[Vote] (2-22) Proposal: Integrate Enhanced Naval Warfare into VP (with modifications)

Approval Vote for Proposal #22 (instructions below)


  • Total voters
    73
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

nekokon

Prince
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
434
They can't ?
My bad, I forgot I might have did some stuffs to logistic a while ago since I hate losing hit and run for double attack. Nvm my last statement.
 

azum4roll

Deity
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
2,243
Reduce detection range to 2 for submarine and 1 for nuclear submarine, and can only be seen by ship with "can see submarine" promotion.
That will never work. Invisible units need to be detected when being adjacent to, otherwise what should happen if you move a unit onto the invisible unit?
 

nekokon

Prince
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
434
If you move next to that tile and doesn't have "can see submarine" then you won't see them, but if you try to move on top of that tile you will reveal them (and have 1 extra movement to get out of that tile - I encountered this behavior quite a few time already, where if you move to a tile beyond line of sight and have to pass through other units to get there, if an enemy is revealed on the way your unit would stop right where it is currently even if it's on top of another combat unit, and you have the option to move to another tile). I'm just assuming the same code (for stacking combat unit temporarily) can be reused for this case, if it's not possible then nvm.
 

azum4roll

Deity
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
2,243
I encountered this behavior quite a few time already, where if you move to a tile beyond line of sight and have to pass through other units to get there, if an enemy is revealed on the way your unit would stop right where it is currently even if it's on top of another combat unit, and you have the option to move to another tile
It only happens when you move a unit to a tile out of sight. The unit would stop when they spot the destination tile is occupied OR when they spot an enemy, but never when they already arrived at the spot.
 

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
9,570
Just to make it a bit clearer, your proposal is effectively "include ENW in its entirety, but with these name changes" right?

I think you imply that but its not written out, so I could believe a voter might assume you are just doing a name change and not the true integration.
 

Rekk

Emperor
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
1,998
It's not, the details shows a removal of the extra destroyer in Information Era, at the very least.
 

beginner_

Chieftain
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
76
ith a creeping mandatory upgrade every few techs.

exactly. With all the other proposal around reducing gold income and making unit upgrade worse (more costly, xp loss, other ideas) having to basically spend even more money on naval unit upgrade is just not a good idea. I don't even see an issue with money right now. I'm almost always low especially when it comes to upgrading naval units.

In essence it will force one to invest more production into units and at the same time there are also discussion about introducing new buildings. we should in fact have a huge building rework so it more in-line with BNW and not needing to build every building anyway. I only have to think about the order of building, almost never if I whould build it.

I would be ok with this change in isolation but not when upgrading gets nerfed directly and indirectly (less gold).
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
8,266
Location
Alberta, Canada
upgrade costs are scaled off of the difference in production cost between the current unit and the unit it's upgrading into. More upgrades doesn't add a lot more actual gold cost.

The penalties for upgrading units are just... not a great idea in general.
 

Recursive

Already Looping
Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
3,880
Location
Antarctica
Proposal sponsored by pineappledan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom