Upgrade for land weapons

Today land weapons are really weak, they are not used in the war but I really like tanks and artillery therefore I think this balance should be changed.

Please see the below picture, it describes how big advantages batteries has against them, it seems that all this situation is not balanced right.



Problem is that when you are attacking garrisons with batteries, the only defending unit is Defensive missile batteries, but when you attack with Tanks/artillery or any other land weapon you get hit by the same defensive missile batteries together with Armored vehicles, jeeps, artillery and tanks.

It is impossible to use division full of land weapons to fight against garrisons defenses, you lose entire 330Q division only inflicting minor damage to the defenses as 900 weapons or more are defending and they are 3-5 times stronger than attacking ones.

Something wrong with the attachment..

Probably attachments are not allowed.. As I still get the same error message when i try to upload it.

I think the entire balance of weapons needs to be reworked, not just land units. I still believe strongly that offensive and defensive weapons should not exist as separate entities. They should be formed into one unified weapon type. To ensure that Defense costs less than offence, defenders should have a blanket percentage advantage over offence. I personally would use more varied weapon types if they could serve more than one purpose. Defensive weapons for the most part are completely useless due to their inability to initiate attacks. Placing them in military units also wastes valuable space that could be filled with units that can attack. The only ones that are useful in my opinion are interceptors, helicopters, defensive missile batteries and anti aircraft batteries.

I agree with you, I just think that reworking it whole would require huge effort and could be rejected by W3C while it is possible to balance few pieces step by step without major rework.

I would love to fight with tanks, they are so great weapons in the real life so I would love to see these as most powerful field weapons in SC as well. I think I would overpay buying them if they could only be worth something.

I too would love to use tanks and artillery but I cant bring myself to it. The defensive ones are useless because they cannot attack and do not defend against commonly used weapons. The offensive ones are too weak on offence and when they do get attacked they dont defend themselves at all (like all offensive weapons).

I still keep stock of all weapon and ammo types on the off chance they become useful again. Like navies. I was glad I stockpiled them because they are useful now again. I will just keep hoping that one day the weapons merge into unified versions.

I think that future of SC wars will be fights among land weapons, as they can occupy and deoccupy while batteries/planes/fleets will be fighting air defences and destroying targets mainly.

It would only require to make batteries/planes/ships inefficient against land units and fortifications. People would be fighting air, then killing batteries, desroying targets but after that land fight should start. Land fight would be the main part of war.

Targets could be destroyed by batteries/planes/fleets but land weapons from the garrisons would still defend targets unless killed by attacking/occupying land forces. Like in the real war, you can completely bombard some city but you will not be able to take it over without killing resisting land forces.

I believe that such changes would be real breakthrough in SC wars. Wars would be much more interesting and interactive. Map painting is most funny piece in war so together with active land un

I think something like that would make batteries pointless then. If they are ineffective against land targets what are they used for? If blowing up targets does not wipe the garrison I think most players would skip batteries entirely. Clear air defense then just roll in with tanks. Maybe something like destroying a target makes the garrison less effective in combat or something along those lines. So you would see a missile strike first then land troops roll in.

Either way I think merging offensive and defensive weapons should be the first step in any rebalancing. It would make balancing so much easier as there would be half the number of weapon types to work with. Then after that you can see some more specialization of the ground units instead of them all being the same.

Artillery would have greater range and damage to targets but weak to counter attacks.
Tanks would have the most damage to land units and strongest armour.
Jeep

Batteries/planes/fleets would be effective to destroy targets and air defence. Tanks/art would just do land fights and forts. This way all weapons would have their place.

Together with that also shield function could be removed, so helicopters would prioritize oaambs, interceptors fighters etc.

These are things I would merge:
Defensive AAB and Offensive AAB
DMB and MRMB and Land to Sea Missiles and Navy Missile Batts
Light Tanks and Heavy Tanks
Light Arty and Heavy Arty
Light Jeeps and Heavy Jeeps
Light Armored Vehicles and Heavy Armored Vehicles
Interceptors and Fighter Planes and Navy Fighter Planes and Navy Interceptors
Missile Interceptors and Navy Missile Interceptors
Radar Planes and Long Range Radar Planes
Destroyers and Attack Destroyers
Helicopters and Attack Helicopters and Navy Helicopters
Special Forces and Seals and RDU
Land Based Cruise and Conventional Missile Batteries
Aircraft Carriers and Helicopter Carriers
All Bases
All Airports

Mndz what would be the point of destroying targets with batteries if it does not kill the garrisons?

Merging could be first or second step depending on complexity. I completely agree that it makes no sense to have so onesided weapons and also all weapons should have their place in fight.

John, damage points to win war.

Winning war would be balance between occupation and inflicted war damage. I see no point in just blowing everything up..

Like in real war, you can shoot many missiles from ships or bombard from huge range, but this will not win the war. To win the war you need tanks and art to land on the ground.

I think if destroying a target does not kill the garrison it should weaken their effectiveness somehow. That way batteries can play a role in the ground war but not be completely dominant.

Sure, that is also a very good idea.

Interesting materials here.
thank you for the effort.

we are looking into weapons and ammo from time to time.

There are good reasons to look into it again because the cost is decreased recently and keeps falling.

next round, we will take these ideas into consideration.
obviously, as you can imagine, there is currently a lot to do.

Hi Andy,

I think John's proposal of making garrisons weaker after targets destruction can be implemented simply by causing damage to garrison upon target destruction, but not completely destroying it together(of course this only applies for targets which are repaired like cities, while targets like fortifications/corporations cannot be repaired when fully destroyed so garrison must die together). In this way supply units could resupply garrisons to full strength but garrison could be only destroyed by land weapons during occupations of the country.

Regarding upgrade of weapons it is of course the best idea is to merge them, but I image that this is very complex and might rather be a long term development. In the short time I think it would be pretty easy to change some weapons statistics and price to change the war dynamics. I propose the following:

• Make batteries/ships/planes inefficient against Forts and land weap