Flower Class Corvette IMPLEMENTED

[DreJaDe]

France, British and US corvette.

Since basically all three of then used the same type of corvette.

A completely inexpensive ship which means that it's just 2 turn. Literally cost less than subs and was made on super numbers.

With a new skill for all destroyer of Allies.
Hedgehog
Which is more effective than depth charge.

[DreJaDe]

@Jasondunkel
@Stratego (dev)

I believe that this could be a specific ally ship

US and France will have them by industry 2 while the British will have them at industry 1.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower-class_corvette

[DreJaDe]

Anyone?
@TntAttack
@Jasondunkel
@Stratego (dev)

[TntAttack]

What's in it for the axis? I like it, but the axis are already disadvantaged as they are (4 nations vs 3) so will you guys give the axis powers cheaper subs compared to their allied counterparts?

That obviously isn't going to work.


But all in all, I support this idea, makes the naval aspect of the game much better esp if the axis can have something similar.

[DreJaDe]

What's in it for the axis? I like it, but the axis are already disadvantaged as they are (4 nations vs 3) so will you guys give the axis powers cheaper subs compared to their allied counterparts?

That obviously isn't going to work.


But all in all, I support this idea, makes the naval aspect of the game much better esp if the axis can have something similar.

Axis have like the most OP subs...

[TntAttack]

And some of the worst anti submarine capabilities.

[DreJaDe]

And some of the worst anti submarine capabilities.

They have?

I mean, normally they shouldn't be good at it cause they aren't good at it. It's the allies who have to counter thousands of submarines that they have to think of all counter but in this game?

All Axis destroyers for some reason have 1 (4 turn) destroyer that can do all the jobs of the other (5 turn) destroyer, making them useless while allies all have to use both of their destroyer for each jobs.

Obviously, this is OP but hey... There's literally nothing I could do but just use axis on naval game even though IRL, allies have the best navies...

And for some reason, Germany have one of the best anti ships... Best scouting planes... Best submarine... When they aren't really even better than anyone.

Dangit, im still salty about that type 21 and the fact that they are not replying to my other suggestion of making sole US and ally ships less costly.

[TntAttack]

Well. I checked the destroyers stats and you are right.

1. We need to balance destroyers.
2. Decide if we want to achieve more historical accuracy with units or average each fraction to about a similar power level.
Am on the latter, otherwise its a replicate of ww2.

Hence my statement earlier, that if you are going to add these corvettes, you have to balance this with the axis as well.

P.S I think it's a mistake going down the "this unit was mass produced, therefore if it's a unique enough, I will lower the production costs".

[DreJaDe]

P.S I think it's a mistake going down the "this unit was mass produced, therefore if it's a unique enough, I will lower the production costs".

I do agree with you but this is the same narrative they are using... The problem i see here is that the always narrative always change which makes me confused.

Jason used that narrative a lot BTW and im just using it the same as him to justify my suggestion though for some reason, mine can't...

I keep asking for balance but to not avail.

Hence my statement earlier, that if you are going to add these corvettes, you have to balance this with the axis as well.

This will never be OP or having the need of counters cause all ships counters it.

It's slower than destroyers. It has weaker HP than destroyers. Besides countering submarine, they can't do anything besides having decent AA.

It has only one use... To counter subs.

Though this ships should survive Torpedo hits since its more agile than destroyers and it's also much smaller.

[Jasondunkel]

we don't have any corvettes in the game yet, or as a ship group. since their task was anti-submarine warfare. do you want me to submit them to the subkillers or do you want us to put up a new ship type in the xls?

@drejade

[DreJaDe]

we don't have any corvettes in the game yet, or as a ship group. since their task was anti-submarine warfare. do you want me to submit them to the subkillers or do you want us to put up a new ship type in the xls?

@drejade

They are quite different from other ships so they should be on their own.

[TntAttack]

Honestly. There probably more types of ships we can add in addition to what we have.

There is the motor torpedo boats, including the german S boats (E-boats named by the allies), used for patrolling and targeting enemy convoys.

The Japanese, Italian, America, French and Russian all had there own (source wiki) so it's possible to include.

Just, the current naval system esp torpedos and their high damages would wreck the current game balance.

These were more faster (source I made it up) attack boats compared to the corvette class you mentioned which were I believe more powerful and bigger than MTBs and would make more sense to cost 2 compared to corvettes, however they don't have anti sub capabilities to my knowledge.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_torpedo_boat

[DreJaDe]

There is the motor torpedo boats, including the german S boats (E-boats named by the allies), used for patrolling and targeting enemy convoys.

This honestly should only cost 1 but would need to cost 2 for the sake of spammability.

Would have 1 range torpedo and would have 2-3 sight cause destroyer actually have radars and only sight 4-5 while most of these ships don't have them.

Will have like speed 7 and their torpedo although using the same as others would need to be weaker since they really can't use their torpedo that we'll IRL. 3 CD because unlike destroyer, they have quite the limited amount.

They would also have HP not even achieving 100. I mean the specific e boat in Wikipedia will only make this ship only have 5 HP.

They are actually heavily countered by destroyer IRL since destroyer were actually made to counter them.

They should at least 3-4 hit destroyer using their torpedo.

It's not really that OP but OP with the help of others.

Though if we indeed add this... Shouldn't destroyer be the one first to also have torpedo? Torpedo actually became the main weapon of destroyer in ww2. Literally most of their kill were through using it.

[TntAttack]

There is the motor torpedo boats, including the german S boats (E-boats named by the allies), used for patrolling and targeting enemy convoys.

This honestly should only cost 1 but would need to cost 2 for the sake of spammability.

Would have 1 range torpedo and would have 2-3 sight cause destroyer actually have radars and only sight 4-5 while most of these ships don't have them.

Will have like speed 7 and their torpedo although using the same as others would need to be weaker since they really can't use their torpedo that we'll IRL. 3 CD because unlike destroyer, they have quite the limited amount.

They would also have HP not even achieving 100. I mean the specific e boat in Wikipedia will only make this ship only have 5 HP.

They are actually heavily countered by destroyer IRL since destroyer were actually made to counter them.

They should at least 3-4 hit destroyer using their torpedo.

It's not really that OP but OP with the help of others.

Though if we indeed add this... Shouldn't destroyer be the one first to also have torpedo? Torpedo actually became the main weapon of destroyer in ww2. Literally most of their kill were through using it.

I agree that mtb should 3-4 hit destroyers, but I disagree with making cost 1.

I wrote something here, but it didn't fill well with balancing so I am rewriting it whole.

Navy cost rebalancing:
Mtb: 2 cost, 3 range, 4-5 speed (torpedo ability)
Transport: 2 cost, 3 speed, one unit cap (as ideally in a naval war, there is a lot of transportation, so there should be more transports, holding 1 unit)
Big transport: 4 cost, 5 speed, 3 unit cap
Subs: 3-4 cost, 3 range, 3 speed (torpedo ability)
Corvettes: 4 cost, 4 range, 5 speed. (Torpedo ability, mine clearing)
Destroyers:5 cost, 4 range, 7 speed (torpedo ability
Cruiser: 7-8 cost, 5 range, 6 speed (torpedo ability)
Battleship: 12-13 cost, 6 range, 6 speed.
Heavy battleship: 17-18 cost, 6-7 (?) range, 5 speed.
Carrier: 9-12 cost, 4 range, 6 speed

Hmm... something is wrong. Our torpedo mechanic is too op... How should we balance this...
- Give some ships bonuses on shallow and deep waters e.g. subs are more vulnerable in shallow water.
- MTBs struggle to tranverse deep sea. E.g. 2-3 speed.
- Corvettes travel 5 in shallow, 4 in deep waters.
- In rl, the flower class corvettes would force the sub underwater, depth charging or whatever their weapons was to prevent the sub from running. As our game mechanic is designed in a way that subs are more vulnerable above water, why not give corvettes a force sub to surface ability. Or better yet, decrease their surface time limit by one, as to give subs more survivability if it's too bias against subs.
- Give the battleship some secondary guns. Used to fire at smaller ships as to prevent corvettes/ destroyer spamming nearby the battleship.

[DreJaDe]

@TntAttack
You should open another topic for this...

@Stratego (dev)
Could you put this and above this message into a new topic?

But to end this for now (hope you will answer this on new topic)

Corvettes should never be more costly than subs. IRL, they are much cheaper and easier to create. Game logic wise, it's a counter to subs which generally would have to make it less costly.

I agree with transport but not with others. I am in-game with Freddy and I feel that the spammability of the current subs is just adequate. There's also no need to give them ability for subs to do anything... They should already have always be able to 1 hit subs. They are more than adequate on doing that. They will even have Hedgehog which is more powerful than depth charges.

I also agree with destroyers if they will have torpedo ability.

For cruiser... There are already too many types, making them all 7-8 only is not fair.

For battleship and heavy battleships, it's not really fair but in all honesty, I want to make powerful battleships like Yamato take bigger cost cause their stats are literally for 2 BS in value.

For the extra ability. I'm more in agreement with giving them a smokescreen that could make them invisible. Like IRL, although they did have small guns to counter smaller ships, IRL, it's almost always useless.

It's always reported how destroyers easily could get away with getting so near them and some even like cruisers which is bigger could get close enough to use torpedos.

Also what do you mean by range

[TntAttack]

Range is the unit's range of firing. Not sure if what you said about the Cruiser costs due to different variants of the cruisers ingame, but take it generally.

[Harchie Hirondo]

There is the motor torpedo boats, including the german S boats (E-boats named by the allies), used for patrolling and targeting enemy convoys.

This honestly should only cost 1 but would need to cost 2 for the sake of spammability.

Would have 1 range torpedo and would have 2-3 sight cause destroyer actually have radars and only sight 4-5 while most of these ships don't have them.

Will have like speed 7 and their torpedo although using the same as others would need to be weaker since they really can't use their torpedo that we'll IRL. 3 CD because unlike destroyer, they have quite the limited amount.

They would also have HP not even achieving 100. I mean the specific e boat in Wikipedia will only make this ship only have 5 HP.

They are actually heavily countered by destroyer IRL since destroyer were actually made to counter them.

They should at least 3-4 hit destroyer using their torpedo.

It's not really that OP but OP with the help of others.

Though if we indeed add this... Shouldn't destroyer be the one first to also have torpedo? Torpedo actually became the main weapon of destroyer in ww2. Literally most of their kill were through using it.

I agree that mtb should 3-4 hit destroyers, but I disagree with making cost 1.

I wrote something here, but it didn't fill well with balancing so I am rewriting it whole.

Navy cost rebalancing:
Mtb: 2 cost, 3 range, 4-5 speed (torpedo ability)
Transport: 2 cost, 3 speed, one unit cap (as ideally in a naval war, there is a lot of transportation, so there should be more transports, holding 1 unit)
Big transport: 4 cost, 5 speed, 3 unit cap
Subs: 3-4 cost, 3 range, 3 speed (torpedo ability)
Corvettes: 4 cost, 4 range, 5 speed. (Torpedo ability, mine clearing)
Destroyers:5 cost, 4 range, 7 speed (torpedo ability
Cruiser: 7-8 cost, 5 range, 6 speed (torpedo ability)
Battleship: 12-13 cost, 6 range, 6 speed.
Heavy battleship: 17-18 cost, 6-7 (?) range, 5 speed.
Carrier: 9-12 cost, 4 range, 6 speed

Hmm... something is wrong. Our torpedo mechanic is too op... How should we balance this...
- Give some ships bonuses on shallow and deep waters e.g. subs are more vulnerable in shallow water.
- MTBs struggle to tranverse deep sea. E.g. 2-3 speed.
- Corvettes travel 5 in shallow, 4 in deep waters.
- In rl, the flower class corvettes would force the sub underwater, depth charging or whatever their weapons was to prevent the sub from running. As our game mechanic is designed in a way that subs are more vulnerable above water, why not give corvettes a force sub to surface ability. Or better yet, decrease their surface time limit by one, as to give subs more survivability if it's too bias against subs.
- Give the battleship some secondary guns. Used to fire at smaller ships as to prevent corvettes/ destroyer spamming nearby the battleship.

I disagree with reducing the transport ships/boats' carry capacity to 1. Many maps might become unplayable or would need to be changed since transporting them would be somehow more difficult.
And for me, transport trucks should be 2 turns too. But hey, this would be for another topic.

[TntAttack]

I disagree with reducing the transport ships/boats' carry capacity to 1. Many maps might become unplayable or would need to be changed since transporting them would be somehow more difficult.
And for me, transport trucks should be 2 turns too. But hey, this would be for another topic.

What's there that's so undesirable. Sure some single player maps might be broken but it's not too complicated with ships transports carrying one whilst they only cost two. Perhaps we should nerf transports vehicles as well to 2 cap, costing only 2 to balance it out on land.

[DreJaDe]

Why not to satisfy both sides.

Make a 2 turn version.

Or draw a bigger version which would be the current 3 turn and the current image being the 2 turn.

In all honesty, I still don't understand why Subs are less costly than transport.

And why they are not replying to make my suggestion on Ally.... WTF!!! Why is liberty ship now more expensive than transport boat?

There's no way that could happen at all!

@Stratego (dev)?

Dang... I don't know anymore.

[Stratego (dev)]

sorry can someone summarize a quations please
i could not find one to me
also please make the new topic, that is no problem those 2 posts are left here too.

[DreJaDe]

Okay, the spammability of subs is kinda a problem.

You just see them but you can't do anything because you can't hit them...

There's only one counter and killing that counter is so easy.

I kinda think that we should just let subs hit each other or my suggestion that they will need to show up before they can use their skill.

[Stratego (dev)]

ok, please post it on the balance thread - if we dont have any open about it ope na new asking others opinions -thankS!

[Stratego (dev)]

i think now all is implemented from here.