Age of Strategy Forums

For certain, hardened structures like cement bunkers and armored gun emplacements. I would also say the infantry units designed specifically to attack vehicles (AT rifle, pazerfaust, etc).

Maybe we should open another topic just to discuss this?

I agree the Greyhound is OP for a 2 turn unit. I support raising its production cost to 3. Also, so what we could do, we give vehicles with gunes abilitiys one is the gun, the other ability is the mg and if possible with two action. the gun ability gets the power of the xls and get i little bonus ag...

Also, I would like to say I have much less of a problem with the idea of driving a tank off a rail car, than I do of having it get up there on the car. That is why I said embark/disembark. Frankly DreJaDe, I'm surprised to hear you push back on this. I can't think of many who have put as much person...

Also, im not sure if ratte fits in rails but it shouldnt... Thats just OP. And doesnt make sense. If you see that doesn't make sense, and is just OP, it tells me your mind may unconsciously see my point. It's not just a ratte. What about karl great? Tiger 2. Elefant....etc When you say Soviet MBT, ...

I mean... Simple ramp would do the trick anywhere. :lol: yes, hammer together some wooden pallets, and drive your 55 ton tiger tank up it. Or a ratte. Yes a simple ramp does the trick anywhere. if it is not needed some balance vise, i would not do this restriction, for the favor of easier logistics...

I propose we create a train depot building. Trains require maintenance and facilities for loading/unloading cargo. For the sake of realism, I suggest trains only be allowed to embark/disembark units at depots and cities. Infantry would be an exception to this rule. The rationale of this proposal is ...

you must not compare to any other unit speeds as speeds are not comparable just going to disagree with that statement in general. IMO, 9 is way too fast. Makes more sense to give it speed 5 and just let it carry more than 4 units. Like 6. Not sure if that's possible, but if so, you'd have something...

How did we decide a train in (pre 1950) goes faster than some contemporary fighter planes? I suggest changing it to like 5 max. We are talking about coal chugging steam engines, not bullet trains.

That works for me, thank you.

The description of the Flakzwilling 40 describes it as transportable. Currently You may load it into a truck, but may not unload it to place it. It can only be placed into a Flak Tower. Changes were made to the Flakzwilling 40 to control spam. However, the compromise was to make it only buildable in...

Jasondunkel wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 10:59 am If you like playing against the AI, I should also have a manual button to end the game

The idea of allowing a multiplayer match with no more human enemies to end is a good idea.

I want the option though, because sometimes I like to see the last piece on the board fall.

I'm good with the idea of BOTH France and Italy being allowed units of their respective allied nations for balance purposes. I'm also fine giving them jets. I would suggest they not be allowed upgraded top of the line units that would never realistically be shared (except base model jet) example: Ok...

in the case of aircraft... i would give it to fighter planes and fighter-bombers and then i would give it to reconnaissance vehicles such as the Peugeot 202, Panhard_178 or SD KFZ 234/4 Puma Yes. Others as well, but these are excellent examples of units that should be able to use this if implemented.

Built In Divert Movement All units have secondary movement value similar to the current "Ammo Armour" and "Explosion Armour". I understand what you're suggesting, and if that's how we decide to do it, it could totally work. However, it does seem an overly complicated solution to...

I would say though, units like arty and AA (non-self propelled), should not be able to do this. My reason is by their nature, they aren't realistically mobile enough to operate in such a manner. I'd also say it may not be something some heavy support infantry like MG would be capable of. Although I ...

Well, obviously I think it's a good idea

Too much micro I reckon for infantry. For planes since they are more "manoeuvrable" I thought it made more sense. Tanks, although it would be cool to blitzkrieg, might disadvantage infantry even more. If you take into account the way you can continue movement after surprise, it's really j...

Could it be easier if we were simply allowed to use all available movement at will? Example: say you have aircraft with movement 12. Plane moves 6 tiles, engages enemy aircraft, and is allowed to use it's remaining movement to reposition. This is something that could work for all units not just air.

Light version German 5 cm Granatwerfer 36 50mm Japan Type 89 grenade discharger (Knee mortar) 50mm British 2inch 51mm French Brandt Mle 1935 60mm US M2 60mm Italy Brixia Model 35 45mm Soviet RM-38 50mm Most of this are light ones Can be speed 3 and range 1 My idea is to make them a unit that cant b...

When we were discussing mortars before, I'm thinking of smaller man portable units. I'm thinking units like that, which were towed by truck or horse belong under the general designation "artillery". As would seige mortars and coastal defense mortars that are built in place or mainly immobi...

But, it seems like as things stand now, you would have to change the ranges of MANY units to make it work.

And on some maps it may mean a rifleman can shoot across an entire country

If we can make it work in a way that Stratego agrees with, I like the idea. I kind of feel like most of the issues we have, the disagreements about range, it seems to be an issue with scaling of the maps. I mean, like how we have a medium map that's the entire world, or a very large map that's one c...

I agree

DreJaDe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:29 pm I think rifleman having higher damage than smg would be even better or even just the same.

I would support this.

Also, I 100% agree with the SMG rebalance that this thread was originally about.

yes, mortars should be range 1 (and was that earlier) - it was only changed because of player requests... but totally non historical having bigger range than eg. tank guns. Okay okay... Although I said there are mortars with small range, many mortars used actually have range more than 3km. You have...

I would like to give the riflemen a range advantage so that they get range 2 and optionally a first strike, but leave the actual attack power I like the idea of increasing rifleman range to 2. I'm not sure I like the first strike thing though. That being said, if we were to add an ability like digg...

1. Paratrooper Cost 5 > 4 Way too expensive while being too fragile and too few that can be made. The only really way to use them is to hide them in carriers which isn't even that realistic. 2. TC can now train paratrooper planes. 2 reason. One is that they are way too costly as I said and two, the...

I would also favor a pivot away from using SMG as the main anti armor infantry. I'd like to see it's bonuses favor close quarter combat. Not sure if it's possible, but I'm for greater bonuses vs armor attacked in Tc, but not in the open. Also for buffs when SMG is in Tc Buffs when attacking and defe...

I'd also like to see SMG have a bonus vs units in TC (an urban combat bonus)