I see a ton of players that, in my opinion, over-invest in the air force. They make both attack bombers and tactical bombers in addition to interceptors, but usually have twice as many bombers as they do interceptors. Or in worse cases I've seen as many as 80 bombers, whether it's one or two types, with not even 20 interceptors.
They invest far too much in the air force to do the army's job and it works against the average public player so they think air force is the key to victory.
I just think it's a little foolhardy because what do you do if you come across an enemy who uses AA and has more interceptors than you? I've seen a few players suggest strategic bombers or rockets to hit air strikes, but that can be countered (although it rarely is) and it takes even more research away from the army.
What are your thoughts? Is investing the majority of your military in the air force worth it?
Please log in to post a reply.
Nice. Public training is very good, since you don’t know what king of opponents you will encounter.Fox-Company wrote:
We teach them, Costawi and Spartan are newer/not as good members, and Kadeko needs to improve, we bring them into games and i usually just watch their play style and add input as needed, i only attack when attacked or declared war on.Brando Dilla wrote:
So do you/they Wolfpack?
This moment (now) is the most active the forums been in a while
Yes. All the forum regulars have collidedClaudio NVKP wrote:
This moment (now) is the most active the forums been in a while
Ever since the bedlam we had in my “Share your favorite stacks” thread a few weeks ago.Claudio NVKP wrote:
This moment (now) is the most active the forums been in a while
That must be indicative of something.Carking the 6th wrote:
Depends. I saw him win one against players with nukes and 500 units, in a WaW. Won HWWs together. That has to count for something, those were pretty good players we fought if I remember right.jubjub bird wrote:
Right. "Planes are not always required, and here are the situations in which you can win without planes" would be helpful, relevant information for new players."I've won 16 games without using planes" is a useless anecdote, and this individual's claims fall apart when you take even just a cursory look below the surface.z00mz00m wrote:
There are a few forum posters who often give advice I would personally consider less than helpful for a competitive game against good players. But most games played on CoW do not include any good players. All kinds of funny strategies work in those games. And even the most naive advice works in those games... which is most games... so it's difficult to say the advice is "wrong".
would love to play one.Fox-Company wrote:
If you would like the details on HOW i won, just ask, really isn't that hard.
I
iirc one got up to 300-400 units and the other over 600. We still beat them lol.Brando Dilla wrote:
That must be indicative of something.Carking the 6th wrote:
Depends. I saw him win one against players with nukes and 500 units, in a WaW. Won HWWs together. That has to count for something, those were pretty good players we fought if I remember right.jubjub bird wrote:
Right. "Planes are not always required, and here are the situations in which you can win without planes" would be helpful, relevant information for new players."I've won 16 games without using planes" is a useless anecdote, and this individual's claims fall apart when you take even just a cursory look below the surface.z00mz00m wrote:
There are a few forum posters who often give advice I would personally consider less than helpful for a competitive game against good players. But most games played on CoW do not include any good players. All kinds of funny strategies work in those games. And even the most naive advice works in those games... which is most games... so it's difficult to say the advice is "wrong".
I'm kinda with zoom on this one. If Fox feels his gameplay is effective and is enjoying it that's great. If someone decides to try it themselves they might like it also, or maybe they won't. I understand being frustrated with misinformation, but trying to stop it could prove difficult 
Well here’s my order of most productive Air units, in my opinion:
Well, it's better to first learn to the normal way and then test out the other challenges.
The most units I’ve seen someone else have at once is 736.Carking the 6th wrote:
Iiirc one got up to 300-400 units and the other over 600. We still beat them lol.Brando Dilla wrote:
That must be indicative of something.Carking the 6th wrote:
Depends. I saw him win one against players with nukes and 500 units, in a WaW. Won HWWs together. That has to count for something, those were pretty good players we fought if I remember right.jubjub bird wrote:
Right. "Planes are not always required, and here are the situations in which you can win without planes" would be helpful, relevant information for new players."I've won 16 games without using planes" is a useless anecdote, and this individual's claims fall apart when you take even just a cursory look below the surface.z00mz00m wrote:
There are a few forum posters who often give advice I would personally consider less than helpful for a competitive game against good players. But most games played on CoW do not include any good players. All kinds of funny strategies work in those games. And even the most naive advice works in those games... which is most games... so it's difficult to say the advice is "wrong".
Most units i had that game was 254, ending with over 70 Naval units and 150 LT's, all lvl 2, the rest were random and starting units (The navy was lvl 3)Carking the 6th wrote:
Iiirc one got up to 300-400 units and the other over 600. We still beat them lol.Brando Dilla wrote:
That must be indicative of something.Carking the 6th wrote:
Depends. I saw him win one against players with nukes and 500 units, in a WaW. Won HWWs together. That has to count for something, those were pretty good players we fought if I remember right.jubjub bird wrote:
Right. "Planes are not always required, and here are the situations in which you can win without planes" would be helpful, relevant information for new players."I've won 16 games without using planes" is a useless anecdote, and this individual's claims fall apart when you take even just a cursory look below the surface.z00mz00m wrote:
There are a few forum posters who often give advice I would personally consider less than helpful for a competitive game against good players. But most games played on CoW do not include any good players. All kinds of funny strategies work in those games. And even the most naive advice works in those games... which is most games... so it's difficult to say the advice is "wrong".
Exactly. A game is a game, there is no true right way to play. If someone feels something’s alright, you can argue it and all but just chill. It’s just a game.DxC wrote:
I'm kinda with zoom on this one. If Fox feels his gameplay is effective and is enjoying it that's great. If someone decides to try it themselves they might like it also, or maybe they won't. I understand being frustrated with misinformation, but trying to stop it could prove difficult
I feel like some people on this Forum forget that sometimes.Carking the 6th wrote:
DxC wrote:
I'm kinda with zoom on this one. If Fox feels his gameplay is effective and is enjoying it that's great. If someone decides to try it themselves they might like it also, or maybe they won't. I understand being frustrated with misinformation, but trying to stop it could prove difficultExactly. A game is a game, there is no true right way to play. If someone feels something’s alright, you can argue it and all but just chill. It’s just a game.DxC wrote:
I'm kinda with zoom on this one. If Fox feels his gameplay is effective and is enjoying it that's great. If someone decides to try it themselves they might like it also, or maybe they won't. I understand being frustrated with misinformation, but trying to stop it could prove difficult
You're just getting lucky to be facing incompetent opponents who are probably inactive too. Rushing airstrips without any AA or interceptor coverage does not work with a bomber player who is active lol he'll just bomb the ground stack.Fox-Company wrote:
Have won 2 WaW's and winning a 3rd rn, i a just good, if you rush an enemy and takes their airports before they can mobilize its an easy win, my K/D proves that this obviously works, and so does my C/L
You're playing players who don't use their bombers then beating them and deciding you've beaten the bombers.
Some people in my game use massive stacks together 52, 63
I once saw someone with 90 ints in a single stack.Claudio NVKP wrote:
Some people in my game use massive stacks together 52, 63
That’s never a good idea.
I once made a huge stack of 100-400 (so long ago I don’t remember) as Turkey in an HWW. We were gonna invade the US but eventually Allied so no fight ever happened. Good times.Claudio NVKP wrote:
Some people in my game use massive stacks together 52, 63
edit:I also put them in Iceland. forgive me, my lord
Never never.
How much more evidence do you need? I have beaten players with not only more Airforce than me (He has about 79 lvl3 air units) But also triple the amount of Ground units.Klusey wrote:
You're just getting lucky to be facing incompetent opponents who are probably inactive too. Rushing airstrips without any AA or interceptor coverage does not work with a bomber player who is active lol he'll just bomb the ground stack.Fox-Company wrote:
Have won 2 WaW's and winning a 3rd rn, i a just good, if you rush an enemy and takes their airports before they can mobilize its an easy win, my K/D proves that this obviously works, and so does my C/LYou're playing players who don't use their bombers then beating them and deciding you've beaten the bombers.
Please log in to post a reply.
