Weewar Forum

**spadequack** · This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 17/07/2010 03:20:49

RockyDog wrote:

spadequack wrote:Here is the graph of credits spent per unit from players who have been with Weewar for more than a year. This should be biased toward more experienced and skilled pro players.

now only show us 1+ years AND NO TRIAL accounts. that tank count is still way too high for any real experienced player.

while we're at it - how about fixing the tank unit? if nothing else increase its attack vs hover units by 2ish. a m1a1 abrams should shred a hovercraft. even without a direct hit, think about all the damage from the shrapnel as it gets up into the hovers fans.

I'll see if we can get that graph without trial accounts.

About tanks - Hm. We'll consider that. Bert did increase tank attack vs Hard from 7 to 8 last time around. What does everyone else think?

@jeye - About speedboats, yeah, changing their cost was probably a bad move on our part.

Stirling also mentioned that about speedboats. He also said he would prefer Helicopters moving 3-3. Their role would become a bit more hit-and-run than currently on the live server. This would help with them retreating in the sea and also in taking out front line troopers safely (for issue #5). He recommended a number of other things which we'll also consider when we make changes in two weeks.

**McMonster**

this is bold and ambitious. i am impressed. represents a lot of thinking and doing from SQ, the other devs, and the community. looking forward to providing my feedback after some testing.

my only strong reaction to the description of the changes has been covered re: speedboats.

**RockyDog**

toyed with the new units on the test server.
initial thoughts.

1) even at a cheaper price - BB now hamstrung vs naval units. not sure why i'd get one other than the chance to take 2 shots vs 1.
2) dd should have SOME damage vs subs. no naval (war)ship is that defenseless. at least zoc.

was there a rationale for downgrading the BB?

give dd att str 6 vs subs - will do 1-2 damage and exert zoc on subs. like BB vs jets.

The other stuff will take getting used to but intriguing. not sure if i like or dislike just yet.

**troup**

A bomber should have some small defense against a jet.

Anti-aircraft cheaper? (takes a lot to down any plane) or having a random possiblity of being more effective?

**Nosaj**

I'm with RockyDog's latest comments.

1. BBs should be king of the sea (and shore, to an extent), but they do too little damage now. I liked it better when they were strongest but with significant vulnerabilities (to subs, bombers).

2. Agree on *some* anti-sub capabilities and zoc for destroyers.

Otherwise, so far, naval warfare has certainly been more diverse and interesting.

**jeye**

I like the changes to the Battleship which can still be used as a first shooter against cruisers and destroyers and for effective for naval attacks against land.
If the Battleship would do as much damage to boats as before the destroyer would have quite restricted use.

I think the Jet is to strong (and the spending on jets is rather high on the graphs) against ground units since you can normally do decent damage with it so that it is offen better to build the jet instead of helicopter or bomber if you want to fight land units. The jet has a higher defense gets less damage and can fight other aircraft to well to do decent damage against land units.
I suggest to adapt the attacks for a jet to the following:
Soft/Hard/Amph./Air/Boat/Speedboat/Sub: 4 / 4 / 4 / 16 / 4 / 4 / 0

This way the damage against everything but air is pretty low so that the jet would primarily be used as an anti air unit and a blocker (due to high defense).

This imo better than improving anti air (because the anti air works well if you know how to use it) or giving a bomber the ability to damage air units.

**Ecko**

I didn't try any of the new changes but here is my opinion based on looking at the stats.

1) Jets are to strong. I never build bombers because jets are more effective against more units. Turn down the defense on jets or
2) Bombers are too defenseless against jets. Turn up the defense against jets?
3) Anti-Air is too weak. It takes 2 or 3 anti air over 2 or 3 rounds to take down one aircraft. And thats if your lucky by positioning and timing your attacks just right. Either turn up the damage on AA's or increase mobility.
4) Currently, Subs are one time throw-away unit. They do alot of damage to naval units, but they never survive to fight another day. Maybe turn down the effectiveness of all naval units vs subs? Plus, subs should have the ability to attack ground targets from sea.
5) Berserkers with the ability to attack twice is a bad idea. They would kill everything in 1 round. Maybe you should make them cheaper.
6) Helo's are next to useless right now. In real life, they are very versatile and very mobile. Helo's should be effective against all ground targets and be more mobile.

Thats it for now. Can't wait to test the new naval units!

**Casaubon**

Hi there I like all new changes, they certainly make sea battles more diverse, also the overpriced berserker needed this upgrade badly... testing new stuff now on the testserver & will write my experiences later.

There is 1 thing you could call it a detail for naval buffs, but still I`m not happy with it:
here is a quote from wikipedias page about cruisers

"...from the 1890s to the 1950s a 'cruiser' was a warship larger than a destroyer but smaller than a battleship."

Throughout the 20th century cruisers were the more powerfull ships than destroyers, they had simply a larger hull, plating & firepower, while destroyers were the lighter class built in larger numbers.

So I`m afraid the names of those 2 ships really should be exchanged

also in modern navys cruisers are always listed as larger vessels above destroyers:
1.aircraft carriers
2.battleships (do not exist any more)
3.CRUISERS
4.destroyers
5.frigates
6.corvettes
7.patrol and missile boats
8.mine layers
9.amphibious

so pleeeease.... could you exchange names for cruisers and destroyers since cruisers should be the ones who punch and destroyers the ones who support?

**AO1784**

I think anti-air for 300 is quite fair. In most cases, they are behind the front lines, thus allowing them to repair. I also note that buying just 1 AA gun and expecting that a successful counter to jets is wrong. As other players have mentioned, you need to but a few of them to be effective, and 4 or 5 could be quite an effective deterrent while protecting one's artillery.

**fn0000rd** · This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 23/07/2010 18:19:10

yoda12 wrote:I think air units should by repair on bases 1 or 2 points per round (50% chance) and on the airports 3 points.

^ This. They should also get less of a defense bonus when on a base compared to an airfield, if any.

Also, I really dislike AA as it currently stands.

AO1784 wrote:I think anti-air for 300 is quite fair. In most cases, they are behind the front lines, thus allowing them to repair. I also note that buying just 1 AA gun and expecting that a successful counter to jets is wrong. As other players have mentioned, you need to but a few of them to be effective, and 4 or 5 could be quite an effective deterrent while protecting one's artillery.

So make it more expensive, yet more effective. Churning out 4 or 5 AA guns takes 4 or 5 turns, during which that base can't build anything else.

[edit]After a couple of rounds, the Destroyers definitely provide some balance the AA equation, but they're useless on big land maps. Something similar on land would be nice.

**Casaubon**

what about decreasing jet's defense somehow

**Darkbee**

I think Casabon touched on this but unless I'm reading it wrong you have Cruisers and Destroyers mixed up. Cruisers are meant to be beasts of ships that deal death and destruction to sea and land based targets, while destroyers are supporting ships designed as a counter measure to subs and to a lesser extent air attack. So... Cruisers have dirty, great big guns and missiles; destroyers have depth charges and ack-ack guns.

Just thought I'd toss that into the pot as a non-active, semi-retired, still bitter, former mayor, Weewar member.

**CaptainCupCake**

I want to form that last sentence into an acronym, but can't

**Tygerdave**

Darkbee wrote:I think Casabon touched on this but unless I'm reading it wrong you have Cruisers and Destroyers mixed up. Cruisers are meant to be beasts of ships that deal death and destruction to sea and land based targets, while destroyers are supporting ships designed as a counter measure to subs and to a lesser extent air attack. So... Cruisers have dirty, great big guns and missiles; destroyers have depth charges and ack-ack guns.

Just thought I'd toss that into the pot as a non-active, semi-retired, still bitter, former mayor, Weewar member.

Just accept the invite, let me kick you around Aruba a little bit and you can get on with this being back business for real

**jeye**

I agree with Casaubon that the name of the destroyer and cruiser should be changed.

I realized that most naval units had their damage against speedboats and hovers removed. While hovers can be coutered with speedboats or raiders i see no cost effective tactic to kill enemy mass speedboats.
Lets say the enemy has 10 speedboats. How am I going to kill them without spending more than 2000?
The heavy trooper may do but only if the speedboats are closer to land - lets image they are not.

I think speedboats seriously need a weakness. For example lower damage against air units.

17/07/2010 02:53:04 Re:Unit Changes on the Test Server
spadequack Heavy Tank Offline	RockyDog wrote: spadequack wrote:Here is the graph of credits spent per unit from players who have been with Weewar for more than a year. This should be biased toward more experienced and skilled pro players. now only show us 1+ years AND NO TRIAL accounts. that tank count is still way too high for any real experienced player. while we're at it - how about fixing the tank unit? if nothing else increase its attack vs hover units by 2ish. a m1a1 abrams should shred a hovercraft. even without a direct hit, think about all the damage from the shrapnel as it gets up into the hovers fans. I'll see if we can get that graph without trial accounts. About tanks - Hm. We'll consider that. Bert did increase tank attack vs Hard from 7 to 8 last time around. What does everyone else think? @jeye - About speedboats, yeah, changing their cost was probably a bad move on our part. Stirling also mentioned that about speedboats. He also said he would prefer Helicopters moving 3-3. Their role would become a bit more hit-and-run than currently on the live server. This would help with them retreating in the sea and also in taking out front line troopers safely (for issue #5). He recommended a number of other things which we'll also consider when we make changes in two weeks. This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 17/07/2010 03:20:49
17/07/2010 05:14:23 Re:Unit Changes on the Test Server
McMonster Tank Offline	this is bold and ambitious. i am impressed. represents a lot of thinking and doing from SQ, the other devs, and the community. looking forward to providing my feedback after some testing. my only strong reaction to the description of the changes has been covered re: speedboats.
17/07/2010 11:53:42 Re:Unit Changes on the Test Server
RockyDog Berserker Offline	toyed with the new units on the test server. initial thoughts. 1) even at a cheaper price - BB now hamstrung vs naval units. not sure why i'd get one other than the chance to take 2 shots vs 1. 2) dd should have SOME damage vs subs. no naval (war)ship is that defenseless. at least zoc. was there a rationale for downgrading the BB? give dd att str 6 vs subs - will do 1-2 damage and exert zoc on subs. like BB vs jets. The other stuff will take getting used to but intriguing. not sure if i like or dislike just yet.
18/07/2010 15:53:10 Re:Unit Changes on the Test Server
troup Trooper Offline	A bomber should have some small defense against a jet. Anti-aircraft cheaper? (takes a lot to down any plane) or having a random possiblity of being more effective?
18/07/2010 23:54:46 Re:Unit Changes on the Test Server
Nosaj Heavy Trooper Offline	I'm with RockyDog's latest comments. 1. BBs should be king of the sea (and shore, to an extent), but they do too little damage now. I liked it better when they were strongest but with significant vulnerabilities (to subs, bombers). 2. Agree on some anti-sub capabilities and zoc for destroyers. Otherwise, so far, naval warfare has certainly been more diverse and interesting.
19/07/2010 12:25:32 Re:Unit Changes on the Test Server
jeye Tank Offline	I like the changes to the Battleship which can still be used as a first shooter against cruisers and destroyers and for effective for naval attacks against land. If the Battleship would do as much damage to boats as before the destroyer would have quite restricted use. I think the Jet is to strong (and the spending on jets is rather high on the graphs) against ground units since you can normally do decent damage with it so that it is offen better to build the jet instead of helicopter or bomber if you want to fight land units. The jet has a higher defense gets less damage and can fight other aircraft to well to do decent damage against land units. I suggest to adapt the attacks for a jet to the following: Soft/Hard/Amph./Air/Boat/Speedboat/Sub: 4 / 4 / 4 / 16 / 4 / 4 / 0 This way the damage against everything but air is pretty low so that the jet would primarily be used as an anti air unit and a blocker (due to high defense). This imo better than improving anti air (because the anti air works well if you know how to use it) or giving a bomber the ability to damage air units.
19/07/2010 16:30:53 Re:Unit Changes on the Test Server
Ecko Heavy Trooper Offline	I didn't try any of the new changes but here is my opinion based on looking at the stats. 1) Jets are to strong. I never build bombers because jets are more effective against more units. Turn down the defense on jets or 2) Bombers are too defenseless against jets. Turn up the defense against jets? 3) Anti-Air is too weak. It takes 2 or 3 anti air over 2 or 3 rounds to take down one aircraft. And thats if your lucky by positioning and timing your attacks just right. Either turn up the damage on AA's or increase mobility. 4) Currently, Subs are one time throw-away unit. They do alot of damage to naval units, but they never survive to fight another day. Maybe turn down the effectiveness of all naval units vs subs? Plus, subs should have the ability to attack ground targets from sea. 5) Berserkers with the ability to attack twice is a bad idea. They would kill everything in 1 round. Maybe you should make them cheaper. 6) Helo's are next to useless right now. In real life, they are very versatile and very mobile. Helo's should be effective against all ground targets and be more mobile. Thats it for now. Can't wait to test the new naval units!
20/07/2010 15:25:05 Re:Unit Changes on the Test Server
Casaubon Tank Offline	Hi there I like all new changes, they certainly make sea battles more diverse, also the overpriced berserker needed this upgrade badly... testing new stuff now on the testserver & will write my experiences later. There is 1 thing you could call it a detail for naval buffs, but still I`m not happy with it: here is a quote from wikipedias page about cruisers "...from the 1890s to the 1950s a 'cruiser' was a warship larger than a destroyer but smaller than a battleship." Throughout the 20th century cruisers were the more powerfull ships than destroyers, they had simply a larger hull, plating & firepower, while destroyers were the lighter class built in larger numbers. So I`m afraid the names of those 2 ships really should be exchanged also in modern navys cruisers are always listed as larger vessels above destroyers: 1.aircraft carriers 2.battleships (do not exist any more) 3.CRUISERS 4.destroyers 5.frigates 6.corvettes 7.patrol and missile boats 8.mine layers 9.amphibious so pleeeease.... could you exchange names for cruisers and destroyers since cruisers should be the ones who punch and destroyers the ones who support?
21/07/2010 19:39:19 Re:Unit Changes on the Test Server
AO1784 Trooper Offline	I think anti-air for 300 is quite fair. In most cases, they are behind the front lines, thus allowing them to repair. I also note that buying just 1 AA gun and expecting that a successful counter to jets is wrong. As other players have mentioned, you need to but a few of them to be effective, and 4 or 5 could be quite an effective deterrent while protecting one's artillery.
22/07/2010 12:55:06 Re:Unit Changes on the Test Server
fn0000rd Raider Offline	yoda12 wrote:I think air units should by repair on bases 1 or 2 points per round (50% chance) and on the airports 3 points. ^ This. They should also get less of a defense bonus when on a base compared to an airfield, if any. Also, I really dislike AA as it currently stands. AO1784 wrote:I think anti-air for 300 is quite fair. In most cases, they are behind the front lines, thus allowing them to repair. I also note that buying just 1 AA gun and expecting that a successful counter to jets is wrong. As other players have mentioned, you need to but a few of them to be effective, and 4 or 5 could be quite an effective deterrent while protecting one's artillery. So make it more expensive, yet more effective. Churning out 4 or 5 AA guns takes 4 or 5 turns, during which that base can't build anything else. [edit]After a couple of rounds, the Destroyers definitely provide some balance the AA equation, but they're useless on big land maps. Something similar on land would be nice. This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 23/07/2010 18:19:10
22/07/2010 14:03:27 Re:Unit Changes on the Test Server
Casaubon Tank Offline	what about decreasing jet's defense somehow
22/07/2010 16:07:17 Re:Unit Changes on the Test Server
Darkbee Berserker Offline	I think Casabon touched on this but unless I'm reading it wrong you have Cruisers and Destroyers mixed up. Cruisers are meant to be beasts of ships that deal death and destruction to sea and land based targets, while destroyers are supporting ships designed as a counter measure to subs and to a lesser extent air attack. So... Cruisers have dirty, great big guns and missiles; destroyers have depth charges and ack-ack guns. Just thought I'd toss that into the pot as a non-active, semi-retired, still bitter, former mayor, Weewar member.
22/07/2010 17:41:29 Re:Unit Changes on the Test Server
CaptainCupCake Tank Offline	I want to form that last sentence into an acronym, but can't
22/07/2010 18:01:01 Re:Unit Changes on the Test Server
Tygerdave Tank Offline	Darkbee wrote:I think Casabon touched on this but unless I'm reading it wrong you have Cruisers and Destroyers mixed up. Cruisers are meant to be beasts of ships that deal death and destruction to sea and land based targets, while destroyers are supporting ships designed as a counter measure to subs and to a lesser extent air attack. So... Cruisers have dirty, great big guns and missiles; destroyers have depth charges and ack-ack guns. Just thought I'd toss that into the pot as a non-active, semi-retired, still bitter, former mayor, Weewar member. Just accept the invite, let me kick you around Aruba a little bit and you can get on with this being back business for real
25/07/2010 11:09:44 Re:Unit Changes on the Test Server
jeye Tank Offline	I agree with Casaubon that the name of the destroyer and cruiser should be changed. I realized that most naval units had their damage against speedboats and hovers removed. While hovers can be coutered with speedboats or raiders i see no cost effective tactic to kill enemy mass speedboats. Lets say the enemy has 10 speedboats. How am I going to kill them without spending more than 2000? The heavy trooper may do but only if the speedboats are closer to land - lets image they are not. I think speedboats seriously need a weakness. For example lower damage against air units.