Aircraft Armor Class

Do the attacking tanks own the prov or is there another ground unit defending? If the prov is captured the plane should go to convoy. Otherwise it will remain as air class.

Interesting point. It is a province that both I and the enemy have right of way. Therefore neither of us own the province. That's an interesting game suggestion to make. Seems like the unit while on the ground should go to convoy if no other units are defending it.

As DxC said, as long as an airport is usable for aircrafts, they remain aircraft class.

When aircrafts (also missiles) are attacked on an airfield they will turn into a convoy if >>

>> the province has either been conquered (because aircrafts [and convois] can't conquer or hold)

>> or when the airfield is destroyed below 50% of level 1 (this also then, if the province is still defended by owners ground units)

>> or if (on a friendly airport) the aircrafts lose their RoW there (in this case: if the owner of Cardston would take away the RoW for British Columbia).

Now that the first part is solved, there is no way the INT should be able to take out two tanks. It has little if any defensive strength. Are there any other possibilities?

I don't know if tjwood78 has really lost 2 tanks, or whether he meant that 1 interceptor (where he thought that it should become a convoy) against the two tanks which we see on the screen was not immediately destroyed.

And I don't know the offensive values of the tanks against aircraft-class (the Int of course will make only little damage against tanks) and also not the previous combat duration here, but I think (or be almost sure) in such case the tanks will make even less damage against the Int (and subjectively, in such situations the X-factor is often a great friend of the defender ), so that it is only a matter of time...

But if he really has lost 2 tanks and this 2 others are still fighting against 1 Int that can't be ok, maybe in that case he should let check and explain it from the support. (and let us know the result then, please)

In a similar situation longer time ago, I myself lost several tanks against a stack of planes (which were barely damaged), until I could send help from a few own AA (own aircrafts were not yet within reach).

But as I said, for such a thing I don't know any actual (combat)values.

well, if an airbase is attacked, you will want your planes to scramble into the air to defend, so this feature should be kept whether a bug or not

Restrisiko wrote:

or whether he meant that 1 interceptor against the two tanks which, we see on the screen, was not immediately destroyed.

injinji wrote:

well, if an airbase is attacked, you will want your planes to scramble into the air to defend, so this feature should be kept whether a bug or not

All fights with planes are mathematically close-combats, with the special feature, that the units will not bound in close combat - only planes which are attacked on the ground are thereby fixed; many wanted it so - in my opinion it's not accurate.

Because, as everybody knows and as just described, refueled planes do not stand on the ground at the moment they are attacked - in this game e.g. for the same reason, from which AT, attacked during the march, does not hang behind the mules, but immediately defends. Or that AA, which has been attacked while driving, does not have to unhitch and align, but immediately provides air defense. Etc..

Well, if the result of the last year's player survey would have been a bit different, tjwood78 could probably snatch his tanks out of the claws of the evil interceptor...

Restrisiko wrote:

from which AT, attacked during the march, does not hang behind the mules, but immediately defends

DxC wrote:

Restrisiko wrote:

from which AT, attacked during the march, does not hang behind the mules, but immediately defends

What exactly do you mean by that? Are you saying ATs behave differently than other ground units when attacked and only go on defense? Or were you just using AT as an example of normal ground behavior?

I try to describe what I mean...

The examples of AA and AT should merely illustrate why, in my opinion, it is right that on the ground standing (refuled) airplanes, when attacked (whether by ground units or airplanes), fight as airplanes in the air.

For all other units in this game it is similar, because the game principle of CoW is not based on a simulation but on a board game (the individual game figures are "placed", so to speak, onto sections of the playing field).

Again the examples: If AA or AT are attacked while they are on the march, they would be "surprised" in a simulation game, and would have to be decoupled from the towing vehicle and then put into position before they could shoot back (at almost all other units, there are more or less relevant comparative situations - this already begins with the automatic supply of ammunition, fuel etc.).

In this (board-) game, however, all units are immediately fully operational (they are in "standby" - units can not be "surprised", they are always "ready for action", they change from "march" to "fight" within the same second).

That of course also applies to planes, they are also immediately ready for use (change from "standby" to "air combat" within the same second - that they remain on the ground is, as we know, only optically).

And also planes which are, standing in standby on the ground, attacked by ground units, fight in the air (change within the same second from "standby" to "air combat").

All of this is "well regulated" in my opinion, because so the game has a clear line, otherwise it would be unnecessarily confusing and complicated.

But, therefore, in the case of ground attacks against planes, it's in my opinion not accurate to lock the units in close combat, because as described (and how it also corresponds to the combat values), here too the airplanes are in the air and the ground units on the ground.

It was different for a while, the planes were not locked, but in the survey last year, many players have voted for a fixation - most probably for fear of airplanes, without observing the underlying principle.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Please, don't worry for my horrible English language, I'm an old fucking Kraut and learned it while drinking beer with British soldiers in German pubs in the early seventies - so simply drink a beer and think you're in the pub, then you can read this without problems I think...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *