Patch Suggestions

[Bonescorpion]

Currently came back and saw a lot of the changes that were made to the game, loved the buff of Zooks and Heli's. May I make a suggestion that Flamers need a slight buff on range and a big buff on damage. I also feel that the rate of fire needs to be increased on snipers or that their damage needs to be changed to missle damage. Another thing to look at is to make the stinger's fire as a gun instead of a missle and increasing their hp's as well.
As far as heli's I also would suggest that the gunship's attack be changed to missle damage as well. Considering that the GAU-8 is almost identical to what is used on an A-10 it definately should be able to cause more then 1 damage to tanks.
Also dont forget about the bug with tank armor upgrades. Upgrades give 15% per upgrade and yet tanks only get 10%. This makes the armor upgrade almost useless against anything but high damage infantry that uses gun damage.
I would be happy to explain more in detail if people would like, I also understand that some of these mechanics cannot or are very difficult to change
Bone

[10010 1111 10]

I agree on flamers needing a buff, but I would suggest limiting that buff to a significant increase in damage output only. I think the short range of them is realistic. Tho I fail to see why they upgrade as siege but w/e. As for stingers, a slight increase to attack and a significant bump in hp might be nice but I wouldn't change them to gun damage(if that's even possible) simply because of their intended purpose as AA. Snipers I would leave alone, adding an increasing to their rate of fire would, in my opinion, given their current range, damage, and stealth ability, would make them significantly overpowered. Tank armor, I don't know I'm on the fence about that one.

[Wardog]

is it possible to make priests or crusaders convert aggressively, as in anything near them or make it work with control + right click?

[Bonescorpion]

My reasons for the Stingers changed to gun damage is that the problem with stingers is that their missles do not hit before a bomber can unleash their payload.It is too easy to for a player to take out a group of stingers at the cost of maybe one unit. Gun damage is instantaneous. Missles do not retarget after a unit is destroyed so a destroyed unit can soak up a lot of missles even though it has been destroyed. I suppose a buff to HP's would make them a bit more useful, I also think that giving them an increase in damage is irrelevant.
Another possible solution is to replace the stinger with a partisan, they already do gun damage and have higher hp's. They would probably need a bit of a damage buff, and the fact that they are considered infantry and cost iron instead of gold would be interesting. I would love to see a civ that actually used Bundswehr with this!!! Instant AA!!!

My problems with snipers is that along with zooks they are one of the few units in the game that are only effective againts 1/3 of the RPS triangle. Normally units are at effective against 2/3 or powerful against 1/3 and usefull against another 1/3, and then vulnerable to the other 1/3 (I am going to leave air out of this becuase thats a whole other argument). Generally Snipers use an Anti-Material rifle. This is designed to damage armored vehicles, as well as antipersonal uses. In its current form snipers at max can do 30 damage to unupgraded tank armor tank. They are just as useless against AT guns simply because their rate of fire is so slow. One of the issues stems in how the game was designed and that Snipers get the largest multiplier in the game vs military units in 12x.
Another possible solution would be to lower the cost and build time. For the cost they are just not worth it.

As far as tank armor, compare it to sword calvary in Indy. First off the civ bonus is 20% and then I believe the upgrades afterward account for 9 and 10. This roughly equates to 60% for in game upgrades and 20% for the civ. This is very unusual since normally in game upgrades are 15% with a minimum of 1. Currenly tank armor upgrades are 10% in game. The max armor on a tank equates to 76 or 30% more then the standard armor. Why would almost every other upgrade (disregarding the ones that only do 1 because of small numbers) in the game do a minimum of 15%. A simple buff to 15% would allow tanks to get 84 armor instead of 76. A small but noticable upgrade that might actually make amror a useful upgrade in Atomic warfare. My only concern is that it might create a more complex RPS triangle with AT>Leo>M1>AT instead of the current AT>Leo>M1<AT. Of course it would also lower the damage output of a leo vs M1. Although 8 less damage is not a big deal IMO (I honestly cant recall if gun armor is taken after modifyers, I did tests of it years ago but it is lost for good).

[Captain Nemo]

after the sniper critique I stopped reading cause the rest must have been nonsense too.

[Bonescorpion]

Nonsense, kinda like your ability to form a coherent thought? Troll.......

[Captain Nemo]

Do you even play modern? You play aoc right? Why would you argue that a sniper is bad out of something written in the ee manual?

[Ghost]

Snipers don't need more tweaking. They have a long range and camo ability that is a useful tool for scouting or extending the line of sight in a battle. Sure, they don't get used that often in AoC Mod TL because they are expensive, but their worth is more than you think for other situations.

But, do you really think a "sniper" is supposed to be effective against a "tank"? They might be using an anti-material rifle (in modern warfare) as you say, but do you really think that in a large scale battle (such as the ones that occur in EE) snipers will be firing at tanks? The purpose for a rifle like that is to disable a small vehicle or to hit personnel on the other side of an obstacle. Its primary use isn't killing tanks. And, in EE the sniper is technically a WW1 unit. In WW1 did they have .50-caliber sniper rifles that shot all kinds of different specialty rounds?


And you want M1 > AT? Seriously? It's called "anti-tank" for a reason.

[Captain Nemo]

I think if u run a small test with fana inf vs a leopard without armor up and one with you will see that increasing the armor just a little will have a huge effect, actually up to around 300-500 percent better resistance. Look at imps the same way. From no armor ups to full armor up gives a huuuge advantage. You can't argue from the numbers and maths in the battle. Besides ur triangle seems to be a bit fucked sorry. There is a triangle in modern called inf>at>tank>inf, but modern offers such a wide range of useful units that you hardly ever think of this as air plays a large role too.

[Bonescorpion]

First off, M1's are a viable counter for AT if you use the attack upgrade. They cannot go 1:1 vs AT but they hold their own, especially with morale. Leo's are a counter to tanks/infantry while M1's are a counter to AT/Infantry.
You would think that if you had ever played Modern AOC you would know who I am. My reputation is very good, and the fact that you have never heard of me is enough for many to dismiss you.
For those that think that Antitank rifles were not in use I present a simple wikipedia search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_rifle. If you note the special attention to what is called the K Bullet. It says issued to only snipers and advanced marksmen. I rest my case since it was during WWI.

Where is the realism in a marine with max attack (civ and in game upgrade) killing a tank? Nevermind fanatacism.

By Nemo's arguement Inf>AT>Tank>Inf thats too simple a triangle. First off where do Zooks and Snipers fall in? Neighter can effectively kill AT, and what about the German Tank>Tank debate. German tanks kill tanks at the cost of being more vulnerable to AT guns, while M1's kill tanks poorly at the expense of being less vulnerable to AT and cheaper. The armor upgrade is a way to improve your unit. Just like any other upgrade.

[Ghost]

For those that think that Antitank rifles were not in use I present a simple wikipedia search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_rifle. If you note the special attention to what is called the K Bullet. It says issued to only snipers and advanced marksmen. I rest my case since it was during WWI.

Just because they "had" them doesn't mean they commonly "used" them. They most certainly weren't standard issue.
Also:

Even as the rounds were introduced, tanks were being designed and built with thicker armour rendering these rounds largely ineffective, though they remained in use against the older designs and armoured cars. The first purposely-designed infantry anti-tank rifle was designed by Germany. This large-calibre rifle was capable of penetrating the armour of the newer generations of tanks and allowed a chance at stopping them. However, other techniques were still preferred.

[Bonescorpion]

Of course they werent standard issue, as well as tanks were not introduced until 1917 I believe.
The point is that the sniper is used for other things outside of killing infantry. If you honestly dont feel that they can kill a tank where is the argument against AT guns?

[孫子兵法]

I have words to say.

Stinger men are use good in modern game. They cheap fast to make, but not good as flak halftrack or anti-air or fighter. This is right. They best against fighter and helicopter, but not too worse against bomber. I do not understand what you mean when you say bomber kill group... surely anyone with brain spread unit out. You have brain yes? I also not understand all shoot at 1 bomber all time... u know micro? Is not hard, but you can not be lazy like cow.

At helicopter gunship, this not reality. Is game! Decision must be what is good for game, make game interesting fun. Helicopter gunship very good on kill men unit. Should not kill tank unit too! Is too strong... there is Anti Tank Helicopter for kill tank u know?... if u want real go join army ok? this game not work best real in all case for truth.

You say claim tank armor no good, and sniper must change at kill tank... make high tank armor sniper attack even higher must go? imbalance!

Tank armor already very good... try it vs inf. it need not be better. Even glowing infantry (fanaticism?) vs high armor tank dont kill fast. Surely you are a man who knows the chicken if you are not joke with us.

You say tank m1 must beat anti-tank but that is not like real! see, you only want like real when you want like real... when you dont want like real you want like you think is good for game. You are hippo-crit (?). so u see how mad your saying must be like real is? i desire so. plus what you say here is not true, tank m1 are fast and cheap mean better to make raid against opponent and better against infantry for cost, and tank tiger (you call "leo" i think ?) are slow and cost much, but can kill other tank good. is already offer a good choice for player with deep strategic... tank m1 not need beat anti tank and if do loose some strategic...

you later say tank m1 beat anti tank and infantry combo... you must know the chicken... 1 unit to mass beat combo that suppose to counter? so you mean that if player make infantry start and see m1 tank... they must not make ANTI TANK because will loss and must make tiger tank ("leo" ?) against person with strong civ on tank? is impossible to win there then unless rush surprise beats all. Is this what u want for game?

the sniper unit is strong now. they hide in the grass and look for your siege engines to fire on! siege engine fire kill all in lot! they also kill men unit very good. why they must kill tank and anti tank too? if so they kill all land unit... we have already discussed your hippo-cracy (?) on real vs good for game to, so you have no merit argument there.

if we look at attack by stratagem we may learn parallel here... if idea not united, proposition fail. in whole scope, you want all unit more powerful and imbalanced, and make player use SNIPER as only gold unit kill tank not ANTI TANK lol... i possible go on but all must see you are know the chicken now.

[Bonescorpion]

I have words to say.

Stinger men are use good in modern game. They cheap fast to make, but not good as flak halftrack or anti-air or fighter. This is right. They best against fighter and helicopter, but not too worse against bomber. I do not understand what you mean when you say bomber kill group... surely anyone with brain spread unit out. You have brain yes? I also not understand all shoot at 1 bomber all time... u know micro? Is not hard, but you can not be lazy like cow.

At helicopter gunship, this not reality. Is game! Decision must be what is good for game, make game interesting fun. Helicopter gunship very good on kill men unit. Should not kill tank unit too! Is too strong... there is Anti Tank Helicopter for kill tank u know?... if u want real go join army ok? this game not work best real in all case for truth.

You say claim tank armor no good, and sniper must change at kill tank... make high tank armor sniper attack even higher must go? imbalance!

Tank armor already very good... try it vs inf. it need not be better. Even glowing infantry (fanaticism?) vs high armor tank dont kill fast. Surely you are a man who knows the chicken if you are not joke with us.

You say tank m1 must beat anti-tank but that is not like real! see, you only want like real when you want like real... when you dont want like real you want like you think is good for game. You are hippo-crit (?). so u see how mad your saying must be like real is? i desire so. plus what you say here is not true, tank m1 are fast and cheap mean better to make raid against opponent and better against infantry for cost, and tank tiger (you call "leo" i think ?) are slow and cost much, but can kill other tank good. is already offer a good choice for player with deep strategic... tank m1 not need beat anti tank and if do loose some strategic...

you later say tank m1 beat anti tank and infantry combo... you must know the chicken... 1 unit to mass beat combo that suppose to counter? so you mean that if player make infantry start and see m1 tank... they must not make ANTI TANK because will loss and must make tiger tank ("leo" ?) against person with strong civ on tank? is impossible to win there then unless rush surprise beats all. Is this what u want for game?

the sniper unit is strong now. they hide in the grass and look for your siege engines to fire on! siege engine fire kill all in lot! they also kill men unit very good. why they must kill tank and anti tank too? if so they kill all land unit... we have already discussed your hippo-cracy (?) on real vs good for game to, so you have no merit argument there.

if we look at attack by stratagem we may learn parallel here... if idea not united, proposition fail. in whole scope, you want all unit more powerful and imbalanced, and make player use SNIPER as only gold unit kill tank not ANTI TANK lol... i possible go on but all must see you are know the chicken now.

First off, I explained very well why these units ARE NOT BALANCED. Dont give micro garbage about the stingers. You expect to micro 20 stingers on incoming bombers, dont think so. I can see that your primary language is not English and since I dont speak yours I will not get into the whole calling me a chicken and hypocrit.
The Tank armor IS an issue. Why in the whole game are all in game upgrades 15%>1 but the Tank Armor is not? I dont want to hear about sniper's camoflage. If it was like camoflage civ bonus then we would talk, but they are visable at 1/3 LOS I believe. This is slightly useful and I myself have used them for artillery spotting. This does not make them powerful just a damn expensive balloon. As far as massing one unit of course that wont work, any good player never relies totally on one unit, and expects to have to counter whatever their enemy is countering with. The point is that Tank armor is useless to upgrade against anything but high damage (fanat) or maxed out damage marines. Why waste that, make it useful to upgrade the armor instead of HP's or attack.

[孫子兵法]

First off, I explained very well why these units ARE NOT BALANCED. Dont give micro garbage about the stingers. You expect to micro 20 stingers on incoming bombers, dont think so. I can see that your primary language is not English and since I dont speak yours I will not get into the whole calling me a chicken and hypocrit.
The Tank armor IS an issue. Why in the whole game are all in game upgrades 15%>1 but the Tank Armor is not? I dont want to hear about sniper's camoflage. If it was like camoflage civ bonus then we would talk, but they are visable at 1/3 LOS I believe. This is slightly useful and I myself have used them for artillery spotting. This does not make them powerful just a damn expensive balloon. As far as massing one unit of course that wont work, any good player never relies totally on one unit, and expects to have to counter whatever their enemy is countering with. The point is that Tank armor is useless to upgrade against anything but high damage (fanat) or maxed out damage marines. Why waste that, make it useful to upgrade the armor instead of HP's or attack.

I am having my friend translate this post so there is no confusion about what I am saying.

Your explanations were poor, at best. I will ignore the "in the real world" line of argumentation you presented entirely here, because it is evident this is a game, not reality, and the only things that matter when balancing a game is objectively improving competitive gameplay.

Stingers are not extremely effective against bombers, and this is obvious and intentional by the game designers. My point regarding them and micro was that you seriously undervalued their utility against bombers because you assumed automatically they would be used in such a way as to minimize their utility against bombers (no one except a novice will actually use them as described), and essentially ignored their greater utility against other air units. Stingers fill a role--they are cheap, easily producible anti-air units that trades those positive qualities with the negative quality of being comparatively weak against air in relation to other anti-air units available. That is their role--as supplemental anti-air units before you can switch to making more effective ones when you begin with infantry. They fill this role very well--just because the role requires them to be sub-par in relation to other options, does not make them bad. They are in fact good, as their function cannot be replicated by the flak halftrack, 88mm anti air gun, or f-15 fighter, and the function of all of those units is also good, because they fill their role very well. By focusing exclusively on bombers, and making assumptions that make singers as bad as they could be against bombers, you are leaving out what they ARE very good at in your argument. They are an excellent, cheap, fast to build mobile anti-air unit that is effective against helicopters and fighters, and isn't terrible against bombers when employed properly. Their trade off is ease of creation and mobility at the cost of strength, just like the trade off of the flak halftrack is strength at the cost of ease of creation, and the trade off for the 88mm anti air gun is strength at the cost of mobility.

You keep saying tank armor is an issue because the percentage is different than the armor upgrade for every other unit in the game. Have you ever once considered that it is different because the developers realized realized that tank armor is good, or was too good at the same percentage as every other unit, and thus lowered it? I do not think this a stretch, and as for you repeatedly saying that it's no good to upgrade except when they have infantry with high attack or fanaticism, even if such infantry was rare it would not negate anything, as in that situation upgrading armor would have a very useful purpose, for which it is well balanced. Outside of that situation, increasing it will not do much good, other than to as you put it, possibly make m1 tanks beat anti-tanks, which is silly and should not happen--they are already strong enough against anti-tank units. It seems to me as if there is little point in increasing armor as it fills its job perfectly, and increasing it will only have potentially negative and silly consequences on balance.

Why do you not want to hear about the sniper's camouflage bonus? It is an extremely useful and effective bonus if you understand how to use it. It is not as good as the camouflage civilization power, but you are not paying such a heavy price for it in terms of civilization points. They are not expensive balloons, as they are capable of shooting at infantry and citizens and killing them very quickly, as well as getting closer than balloons ever could without being spotted by using scout so they do not fire. When doing this, they do not get instantly killed, like any balloon would. The role of the sniper is to kill infantry efficiently. They do that. In addition to that, when used properly they get you the best sight for your artillery, which is clearly the strongest land unit in world war 1 through the modern eras. I do not see how being very good at what they are intended to do, and being the only thing that allows the most deadly land unit in these eras (and possibly most deadly unit in these eras entirely!) to operate at maximum power makes them weak.

I said what I said about massing one unit because of what you said about what will happen if m1 tank armor is increased--that they will beat anti tank units now. In this case, the infantry player has no good recourse to beat a tank player if a rush does not kill the player. They can make Bazookas, yes, but they get worse as time goes on in the game (assuming Bazookas still beat them even!), they can make Anti-Tanks, but according to you m1 tanks beat them now, so there is little point. They can make leopard tanks, but the tank player can make stronger leopard tanks and in greater numbers. Their only options left are to make anti tank helicopters, or anti tank air, which in the first case loses to flak halftracks which are again very easy for the tank player to produce, or in the second case causes the tank player to simply get a few fighters (investing a lower resource cost in air than the infantry player to totally void their resource's effect). This leads players to only rushing as fast as possible with infantry, or going tanks for wing. M1 tanks are clearly too good in this situation, but my point was that to beat something that right now does beat, and is the best counter against m1 tanks for a player who starts infantry (doing infantry and anti tank), one would need to only mass m1s to beat it.