New Units: Fighters and Special Forces

In modern warfare, fighters are an absolute necessity for any nation to claim military dominance. I would like atwar to reflect this. Here are my humble thoughts and suggestions:
1. Bombers should be an air transport unit that can only carry bombs. The bomber should be identical to the current air transport with the exception of carrying say one or two bombs. The bombs might have something like an attack of 15 and defense of 1; you high ranks decide cost. This would make bombers reflect their use more accurately.
2. This revised bomber would now make possible the use of fighters as a necessary unit. The fighter might have an attack of 4 and defense of 4 but say plus 8 vs all other aircraft. Cost you guys decide.
3. Now helicopters would be identical to the current bomber in all respects except capacity of 1 for marines and Special Forces ( I'll discuss them next). This would solve the problems of the current helicopter and make it a useful unit.
4. Special Forces would be a stealth unit that could go through walls. It would only have an attack of say 3 and defense of 3 and range of 3 so that it would not be op. But this unit would be useful for taking empty cities and the like. Cost is debatable.

I realize that this could change things but you guys can do whatever you like with my ideas; pick and choose. But these ideas could be the basis for maybe 2 or 3 new strategies. So please think about it.
Simper Fi

Dude, I was literally thinking the exact same thing with special forces. You have the right idea here.

It would really change the gameplay but why not yes.. !

Thx Wheelo

Thx Apocalypse,
Yes, gameplay would change a little. But helicopters would be pretty much the current bombers so just name change there. I realize that there is a rare unit fighter but those would be more like air superiority fighters compared to my idea. My idea of bombers is basically the air transport with a new unit, bombs. But you guys can add your ideas and make the best of it.

I like your enthusiasm, everyone has wanted Fighters for a long time. In my opinion however, to keep gameplay simple and accessible, Bombers should be Air: Main Attack and Fighters should be Air: Main Defense. I don't think we have a flying Infantry equivalent, so there you go.

Why not just buff Marines? Do people even use them anymore? But if people want a new dedicated unit for crossing walls, I vote we make it a unique unit to Master of Stealth so that strat can be relevant again.

Thx Garde,
Your idea about fighters as air main defense is good and definitely simpler than my thoughts. It also won't affect the game quite as much. As for the marines, I don't know that they are useless; they work well for me but I not playing with you high ranks so I don't really know. But in any case I agree with you that a unit dedicated for crossing walls might be a good unit to have.

Written by Gen. Neller USMC, 22.02.2019 at 13:17

Thx Garde,
Your idea about fighters as air main defense is good and definitely simpler than my thoughts. It also won't affect the game quite as much. As for the marines, I don't know that they are useless; they work well for me but I not playing with you high ranks so I don't really know. But in any case I agree with you that a unit dedicated for crossing walls might be a good unit to have.

Nah didn't mean to say marines are useless, just not used a lot outside of strats like DS from what I've seen. I prefer your idea now actually, maybe as a unique unit in a new stealth strat?

Yes, possibly in a new strategy. I originally thought it for all strategies but it might work better as part of a new strategy. Good thoughts.

Also helicopters should be revised in some way, if not my idea some other. They currently just don't have any real use as far as I can see. They are too expensive to be really effective. I mean if one wants to attack one uses bombers and if one wants to transport marines one uses an air transport. This makes helicopters rather useless which really doesn't reflect their use on the modern battlefield.

There are enough unit types, just not all of them are used on the default world map. Please don't add more like Air: Main Defense (there is Air: Defense already). There is no point for that at all.

I've always thought it was weird having air-to-air battles with bombers in this game... that would never happen in real life. We have stealth fighters, which you have to unlock with an upgrade, which is fine. But where are the everyday, non-stealth fighters? I would like to see this added.

It would be correct to have bombers carry bombs... that's what they do in reality. For example we already have a nuclear bomb (rare unit) and the only way to deliver it is... not on a bomber, but on a air transport? It's just weird.

Special forces is a cool idea too.

Anyway I like the above ideas. No promises but I'll keep them in mind for the future.

No offense but units that go through walls? Big NO GO. I mean legit whats the point in walling then? Could just totally toss that whole aspect out of the game.

As for the Main Defense Main attack differences, it would prolly jew up the whole game play. Of course more units is fine, but do we really need another air attack unit? We already have plenty of em..

Written by Guest, 22.02.2019 at 12:36

Why not just buff Marines? Do people even use them anymore? But if people want a new dedicated unit for crossing walls, I vote we make it a unique unit to Master of Stealth so that strat can be relevant again.

Marines are still being used by strats like MoS, GW and HW, and those strats might not be played as much as PD or imp, but they aren't as neglected as blitz or RA either... MoS is still verry much alive in bigger maps, like world game/euroasia etc and I noticed its one of the most popular strat in those games.

I would like to clarify that the idea is that the bombers are not air transports that carry any unit but only bombs and the current air transport would not be able to carry bombs at all.

Also the Special Forces would very little attack so as to only occupy undefended cities. This would make walls still powerful but would not guarantee that the enemy has not infiltrated the line. This would reflect the need for local security. Besides the Special Forces would be very slow so it would not be op.

Written by Dave, 22.02.2019 at 17:29

It would be correct to have bombers carry bombs... that's what they do in reality. For example we already have a nuclear bomb (rare unit) and the only way to deliver it is... not on a bomber, but on a air transport? It's just weird.

The thing is, its not that efficient in most regions of the map, to buy a bomber-transport unit to only transport a bomber unit. Might be useful in scenarios and other maps where you have to travel for turns to reach something, but in most default games and maps its not rlly like that.

Written by Waffel, 22.02.2019 at 17:49

The thing is, its not that efficient in most regions of the map, to buy an bomber-transport unit to only transport a bomber unit. Might be useful in scenarios and other maps where you have to travel for turns to reach something, but in most default games and maps its not rlly like that.

True, I can imagine in competitive games where you have little time to make your moves, it would take too much time to build bombs, load them, and transport them.

The actual bomb units would have no movement range or maybe a range of 1 thus necessitating the use of bombers to transport the bombs. To compensate the logistical cost, the bombs would have an attack of say 15. This system would in turn of fighter units to defend or attack the precious cargo. Please note that in my idea the helicopter units would play the role of the current bombers with exception that they carry one marine. Please also note that you can modify these ideas in any way that seems best.

Written by Waffel, 22.02.2019 at 17:36

Marines are still being used by strats like MoS, GW and HW, and those strats might not be played as much as PD or imp, but they aren't as neglected as blitz or RA either... MoS is still verry much alive in bigger maps, like world game/euroasia etc and I noticed its one of the most popular strat in those games.

I thought MoS being good on world maps was an absolute meme? Well, whenever I've played World/50k games since the past few years MoS isn't a good option imo, GW and IMp are always toptier due to the nature of the settings. But I mean, I could see them being far more viable there than in the core 10k gameplay. DS uses Marines, but at least in my experience the stealth is just helpful rather than what you build your move around. I will say that I don't play enough EU anymore to really have a solid opinion, however. Anyhow you proved me wrong, GG

I still believe having a Main Defence unit for Marine and Air units is an interesting concept to follow, however.

Written by Dave, 22.02.2019 at 17:29

I've always thought it was weird having air-to-air battles with bombers in this game... that would never happen in real life.

What about dog fights?

Written by ise-kun, 22.02.2019 at 22:20

What about dog fights?

Would be fought fighters vs fighters, yes? I can't recall there ever being any b52 vs b52 dog fights.

Written by Guest, 22.02.2019 at 18:43

I thought MoS being good on world maps was an absolute meme? Well, whenever I've played World/50k games since the past few years MoS isn't a good option imo, GW and IMp are always toptier due to the nature of the settings. But I mean, I could see them being far more viable there than in the core 10k gameplay. DS uses Marines, but at least in my experience the stealth is just helpful rather than what you build your move around. I will say that I don't play enough EU anymore to really have a solid opinion, however. Anyhow you proved me wrong, GG

I still believe having a Main Defence unit for Marine and Air units is an interesting concept to follow, however.

Mwah, only a few people claimed that MoS on worldmaps was a meme. And even so, in my current casual games, 4 of them contain atleast a few people with MoS as their strategy and most of them end up in top 3/4 with it. So I think its pretty safe to say that MoS is still being picked verry often, even if its only on worldgames/bigger maps.

As for the 50k settings, this setting is in my opinion a whole different game. Any power offense strategy will dominate with that setting since it has basically unlimited resources..

Or rename bomber fighter ? D and make bomber special unit like fighter
No for special force

Written by Dave, 22.02.2019 at 23:00

Written by ise-kun, 22.02.2019 at 22:20

What about dog fights?

From

Would be fought fighters vs fighters, yes? I can't recall there ever being any b52 vs b52 dog fights.

No sir, I don't believe there ever was any bomber vs bomber dogfight. I really enjoy watching aerial dogfights when I am not playing atwar, lol!

There is a scenario game called Battle of Midway and that game has some intense air combat; I really like that scenario because of that.

On a side note I am a marine officer candidate and they really stress the importance of air superiority and air support. It would be absolutely awesome if atwar could reflect this!

But to make sure that the fighter has different uses than bombers and helicopters, make the fighters strong against all air units but weak against ground units like an attack and defense of 4 but plus 8 vs all other aircraft This makes it so that you need both bombers and fighters in order to make a powerful attack. Maybe make the bombers into a powerful attack of 10 but minus 6 vs fighters so that you don't have bombers attacking fighters and winning in the sky (the bombers would not be a transport in this case). And then make helicopters the same as the current bombers with 1 capacity for marines. In this system, you would have a need for all these air units making a really balanced game with tons of strategy.

Written by Gen. Neller USMC, 22.02.2019 at 14:55

Also helicopters should be revised in some way, if not my idea some other. They currently just don't have any real use as far as I can see. They are too expensive to be really effective. I mean if one wants to attack one uses bombers and if one wants to transport marines one uses an air transport. This makes helicopters rather useless which really doesn't reflect their use on the modern battlefield.

Agreed. I never use Helis unless I'm using DS.

Written by Gen. Neller USMC, 23.02.2019 at 11:40

But to make sure that the fighter has different uses than bombers and helicopters, make the fighters strong against all air units but weak against ground units like an attack and defense of 4 but plus 8 vs all other aircraft This makes it so that you need both bombers and fighters in order to make a powerful attack. Maybe make the bombers into a powerful attack of 10 but minus 6 vs fighters so that you don't have bombers attacking fighters and winning in the sky (the bombers would not be a transport in this case). And then make helicopters the same as the current bombers with 1 capacity for marines. In this system, you would have a need for all these air units making a really balanced game with tons of strategy.

Perhaps Flower Power could return with Fighters under this old suggestion from 2012?

Written by El Cock, 25.04.2012 at 04:08

Cool, now crossing the oceans as America only has two options

A. Build a fleet big enough to withstand 5 turns of bomber attacks.

B. Stealth.

I think because of this, fighters need to be a standard item, with the capacity to D-Line.