Controlled Airspace

Sasri wrote:

- Airplanes will now trigger war when patrolling in a country that doesn’t have at least Right of Way.

I absolutely HATE this change. Aerial spying takes place all of the time, and only rarely does it ever trigger war. Aerial spying occurred before World War II, after World War II, was probably the single most important source of real-time intelligence during the Cold War, and continues to be one of the two or three most important sources of military intelligence today.

BAD CHANGE, @Sasri. VERY BAD change. Please undo this change as soon as possible -- if not immediately.

Sasri wrote:

Additionally, we decided to remove the in-game chat room to concentrate chat activity on global or private channels.

Especially in Roleplay games, when we want to say something out of the roleplay, without messing up the newspaper with spam, it is the most useful feature ever!

Im not a fan of this change for a few reasons. 1. i use planes for surveillance all the time. I dont like my world changed. 2. automatically triggering a war assumes that the spied-on country has spotters in every province, trained to look for enemy planes. How many of you can go outside and look at a plane in the sky and say "oh looky thats a so-and-so coming out of x airport."? 3. when a naval force approaches a coastline, it doesnt even show up if there are no troops in the province to see it. I would think that a battleship or whatever would be a lot easier to "spot" than a plane. So everyone has plane spotters in every province, but they dont look out to sea unless you have someone stationed in that province. This doesnt make sense.

However, I would like to say that it would be ok to spot nuclear bombers, and only nuclear bombers, in this way. My reasoning would be just for game balance, because as someone mentioned in a thread a while ago, it is (was) possible for a nuke bomber to just fly in past whatever planes it passed without triggering a war. So, the bomber would pass unheeded to its target. If a nuke bomber passes into a province, it should trigger a war so the target country could intercept the bomber. Nuclear bombers are one-way units, so u know if its coming in, it is up to no good.

I think you should change it back. A player should be responsible for watching his own back. The game shouldnt do it for him/her. I have to think and plan where i send my planes, the other guy should have to stay alert to defend against them. And remember, its a 2 way street. If someone starts patrolling my country, I am responsible for how I handle it. I might not want to go to war. I might want to try something else first. The game is already linear and closed ended. The box just got smaller.

THIS IS TERRIBLE!

I had aircraft patrolling over AI countries that were powerful, and now I cannot make our relation back to peace. REMOVE THIS FEATURE PLEASE! Or make it so a country has to activate it, but only player countries.

I'll have to disagree with you

Dixie wrote:

1. Im not a fan of this change for a few reasons. 1. i use planes for surveillance all the time. I dont like my world changed.

2. automatically triggering a war assumes that the spied-on country has spotters in every province, trained to look for enemy planes. How many of you can go outside and look at a plane in the sky and say "oh looky thats a so-and-so coming out of x airport."?

3. when a naval force approaches a coastline, it doesnt even show up if there are no troops in the province to see it. I would think that a battleship or whatever would be a lot easier to "spot" than a plane. So everyone has plane spotters in every province, but they dont look out to sea unless you have someone stationed in that province. This doesnt make sense.

2. Sure, but then again in our modernized world, there are radars everywhere. If you mean ww2 and cold war, german reconaissance flights in early 1941 were flying at 6000 meters and still got spotted and shot down.

3. True, I'll give you that.

Dixie wrote:

However, I would like to say that it would be ok to spot nuclear bombers, and only nuclear bombers, in this way. [...] It is (was) possible for a nuke bomber to just fly in past whatever planes it passed without triggering a war. If a nuke bomber passes into a province, it should trigger a war so the target country could intercept the bomber. Nuclear bombers are one-way units, so u know if its coming in, it is up to no good.

Dixie wrote:

A player should be responsible for watching his own back. The game shouldnt do it for him/her. [...] And remember, its a 2 way street. If someone starts patrolling my country, I am responsible for how I handle it. I might not want to go to war. I might want to try something else first.

PS. This thread obviously inspires me for a new unit : the spotter plane! Flying high-alt, unarmed with cameras at 7k meters like in the good old days

- Special performance : flies undetected over your territory. Just like submarines in the water, but over people's lands. Can only be spotted when planes arrive in a 50km radius.

- Speed : 700km/h (Cold war U-2s flew at 800km/h)

- Range : 1000km (for your information, elite strategic bombers have a range of 1210km. Cold War U-2s had over 5000km of range. It is therefore not absurd)

- Combat stats : Attacking planes, 0.1. Defending from planes, 0.1.

- Requirements to produce : researched (obviously). Level 3 air base, level 5 industrial center (rare alloys and specialised equipment needed).

- Costs to produce : 1000 rare materials, 7500$, 1500 oil, 500 iron, 1500 goods.

@MontanaBB @Dixie

darksoul111 wrote:

2. Sure, but then again in our modernized world, there are radars everywhere. If you mean ww2 and cold war, german reconaissance flights in early 1941 were flying at 6000 meters and still got spotted and shot down.

darksoul111 wrote:

This is not a question of watching one's back. I can completely spot your aircraft and want it away, but without triggering a war.

darksoul111 wrote:

But in my opinion, you just got your query answered.

@Dixie I will try to make myself clearer

1. I am not claiming to have a radar in my background. On the other hand, yes, every developed country has its entire land covered by radars.

2. Again, this is not about the game "watching your back" in your place. This has nothing to do with this. What the game is doing here, is giving you a chance to get rid of patrolling aircraft without YOU triggering war and passing as the agressor. It previously could not do that, and the agressor was you for attacking the planes, while you weren't the one to "start" the provocations.

3. Well, you complained about nuclear bombers passing through. Here you go, problem solved.

i didnt complain about nuclear bombers, someone else mentioned it in a thread and i brought it up. most of my games (90%) are done before anyone can ever build a nuke.

and there were very few countries in ww2 that had radar, and the radar of the time was unsophisticated.

and it has everything with the game watching your back. imo, the game is getting more and more like a board game, perhaps likened to a glorified version of RISK. I personally would like to see more of an open environment in the game. I would be all for making it more complicated, including your spotter plane idea. But, it would have to be on a grander scale. For instance, having to be responsible for your own supply lines, having to build your own troop transports, realistic consequences of running out of resources, and a realistic revolt/rebellion system. This is not likely to happen. This change reminds me of the recent rocket nerf. It needed to be done, to keep people from spamming literally thousands of rockets, but the way they did it was not realistic. The game cant be what ALL of us want all the time, but the game is becoming less enjoyable and it is getting slower and slower. Also, it frustrates me that all these recent changes were made, but they were not suggested by us, the players. We get changes unlooked for and out of the blue like this periodically, but the changes we ask for are ignored. I think the last thing we got when we asked was the aircraft carrier unit. Otherwise, someone else is deciding how the game goes. It makes me wonder at times why they ask us for input at all.

This is a terrible change. Conflict of Nations has this and it is a truly terrible feature. Never before has a country ever gone to war because someone flew a plane over their nation. Not even when said aircraft was shot down. Just look at the U2 shot down by the Soviets in the Cold War, or when Turkey shot down that Russian jet a while back. Going to war over surveillance just isn't something that happens.

heres another consideration: In the game you can have an unlimited number of spies caught in a country, sabotaging and stealing, but it doesnt trigger war automatically. But if the center of a patrolling plane barely crosses a line, war is immediately triggered. same with naval. some one sails right up to a coastal province with a battleship, province in range of its guns, but no auto-war. C'mon guys.

Quasi-duck wrote:

This is a terrible change. Conflict of Nations has this and it is a truly terrible feature. Never before has a country ever gone to war because someone flew a plane over their nation. Not even when said aircraft was shot down. . . . Going to war over surveillance just isn't something that happens.

i am semi-supporting this change, its good because i dont need to worry about people who use this sneaky method. but what i don't support is the fact that it was changed JUST because it damaged enemy buildings as well, why didn't you fix that, instead of implementing the CON-ish feature?

honestly, the scouting without declaring war is fine-ish, but i rarely use planes for gaining info, so this doesn't even affect me

darksoul111 wrote:

Why Call of War, why???

Especially in Roleplay games, when we want to say something out of the roleplay, without messing up the newspaper with spam, it is the most useful feature ever!

better use discord or skype, its MUCH better than the in game chat...

darksoul111 wrote:

If you mean ww2 and cold war, german reconaissance flights in early 1941 were flying at 6000 meters and still got spotted and shot down.

darksoul111 wrote:

unarmed with cameras at 7k meters like in the good old days

Although I am all for protecting your airspace , this option will create more issues than it ultimately solves . Each individual can stipulate conditions while agreeing to NAP's such as no over flights etc . While the option to destroy intruding aircraft is a viable tactic . Maybe allow the country being overflown to attack the aircraft that are intruding without it triggering war ??? That again may present a bigger challenge to the TECH TEAM than may actually be beneficial to players .

I vote NAY ! NAY NAY NAY

Nonsense !

If you find foreign planes patrolling over your lands, and you want to start a war because of that, you can just shoot it down with your AAA

+ what if you can not afford starting a war, the CPU forces you to fight because smb patrolled over your troops, I mean come on !

+ the only one able to declare war must be the player himself ! I resent being forced to fight because the CPU thinks I should

NB : the only think I can stand is a warning message in the intel panel which tells me that at xx:xx hour, this or that country patrolled over this province

this should solve the problem of securing air-space

although I think spying with planes is just fine

Not crazy about this rule, but what really pissed off about is that it was instituted WITH ABSOLUTELY NO WARNING. Imagine my surprise when I came home from work today and found myself in two premature wars without my consent. I would have gladly pulled my planes back had the people who run this game given me, say, a day's warning.

Now my entire strategy for my current game is screwed up.

Thanks, CoW admin team, for messing up more than a month of planning with one arbitrary action.

i agree with this change, it makes the game more realistic, esp. that patroling planes even during peace reduce moral and can damage buildings.

MarkAchkar wrote:

esp. that patroling planes even during peace reduce moral and can damage buildings.

MarkAchkar wrote:

i agree with this change, it makes the game more realistic, esp. that patroling planes even during peace reduce moral and can damage buildings.

Can you cite even one instance in 20th Century history when one nation went to war with another over espionage in general, or aerial reconnaissance in particular? In fact, going to war over aerial reconnaissance is almost unheard of. Spy planes may occasionally get shot down, diplomatic protests may be made, but aerial photo-recon is conducted by the major powers every day of the week in 2017. In 1939-40, heck, only one country had a rudimentary early warning radar system, and it could not remotely distinguish between a small civilian airplane and a photo recon plane. In peace time in 1939, the likelihood of a small plane even being noticed was extremely low.

Leaving the decision to automatically declare war in the hands of the game software is the least realistic resolution of all. If the problem is that patrolling aircraft cause damage even during peace, it seems that is the problem that needs to be fixed, not taking the decision to declare war away from the players. Personally, I think this "fix" is far worse than the "problem."