Combat is horrible

[SupMellow?]

Honestly, at some point, some units need to become obsolete. It's dumb that your special forces geared with exosuits still get hit for a bunch of damage by villagers protecting a town with machetes.

Here's a screenshot of a jungle brigades who took a -45 from a random villager.

Also, why do we have to wait until exosuits to get more mobility on units? Shouldn't you be able to paradrop units or something? I have neural implants, exosuits, yet I can't move my troops around, and they still get huge movement penalties from crossing a river?

Another thing. I was Italy before I went Brazil, and so I had the alpinists. I think it would be cool if special forces would get some of the bonuses you had from your special units of the past. At least it would make it cooler. Not like it would matter much, since damage is all but completely random.

https://imgur.com/a/TwhZaTM

In a 8 vs 8 battle where I have 8 special forces vs 8 citizens armed with machetes, I shouldn't even be losing a single unit. But, I always lose 1, because they'll rush the same unit over and over again, going from 100 to 0, until they eventually kill 1. It doesn't make any sense. It's like they're fighting on top of a pile of dead people like absolute braindead zombies.

[Daliena]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Originally posted by Daliena:

And then teching up becomes king over all, as being left behind even slightly is an immediate death sentence..

Just like in the Real World. As it is, the game is already like that. 5 Musketeers will demolish 10 Crossbowmen.

Games =/= real world

Also, 5 musketeers might win, but I severely doubt they'd win without any casualties (as it should be - early muskets were pretty bad anyway.)

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by jonoliveira12:

Originally posted by Daliena:

And then teching up becomes king over all, as being left behind even slightly is an immediate death sentence..

Just like in the Real World. As it is, the game is already like that. 5 Musketeers will demolish 10 Crossbowmen.

Really? I don't think they would even if they're just standing in a line a few feet from each other and that's not even how real world combat is resolved, even paintball tournies. Crossbows are still deadly weapons and very accurate too if you know how to use them. Plus, they're almost silent. I'd still give even odds on crossbowmen in a modern assault rifle v crossbows contest in an urban or forest envirnoment. Give the crossbowmen NVG and fight at night and the odds of crossbows winning improve drastically.

But even if that's a daft comparison, it's still a game, not a wargame or combat simulator. Units have a strength value and the two units strengths are modified by certain factors and the compared and that's pretty much all there is to it. So, you're going to see futuristic exo-suited warriors being damaged by primitives with spears in this GAME.

And to the thread in general, who cares what Youtube streamers think about features anyway, especially Jumbo? I'm not a sheep. I can decide for myself and don't need the approval of some random dude with a Youtube account.

[SupMellow?]

Yeah. That's why Navy Seals are now using crossbows to fight in urban areas. It takes 7 second to reload a crossbow, and that's not even taking in consideration the aiming and shooting time, it can get longer than that.

Modern assault rifles are very very precise, and they can shoot a lot of bullets in a very short amount of time. The odds of landing a significant blow with a crossbow is very very low.

With modern guns, you can use penetrator rounds that can go through wooden surfaces like a knife through butter. lol

I like my odds a lot better with an assault rifle, Doctor.

[Cyber_Wizard]

This whole post, is the most beautiful thing I read this afternoon ^^

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by Scarfox:

Yeah. That's why Navy Seals are now using crossbows to fight in urban areas. It takes 7 second to reload a crossbow, and that's not even taking in consideration the aiming and shooting time, it can get longer than that.

Modern assault rifles are very very precise, and they can shoot a lot of bullets in a very short amount of time. The odds of landing a significant blow with a crossbow is very very low.

With modern guns, you can use penetrator rounds that can go through wooden surfaces like a knife through butter. lol

I like my odds a lot better with an assault rifle, Doctor.

If you know where to shoot, sure, modern assault rifles win. But THAT's the point. Nobody stands in a line and faces off like that. Crossbows are extremely deadly weapons even by today's standards anyway.

[Punished Man]

Originally posted by The Doctor:

Originally posted by Scarfox:

Yeah. That's why Navy Seals are now using crossbows to fight in urban areas. It takes 7 second to reload a crossbow, and that's not even taking in consideration the aiming and shooting time, it can get longer than that.

Modern assault rifles are very very precise, and they can shoot a lot of bullets in a very short amount of time. The odds of landing a significant blow with a crossbow is very very low.

With modern guns, you can use penetrator rounds that can go through wooden surfaces like a knife through butter. lol

I like my odds a lot better with an assault rifle, Doctor.

If you know where to shoot, sure, modern assault rifles win. But THAT's the point. Nobody stands in a line and faces off like that. Crossbows are extremely deadly weapons even by today's standards anyway.

knives are still extremely deadly weapons... nobody would only bring a knife to a gun fight though

your point about crossbows being effective weapons in modern war is simple not reality especially if we consider what military units in a game like this are supposed to represent

[iamjamiam]

All I've got to say is that if you're in an 8v8, with Peasants vs those Jungle Brigades and you lost any, then you are doing it wrong. Especially since it looks like you were the attacker.

You get to move and fire first. Your range is 4. Even with crappy line of sight, as might be expected from that screenshot, you should have cleared 4 of the enemy with the first attack, and stayed on your side of the river, not wading in, like the screenshot shows. Then, if the enemy melee rushed you, they should have lost the rest of its troops as it attacked you. If it didn't rush you, then your 2nd attack should have cleared the walls again. Round 3, waltz into an empty city.

Occasionally, the AI will do a smart thing like hide a unit back out of LOS in the middle of the city, so it might take a 2nd turn to take the city, if you're playing to minimize casualties.

Sorry to be 'that guy' but it sounds like a L2P problem and not one with the game mechanics.

[SupMellow?]

Originally posted by iamjamiam:

All I've got to say is that if you're in an 8v8, with Peasants vs those Jungle Brigades and you lost any, then you are doing it wrong. Especially since it looks like you were the attacker.

You get to move and fire first. Your range is 4. Even with crappy line of sight, as might be expected from that screenshot, you should have cleared 4 of the enemy with the first attack, and stayed on your side of the river, not wading in, like the screenshot shows. Then, if the enemy melee rushed you, they should have lost the rest of its troops as it attacked you. If it didn't rush you, then your 2nd attack should have cleared the walls again. Round 3, waltz into an empty city.

Occasionally, the AI will do a smart thing like hide a unit back out of LOS in the middle of the city, so it might take a 2nd turn to take the city, if you're playing to minimize casualties.

Sorry to be 'that guy' but it sounds like a L2P problem and not one with the game mechanics.

You hate to be that guy, but you clearly are.

I was stuck in a situation where I couldn't go back because I had accepted peace with this AI when my troops were stuck between two of his cities. So, after figuring that, I had to get into another battle with him to unstuck my troops because he didn't want to hear anything about open borders.

So when you start a combat like this, you only have a few tiles available to you, and I was at the limit. Because they didn't figure out how to climb walls or something, even with those neural implants and exo-skeletons. Battle arenas are trash, and so is this game combat.

This situation isn't a l2p issue, because it still doesn't make sense no matter how you see it. Those jungle brigades are boosted with, like i've said, if someone like you can read, exoskeleton which improves their power and speed. How do melee units to catch up to them in a fight while also crossing a river remains a mystery to the rest of humanity.

Could I have played it better. Sure? Was I being ultra tactical about it. BUT, that's not the freakin point now, is it?

[iamjamiam]

Originally posted by Scarfox:

Could I have played it better. Sure? Was I being ultra tactical about it. BUT, that's not the freakin point now, is it?

Perhaps the "freakin point" is that you're being too literal on the unit descriptions, and getting hung up on what you believe to be a sense of "reality" rather than accepting that the evolution of the units throughout the tech tree are more a game mechanism? Thus the scaling through the game is meant to represent rough technological deltas between the opponents instead of exact unit and equipment compositions.

I understand your complaint, but feel that you are making a mountain out of a molehill, instead of accepting the abstraction as a case of good game play mechanics. Of course, opinions vary, and none are more right than another. Feel free to disagree with me, as I will with you.

[SupMellow?]

That's fine. You have the right to continue believing that machete-wielding citizens should take down fully geared, end of the tech tree, special forces while also swimming from one side of a river to another.

The soldiers with guns waited until the dudes with machetes got in melee in front of them to start firing, and so everyone took some damage. It's great design. Please continue disagreeing. But It won't be with me, because you're going directly to my ignore list.

Be well, please drink a lot of water.

[vladimirov.victor.78]

Hello everyone,
without going in to argues with anyone here i would like to say that both sides are right:

1. Late game you have an increase of 4 strength of 40-50 total for a new tech unit , which is of course not realistic and not fun at all. Whats the point in doing the techs after the first rifles ? you can just mass produce 2-3 tier tech lower units and take over everyone.

2. There is no fun in walking with an uber army either on the entire map. So therefore older tech should be doing some damage and even killing some units , but not with machetes. Simply said this is not yet balanced well.

Instead of fighting who is wrong and right , give some ideas how to balance a beautiful game in its early stages of development.

My suggestion: simply give a bit more combat strength on newer units , or introduce accuracy in the game which will make it a lot more fun with the terrain and a lot more realistic.

If you line up 50 soldiers against 50 soldiers : first ones would have latest assault rifles from 5 years ago and second 50 would have a 1980 assault rifle , the result will be almost the same. But combat doesn't go that way as we all know. If we speak about reality in this scenario about 30% of the late tier soldiers should be dead while killing all of the others. And then again there can be this case that the better equipped soldiers will be surprised and loose.

Now another case is putting tanks against rifles and rifles win ...is it possible , yes but highly unlikely, let alone vs swords....such a battle will be a first in all human history.

Honestly i am not going to continue with examples as we all know them. Just wait a bit they will balance it all.

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by Scarfox:

Originally posted by The Doctor:

If you know where to shoot, sure, modern assault rifles win. But THAT's the point. Nobody stands in a line and faces off like that. Crossbows are extremely deadly weapons even by today's standards anyway.

I don't even understand where people like you come from? It's like, so strange to me. In your tiny mind, you'd pick a crossbow over an assault rifle because you somehow believe you have better vision stats while holding a crossbow? Just take a moment to think about the stupidity of your claim, and then come back. I took the time to explain why you were wrong and you still argue that a crossbow is somehow better... Ugh... Contrarians, man. And the Earth is also flat, right?

I won't attempt to convince you of anything. I'm pretty sure if I posted about breathing being good for you, you'd come here to argue that it isn't.

Nope. Never said that. Read again... ooh, no you won't because you think this is nonsense.

I'd pick a crossbow over an assault rifle? Nope, never said that either. It's all in my posts which you appear to have misunderstood for some reason.

Yes, if you're going to have a gun fight in an open field, assault rifle wins every time, regardless of the extent of training because 'safety off, point in the general direction and pull the trigger'. Never said it didn't. You appear to have completely misunderstood my post for some reason. I'm not going to repeat it because I know you're not going to read it.

Where do people like me come from? Not sure (well, I am :D) what you're trying to imply there but perhaps you're just unaccustomed to people disagreeing with you. Too bad.

[\Forever Alone/]

only good combat unit is helicopter and ranged units. Ignore else because game contains lot of cheese with Ai and army buffs in game. Even more when upgrading and getting these cost lot compared older troops.

[SupMellow?]

Originally posted by The Doctor:

Originally posted by Scarfox:

I don't even understand where people like you come from? It's like, so strange to me. In your tiny mind, you'd pick a crossbow over an assault rifle because you somehow believe you have better vision stats while holding a crossbow? Just take a moment to think about the stupidity of your claim, and then come back. I took the time to explain why you were wrong and you still argue that a crossbow is somehow better... Ugh... Contrarians, man. And the Earth is also flat, right?

I won't attempt to convince you of anything. I'm pretty sure if I posted about breathing being good for you, you'd come here to argue that it isn't.

Nope. Never said that. Read again... ooh, no you won't because you think this is nonsense.

I'd pick a crossbow over an assault rifle? Nope, never said that either. It's all in my posts which you appear to have misunderstood for some reason.

Yes, if you're going to have a gun fight in an open field, assault rifle wins every time, regardless of the extent of training because 'safety off, point in the general direction and pull the trigger'. Never said it didn't. You appear to have completely misunderstood my post for some reason. I'm not going to repeat it because I know you're not going to read it.

Where do people like me come from? Not sure (well, I am :D) what you're trying to imply there but perhaps you're just unaccustomed to people disagreeing with you. Too bad.

There's nothing to disagree about. Nobody spoke of any crossbows until you did. The enemies had machetes, not crossbows. Crossbows can kill from range, machetes can't.

I don't know what else to say. If you want to have a chat to compare modern assault rifles to crossbows, you could start a discussion about it. In another post. :P

[\Forever Alone/]

Whole issue modern unit taking out older units should be balaced by economy costs and unit traits. Like helicopter in not harmable by melee. If swarm of musketmen comes after heli, they need lot people shoot it down.

Added meybe add military buildings for set unit order to getting them. Perhaps economy upgrades is needed to maintain large army.