Ships in port should be vulnerable to Infantry, and lethally vulnerable to Heavy Infantry.

and while we are at it, why cant you block an enemy port by moving your ship into it? very annoying. Should be like tanks blocking a base. Seriously, its not realistic that a port forbids a big bad Battleship to enter.

I didn't know that was the case.  Seems a bit strange.

+1 und +1. Boats rule at sea, they should suck in port.

in the river maze map you cant even go through a port if it belongs to someone else. you'll have to wait there and capture it before you can proceed.

like pistos, i too "didn't know that was the case".  crazy.

Before a July update ships were able to move thru and stay on ports, but alot of people misused the sitting technique with subs. Since subs can only be targeted by other subs and destroyers, it was easy to gain sea superiority. One can move a sub onto an opponents base, and the opponent could not do anything about it with land and air units. I think large naval units were prohibited from sitting in ports, while small ones were allowed. You can move speedboats and hovers onto ports, but nothing else. Maybe the devs can explain this better.

I can see a bunch of Subs sitting in port and gallantly fighting Berzerkers, Infantry and Tanks with Artillery support. Obviously the subs win. Hell, they got guns there on their deck. And there's about 80 guys per subs. Subs rule. They should also be able to creep on land and capture cities.

I've seen MadMax when I was young... Raiders should have bonuses against on-land Torpedoes attacks. Subs would have penalty in grass, but bonus in deserts hexes. etc.

I don't see what subs have to do with the Mad Max series, but Road Warrior is one of the greatest guy movies ever.

isnt that the guy from pulp fiction?

Subs rule. They should also be able to creep on land and capture cities?

are you guys drunk or what?
 
 

subs can travel underground like laser beams , vicious sharks , and that jerk ^^ with the mas on . why you think i keep winning?

^^ No we're facetious. Driving the point home that SEA UNITS SHOULD BE SITTING DUCKS IN PORTS FOR LAND UNITS ATTACKS.

It would also add the extra strategic element of protecting your ports from land units including ranged attack (ART), or force a player to spawn Sea Units way behind the front line.

I see a penalty for Sea Units in Port the same as for Land Units sitting on Hospitals. Air Units on Airports should have the same penalty too.

Woot! 

^ elucidates.

I think air units already have a defense penalty when on airfields.

I thought a bonus, P?

slugthog: You are correct.  I had a misconception about the stats.  It's a +3 defense bonus.  How strange, that it has any effect at all, though. 

They need the bonus to live. Air units are relatively weak and seeing as being on airfields is the only way for them to repair they need the bonus to help keep them alive long enough so they can repair. It takes 1 turn to move them onto the airfield and another turn to repair.

That's not strong justification: It sounds like the defending player is arbitrarily rewarded for having his airfield assaulted by ground units. Last time I checked, planes on the deck, repairing or taking off, were annihilated rather easily (like subs in port, but I digress).

(all my posts on this topic relate to ships or planes on friendly ports and airbases)

Well, to bear any resemblance to real life, jets need major beefing up.  Can you imagine any collection of tanks, raiders or infantry standing a chance against a jet?  That's just silly.  Jets move ultra fast, can soar to high altitudes, and can be armed to the teeth with all manner of anti-personnel and anti-tank ordnance.

would any 10 "units" of battleships stand a chance against 10 equivalent "units" of fighters?

further reasoning why i think the game needs to commit to a particular warfare period. at least then there will be a common community intuition to what units should and shouldn't be a able to do. Planes could be redivided up into Fighters, Bombers, and Torpedo Bombers. Get rid of hovercrafts — or just rename them Marines and categorize them as soft targets, a variant of infantry...

I think hovercraft are perhaps too powerful compared to their real life counterparts.  I mean, you don't hear about armies manufacturing many more hovers than tanks, right?  I think you're right in that we should commit to a non-modern era (i.e. probably no jets, but planes instead).

hovercrafts are crazy. what's the justification for hovercrafts' performance against tanks and raiders? make them amphibious marines i say.

Right on the button, Ho.  Hovercraft are too strong, too fast and too easy to build.

If you want them as marines they should have one "any terrain" assault move then become HvyInf.
 

rename them marines, give them a different icon and leave the rest exactly as it is.

By marines, do y'all mean another infantry (soft) unit type?

I consider hovercrafts already as soft type anyway, I kill them with raiders, I use them to kill infantry, they capture ..... for most comparisons they are infantry to me.

Ya strange , I dont find Hovercraft too strong. I use them when terrain dictates it and for capturing.

You may consider them soft, Streen, but the combatResult function treats them as hard.

they should be soft. i have yet to float on a metal blow-up inner tube.

AFAIK, it treats them as "amphibious".  There are more than just hard and soft types for combat.  See http://weewar.com/specifications