when you try to attack enemy planes with interceptors they are going back to your airbase , enemy is sending planes there and while refueling you lost planes
ok don't attack lets try to patrol
enemy finds your airbase where your planes took off to patrol , when he destroyed this airbase your planes again going to another airbase to refuel , and you lost planes again
by the way enemy has 0 interceptors
and you lost your all hunter planes really what is this ?? he hunted your all planes with bombers
you cant attack , you cant patrol what will you do ?
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
27 Replies
8 Nov 2022, 14:50
Whoever created this thread has a point. I've started to casually play this game after a long period of inactivity, and the other day I got absolutely crushed by strategic bombers. They're not that great vs ground units, I know, but they've just got way too much health. It takes so so many interceptors to bring them down, and if you do manage to build enough interceptors, they're gone because it takes them a couple of attacks to destroy the strats, while they can just destroy your interceptors while they're refuelling. And their airbases are out of range so you're screwed too.
I think it would honestly be a great idea if they didn't have so much health. That's the problem with them. Interceptors are a great counter for other types of bombers, but strats are just too OP.
The past is a foreign country.
8 Nov 2022, 16:38
Pablo22510 wrote:
Whoever created this thread has a point. I've started to casually play this game after a long period of inactivity, and the other day I got absolutely crushed by strategic bombers. They're not that great vs ground units, I know, but they've just got way too much health. It takes so so many interceptors to bring them down, and if you do manage to build enough interceptors, they're gone because it takes them a couple of attacks to destroy the strats, while they can just destroy your interceptors while they're refuelling. And their airbases are out of range so you're screwed too.
I think it would honestly be a great idea if they didn't have so much health. That's the problem with them. Interceptors are a great counter for other types of bombers, but strats are just too OP.
I'm pretty sure Strats in Allied Doctrine are meant to be the B-17 Flying Fortress, which could fly on 1 engine and lose half the fuselage and still fly, so tbh based off real life, they nailed the air force pretty well.
8 Nov 2022, 22:02
Long-range bombers like the B-17 were very hard to bring down, that's true.
HOWEVER
They were not as effective as they are in the game. Most of the bombs they dropped from high altitude missed their targets. It often took massive numbers of bombers flying sorties day after day to neutralize a large industrial center. The idea that a single flight of bombers could demolish a city, and do that again and again with precision and ease, is unrealistic.
This is the real problem with strategic bombers. Their overall effectiveness is too high. Their toughness is fine, they should survive, and the owner should have to pay large maintenance costs for large bomber formations. But they need a big nerf to their damage output to represent all the wasted bombs that don't hit anything.
Oh, and they should only be allowed to fly in/out of level 3 airfields.
9 Nov 2022, 10:22
z00mz00m wrote:
Oh, and they should only be allowed to fly in/out of level 3 airfields.
This is probably a bit too much. No one builds level 3 airfields, so maybe this means that strats aren't used at all. I don't know. I just think that they can't stay as is.
Fox-Company wrote:
I'm pretty sure Strats in Allied Doctrine are meant to be the B-17 Flying Fortress, which could fly on 1 engine and lose half the fuselage and still fly, so tbh based off real life, they nailed the air force pretty well.
I agree that it might even be historically accurate. There are some caveats to historical accuracy, though. Even the Flying Fortress had to be sent up with fighter escorts for as long as the fighter escorts could accompany them, so they weren't invulnerable to fighters. And Allied doctrine isn't the only doctrine, anyways.
But beyond all that, there has to be a gameplay consideration as well. If good players are just pumping these out because they're so game-breaking, then something must be done.
The past is a foreign country.
9 Nov 2022, 11:36
There are quite a few units which were ineffective in 1.0 and got overbuffed in 1.5:
Strats
Armored cars
Militia
Cruisers
...and several others that were too good and were overnerfed:
Light tanks
Rockets
When 1.5 came out, people didn't immediately realize how good strats had become and didn't start using them right away; so the Bytro queries still showed under-utilization and they got buffed even more. Probably time to rewind a bit, but not TOO much.
Still many games go by without a single strat in the sky.
9 Nov 2022, 12:27
K.Rokossovski wrote:
Still many games go by without a single strat in the sky.
Probably largely because players aren't informed of the meta.
The past is a foreign country.
9 Nov 2022, 13:00
Pablo22510 wrote:
z00mz00m wrote:
Oh, and they should only be allowed to fly in/out of level 3 airfields.
This is probably a bit too much. No one builds level 3 airfields, so maybe this means that strats aren't used at all. I don't know. I just think that they can't stay as is.
Fox-Company wrote:
I'm pretty sure Strats in Allied Doctrine are meant to be the B-17 Flying Fortress, which could fly on 1 engine and lose half the fuselage and still fly, so tbh based off real life, they nailed the air force pretty well.
I agree that it might even be historically accurate. There are some caveats to historical accuracy, though. Even the Flying Fortress had to be sent up with fighter escorts for as long as the fighter escorts could accompany them, so they weren't invulnerable to fighters. And Allied doctrine isn't the only doctrine, anyways.
But beyond all that, there has to be a gameplay consideration as well. If good players are just pumping these out because they're so game-breaking, then something must be done.
While i agree, a single B-17 could effectively defend itself against 5 engined fighters, any more and they were certainly doomed, and each 'unit' is about 4-10 B-17's, so this is for the most part correct.
