Can I ask you guys for thoughts and opinions on the air force?

I

Claudio NVKP wrote:

Exactly.

Carking the 6th wrote:

Sure but it seems like you roped in the others and made this argument a bigger issue than it is. The wording seemed a bit off I guess. Anyhow I guess I might as well not quarrel. It did kinda feel like he was sort of overestimating himself though. Not sure if it’s to as big of an extent as it sounds but yeah

I'm happy to let this discussion die as I think we've deviated from OP's original topic.

jubjub bird wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Sure but it seems like you roped in the others and made this argument a bigger issue than it is. The wording seemed a bit off I guess. Anyhow I guess I might as well not quarrel. It did kinda feel like he was sort of overestimating himself though. Not sure if it’s to as big of an extent as it sounds but yeah

Once again correcting the record, I did not "rope in others"--he is the one who said "I have witnesses" and named you as one of them. I was having a 1on1 conversation with him until then.

I'm happy to let this discussion die as I think we've deviated from OP's original topic.

let it die, let it die, let it shrivel up and- come on who’s with me?

Klusey wrote:

Fox-Company wrote:

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.

The evidence I would need to shut my mouth is to add you on Discord and either join a game alongside you or else have you continually update me on your game with pictures of the map so that I can see your tactics. Either you will face incompetent opponents who let you walk right in, as I predict, or else you will show me how you use superior tactics to counter enemy air power with speed.

Oh, you're the guy

Nooran

You guys are still at it?

Wow...

Brando Dilla wrote:

You guys are still at it?

Wow...

Carking the 6th wrote:

jubjub bird wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Sure but it seems like you roped in the others and made this argument a bigger issue than it is. The wording seemed a bit off I guess. Anyhow I guess I might as well not quarrel. It did kinda feel like he was sort of overestimating himself though. Not sure if it’s to as big of an extent as it sounds but yeah

Once again correcting the record, I did not "rope in others"--he is the one who said "I have witnesses" and named you as one of them. I was having a 1on1 conversation with him until then.I'm happy to let this discussion die as I think we've deviated from OP's original topic.

Alright.

let it die, let it die, let it shrivel up and- come on who’s with me?

Carking the 6th wrote:

Claudio NVKP wrote:

This moment (now) is the most active the forums been in a while

Yes. All the forum regulars have collided

...but willing to.

Bird is right on this... if you win without air or air defense, you're just lucky that you're not facing a decent player.

But I also agree that there are thousands of maps without any decent players around. And yeah, you can win them with just about any strategy; being active is enough. Does it make you a great player? Heh, dunno... as they say, you just need to do what you need to do to get the job done. If that bar is low, then yeah, you don't have to do a lot. Building HT also works, as proven in another thread.

To be fair I think going plane-less can be a reasonable approach, especially when playing as comintern, but having no defense against opponent planes is suicidal against any decent player.

Comintern's nerf to interceptors makes it harder to maintain air superiority, so I think there are some cases where you can just skip planes entirely to save those research resources, investing instead into a ground army (like taking the rares you're saving by not using planes and using them for SPRA instead).

jubjub bird wrote:

To be fair I think going plane-less can be a reasonable approach, especially when playing as comintern, but having no defense against opponent planes is suicidal against any decent player.

Comintern's nerf to interceptors makes it harder to maintain air superiority, so I think there are some cases where you can just skip planes entirely to save those research resources, investing instead into a ground army (like taking the rares you're saving by not using planes and using them for SPRA instead).

I may like planes, but I won't be able to use em. In exchange you can expect me to have AA, SPAA or defensive ints.

As for @Fox-Company I believe your argument lies in the dearth of proper utilisation of the air force by your competitors. Opponents in war.

Even though I stand with the notion that having plane units, AA etc is better than doing away with it, even if I lose some rounds while following such a maxim, it will not affect the doctrine's efficacy.

Simply put. In analogy to you, your experience is singular, for a game played at the very least by thousands of active (daily) players, hundreds of competitive (SUPER OP PRO) players, can retain their own views and may dismiss yours.

(I understand that you are not exactly saying that planes are the singular worst thing in this game, just one that you could do better without..)

Well, if i knew what 'good' meant in relation to jubjub's definition, i could most likely show many games where i have beaten 'good' players.

jubjub bird wrote:

To be fair I think going plane-less can be a reasonable approach, especially when playing as comintern, but having no defense against opponent planes is suicidal against any decent player.

Comintern's nerf to interceptors makes it harder to maintain air superiority, so I think there are some cases where you can just skip planes entirely to save those research resources, investing instead into a ground army (like taking the rares you're saving by not using planes and using them for SPRA instead).

Fox-Company wrote:

Well, if i knew what 'good' meant in relation to jubjub's definition, i could most likely show many games where i have beaten 'good' players.

People have consistently seen airforces being key to victory. You don't have such experiences. The experiences are fundamentally different, nobody can be convinced when the experience is different.

Maybe you can play some world at war maps and see if this is true or not?

Karl von Krass wrote:

Fox-Company wrote:

Well, if i knew what 'good' meant in relation to jubjub's definition, i could most likely show many games where i have beaten 'good' players.

consistency is key. Good players play World at War. Fighting people at clash of nations does not count as it is generally accepted and it is, the map that new players play.

People have consistently seen airforces being key to victory. You don't have such experiences. The experiences are fundamentally different, nobody can be convinced when the experience is different.

Maybe you can play some world at war maps and see if this is true or not?

I feel like Fox's quest to prove he's actually a Good Player should be excised to its own thread.

jubjub bird wrote:

I feel like Fox's quest to prove he's actually a Good Player should be excised to its own thread.

By the looks, it seems that nooran is indeed a good player

I’m with Claudio. Nooran is a pretty decent player.