is inconsistent.  Why should hovercraft be able to return fire against jets, but not a heavy tank?  IMO, the only non-air units that should be able to attack air units are surface marine craft and AA.  And _maybe_ Heavy Infantry (surface to air rockets, or what-have-you).  What the heck are the jets doing that hovercraft can return fire?  Are they swooping in to within 10 meters before opening fire?  Shouldn't they be firing hellfire missiles, or whatever from several hundred meters in the air (i.e. way out of bullet range).

I don't think I've enjoyed a new-unit game yet. 

yeah, you're right. it's pretty unlogical that units like raiders or light infantry can attack aircrafts. if aircraft is going to be invulnerable to ground attacks, their prices will have to go up.

and the hovercraft is kinda IMBA too. it's the most versatile unitand too strong for its price

but if the balancing should be improved, you can't just tweak the units. one major problem we have rght now is that we can't define the income per base per map and that we can't choose which units are playable on each map

Yep, having those two factors tweakable every time you create a game would be great.

More complaints about the pro units. 

You can exploit the current game mechanics by using units to block other units, even though those units can't be attacked and exert no ZOC.  For example, I used a speedboat to block a submarine in a water choke point.  My opponent also pointed out that you can even use aircraft to block submarines.  I think it's time to drive right to the heart of the game engine and actually code in three altitudes or depth levels.  In other words, the map is not just one 2D plane, but 3 2D planes (air, land/water-surface, below-surface).  Actually drawing it on screen might prove complex, but having subs blocked by units on the other hex planes just doesn't wash.  A quick hack might be to let units move through units that don't exert ZOC on them.

Battleships are probably too powerful.  It's like having two DFAs and a berserker all rolled into one, because it gets 1-5 attack range, with mega damage on pretty much everything except subs.  The solution is not to make powerful units cost more, the solution is to level down all the units.  The most powerful unit should not be that much greater than the weakest unit.

I think these pro units were sort of exciting on the drawing board, but I don't think they've really panned out well.  It's too much of a stretch of reality to digest that 10 soldiers, a tank, a submarine, a destroyer and a battleship all take the same space on the battlefield.  Perhaps code for multi-hex units, like how in the board game Battleship, a ship consumed multiple squares of space.
 

Curious comments, p. I haven't seen planes or boats yet, but it sounds like the game mechanics are being pushed to uncomfortable places. I wonder if others agree.

Ouch.. battleship sounds like floating death

They are. 2000c and slow moving but it's pretty much a sure death for any unit that crosses it's path. It used to be 2500c but they reduced the cost.

I have an idea to propose. What do you think of adding a unit cap? Something similar to warcraft and starcraft games where food is needed to sustain or expand your army.

or instead/in-addition, unit cost.

Unit upkeep might be worth testing, but I'd rather see a weakening of all but the weakest units.

Battleships are far and away the most powerful unit currently in the game.  Not only do they have great range (1-5), great damage (high attack vs all units but subs), double (!!) attack as well as being able to move and attack in the same turn, but they also have incredible armor and a 2/turn repair rate.  Considering all of this coupled with return fire, there are only a couple units that should even think about getting in range.  They are fun! 

Tweaks I'd support, with particular emphasis on balancing battleships:

1/turn repair for battleships (2/turn in a dock perhaps?).  Alternatively, repairing could cost money.  One fairly effective strategy involves rotating units at the front and repairing as much as possible, effectively boosting one's production rate.  If repairs for things like battleships and heavy tanks ended up costing more than repairs for subs and heavy infantry, there might be more effective counters to the big armor/high repair rate units.

Change battleships to move(1), attack OR move(1), instead of the current move(1-2), attack.  With an effective range of 7, popping out a new battleship at a harbor on the front lines can mean certain death for units that can't get away fast enough.  Dropping the effective range to 6 while preserving the maximum movement rate of 2/turn seems like a decent way to tone down their power without crippling them.  

I agree that they are way too powerful. Of course subs or DFA can do them in, but the double attack is so powerful. I agree with the 1/turn repair... that seems fair, and also more intuitive (which weewar of course pays heed to). It also would be cool if it was attack twice -or- move and attack once.

I'm not heavily in touch with the new/pro units as i have never obtained a pro account and been a basic for around 5 days now.

But the initial point about ground-to-air combat units i partially agree on. I believe most units, whether effective or not, could fire upon gunships/helicopters if they have a machine gun or something similar as most copters fly lower to the ground than any plane would and thus can be reached from ground, even with a machine gun.

Planes however, they should only be reached my means of missiles. The heavy infantry idea i like, but it defeats itself as then the price would be very low in terms of what it can do. Plus, the bazooka elements would be odd. They either have ground-to-air missiles or have bazookas, and one cannot do the other as in terms of real life, GTA missiles cannot track below a radar which is always above ground, and bazookas are too slow and un-accurate to even get a hit on any type of air-craft.

DFAs against a battleship would essentially be suiciding. It would take 2 DFAs  (2400c) to kill a single battleship (2000c) and chances are you'll end up with 1 dead DFA and the other extremely damaged. Not to mention the battleship can move and shoot twice with incredible armor and repairs for 2/turn.

I still believe these new and old units require some fine tuning so they mesh well with each other. Currently some units are just never made because they've simply become obsolete with the whole slew of new pro units to choose from.

I can concur that we could allow gunships/helos to be attacked by ground units, but jets: no.

Exactly Pistos, that's the only logical reasoning behind ground-to-air at the moment unless you include the actual ground units superbly effective on purpose.

@Demonicy guess Weerockets are a great mix between bazookas and GTA Rockets.

Concerning Battleships: I agree that they are to strong. While I like them costing 2k credits ( and thereby beeing accessible in some way ) reducing the range to 1-4 and make them repair only 1 per round would be a start. Making them slower makes them unusable on larger maps and I hope we'll have more of the big maps. Another idea would be to have them repair in harbours only. (same for destroyers and subs then).

Concerning Air combat: What are your impressions on air units? I am especially interested in the interaction with ships and ground units. It seems to me that the Anti Air is a bit to strong right now, as it suffices to build a few to keep air units away They are easily capable of destroying units worth multiple times their cost. What about Bombers? Are you using them? If not: how should they be improved?

I think giving the battleship a minimum range of 2 would be good. At this time sending anything but a sub in to attack the battleship is suicidal. Having them repair 1/turn is another good idea but I disagree with repair only in harbors.

Bombers are a little weak. They inflict a lot of damage but they are fragile and easy to kill. Putting that ontop of their inability to self repair makes them rather unattractive for the cost of 1200c. The only time I make them is to suicide them on battleships. It would help if their armor was raised by atleast 2.

The only issue I have with air interaction with ship/ground is their ability to block subs. I'm fine with them blocking all other units but I highly disagree with them blocking subs. I believe giving the sub a range of 1-2 would fix this issue and resolve some game play dilemmas.

Is there any news about changing the cost of Heavy Infantry? I still feel they are not worth the price after testing them out.

Personal thoughts, feel free to poke fun at them if you wish:

> Light Infantry - 75 cost - Disrupts the pricing of other units as no other unit has a price that is 3/4 or 1/4 of an 100. (heavy infantry comes close at 2/4 or 1/2 of 100 but even those are at a weird price) 50 would be too cheap, and 100 seems ok but i guess most of the other unit prices would have to be altered too as Light Infantry is the foundation of the pricing system.

> Heavy Infantry - 150 cost - Same as before, odd price. The unit to me is a bit "meh" and under-powered, especially when it comes to battling pro-units. I believe it should have the same power as Light Infantry so it can battle ALL types of Infantry with equal attacking quota, and keep it's non-infantry attack power the same. Maybe putting the price at 200 would then resolve this issue.

bert: That's a step in the right direction.  1-4 range, 1 repair, but I think we can allow repairs outside, if there are other units that can do it.  I'd be willing to test a battleship range of 2-4 as well.  But that reminds me: I thought all modern ships can send depth charges.  Further along these lines, I thought subs fired torpedoes from a distance.  Why is their range 1?  Their range should be maybe 1-3 or something, and once they fire, they should be vulnerable to attack because they've surfaced to do so.  But if my ship goes within 1 range, and the sub has not surfaced, that cigar under water should be as good as dead via depth charges.  I'd like to see some game mechanics reflect all this. 

I never build bombers because they seem slower.  It's usually jets for me, too, since the helos are not much cheaper, and don't move as fast/far.  What's the attack strength of bombers?  I'm thinking it should be fairly strong, so that they can perhaps be effectively used against naval craft.

I think the anti-air is okay as is.

I'm managing with 150c Heavy Infantry, but wouldn't mind seeing it drop to 125.
 

"I'm managing with 150c Heavy Infantry, but wouldn't mind seeing it drop to 125."

+1 for that.

dropping it back to 100 would make them almost worth buying, and avoid having little chunks of 75 credits left (having 575 credits when you want a heavy tank/artillery would be irrationally annoying)

Although having trooper + heavy trooper = 200 credits could equal that out.. if you buy them in equal numbers

I don't know, I think 150 for heavy troopers is pretty cool. Heavy Troopers do base 4 to anything across the board (except subs @ 0 and light troopers at 3), which can really be powerful if matched right (like when attacking big units already damaged), especially since not that many units can do damage to air units (+ sea units). They damage easily, but for 150 still are pretty cheap filler too.

double the price? c'mon richrahl, they need to be more resilient or cheaper! you tit!

Full Disclosure: I know this dude in real life. And he is a tit.

Super-King - "having 575 credits when you want a heavy tank/artillery would be irrationally annoying"

That's happened to me literally 3 times in the past game, both with H.Tanks and H.Artilery X_x

I used to have that problem, but this is where skill and strategy comes in. Learn to manage your money to make the right decision what you feel is your future unit purchase.

Heavy Troopers - are fine as they are, I've adapted to their cost and they work for me.

Battleships - are way too cheap for what they can do. They were better at 2400 before the price reduction. +1 for changing range to 2-5 instead. Movement is perfect, armor is perfect it is a large ship not a wooden raft.

Speedboats - useless even against hovercraft. The only good thing they are good for is barriers against subs.

Subs - +10 for 1-2 range.

Destroyers - I don't know if it is me, but they are not that effective against subs. They use to be, but now they are not. Half the time a sub kills a destroyer before a destroyer kills a sub. Best thing against subs are other subs. Again maybe its just me.

Bombers - change name to kamikaze bombers. Used them mainly to weaken a battleship, so my sub finishes it off faster.

Jets - good against air units and other land-based units, but I have to stay away from the water. They are easy pickings for battleships.

Helicopter - just plain balanced.

Anti-Air Artillery - don't know yet.

I think the hovercraft need some stat tweaks.  I think a plain tank should slightly overpower a hovercraft.  maybe 60/40 type thing.  Hovercraft should be like raiders: good vs. soft targets, but not so good against armour.

Agreed again Pistos (your a very agreeable person!) Since when could a hovercraft defeat solid great hunks of metal? XD They are pretty cheap and more effective than they should be. Power should be slightly lowered and price upped maybe?

I disagree. I think hover crafts are fine right now.

If anything is to be changed then it should be the Tank. The Tank is currently too weak and a unit that I never make because it just doesn't offer anything to the battle field. Currently a heavy trooper does more damage to amphibic type than a tank. Heavy Trooper has an attack power of 4 on hover crafts but the Tank only has 3 attack power. I think the attack power of the tank vs heavy trooper should be raised up to 4.

With 300c I have the choice of making 1 tank or 1 hover craft. I would 100% choose to make a hover craft.

I think everyone would choose the hover-craft, which is more to my point that they need a slight edit in price.

The tanks are indeed weak. With basic units, i rarely ever break out a L.tank and always go in favour for saving up or buying something cheaper.

is it me or is it weird that aircraft can block the movement of ground and water units?

defbyte: It's not just weird, it's absurd in the case of submarines (as I mentioned above).  The game engine needs adjustment, and sooner rather than later.   If the units can attack and exert ZOC, then it's understandable.  e.g. a gunship vs. troopers

what I don't get is why raiders have a 4 attack vs hovercraft yet a tank only have a 3 attack against hovercraft.

Tanks should have a 5 attack again hovercraft. I use tanks because i think they are a useful unit....but they are too weak for their points

I'm fine with air units block everything but subs. However giving the sub a range of 1-2 would solve this problem.

The tank is a little weak and I think it's attack power vs hover crafts should be raised to match the raider's 4 attack. 5 would make it too strong as it has a good amount of armor.

I just began playing with Pro units.  My initial feeling is:

1)  There is no need for separate base and port units.  Ports increase detail unnecessarily.  They occupy space, must be conquered and produce no income.  Ports can be eliminated by allowing bases that are adjacent to water to produce naval units.

2)  Airbases are semi-redundant.  Allow bases (cities) to build all types of units.

3)   Add one unit type, ENGINEER,  with the ability to transform into AIRBASE(bases & repairs but does not make aircraft).   ENGINEERS  would enhance the combat values of adjacent units but have low combat values themselves

Under current rules,

1)  AMPHIBs should be built only at ports and should not have AntiAir ability.

2)  Remove AnitAir ability from HvyInf and give it to LtInf.

3)   Increase the Movement of RAIDERs (scout car) by one in plains & desert.

4)  Make AssArty shoot & scoot (fire before movement)

5) Give AntiAir a zone of Control versus aircraft.

6)  Make Submarines shoot & scoot and reduce movement by one.

What's your reasoning on giving anti-air to light inf?  I think neither should have it. 

I think many units could do with an extra hex of movement, raiders being only one of several.

AA guns should definitely have ZOC over aircraft.

Mostly to make  LtInf more useful in Pro games by transfering one of HvyInf abilities.

I concur that Aircraft should not have ZoC over ground units, except perhaps bombers.

As regards unit pricing, the only thing that matters is the relative price of units.  The actual cost is wholly dependent upon base income.

I think in nearly all cases, the ability to attack should translate into the ability to exert ZoC.  The only thing that might remove or reduce ZoC in such cases would be great superiority of speed.  e.g. jets being so much faster than walking infantry.

I nearly agree, P. but then remember the effectiveness of shoulder launched AA weapons versus helicopters.

I consider ZoC to represent the influence a unit has on surrounding terrain - ZoC is used tactically to create unsafe corridors for the opposition and to inhibit movement.  I think it would be amusing if a unit's ZoC had  influence  equal to its weapon range, reducing movement  or combat values of units as they entered ZoC and ZoC being additive.

That could mean that a unit in the ZoC of several opponent units would have its combat value significantly reduced - Would do a lot to weaken the HvyTk cook.
 

I've just realised (after Streen pointed it out to me) that air and sea bases don't earn you credits...

I just read this whole topic (good read) and got some thaughts:

I dont like units taking up more than 1 hexagon (except maybe those battleships if they are really THAT good)

I dont like 3 levels of height but I DO like submarines going through jets above. makes no sense that a jet can block them, but we dont want more than 1 unit on each hexagon do we?

I dont like unit upkeep, but I do like unit cap. A cap that is the same for everyone, no matter how many bases and recources you have. But a cap just limiting the value of all units a player can have introduces more tactical decisions, as in: "should I really build a DFA now, cause then I cant build more ~whatever~"

I dont think hovercrafts are too cheap, but them attacking air makes no sense indeed. Them being weaker against infantry than against tanks makes a little sense as its more realistic to me.

I have not played pro maps extencively, but I am looking forward to get one of those Battleships
I like the idea of a ueber unit, but if it can do all that was said above, it should cost at least 4000 credits, and have another weakness, like some airunit being specifically good against them. Kamikazee?

btw: ever thaught about suicide units that blow up when they attack? Or would that be politically incorrect at this time maybe?

If sizing down battleships, how about then taking 2 turns to be built? thats realistic. (although I usually dont like realistic)

btw: I dont like infantry only healing 1/turn. that makes their healing useless I think.

Why do harbors not generate income? at least 50 or something. (as mentionned above )

I think L-inf. should have a very weak but present ability to attack aircrafts. maybe a group of 10 only shooting down one, but at least something...

oh, you just realised that, dek? that would explain the one game we had XD

Yes Kurisu, it explains a lot....

I demand a rematch!!

hehehe