Tactics

Completely agree with Phara.

GeneralPhara wrote:

Aurave wrote:

I think its obvious why planes not in a convoy or refueling would be considered aloft...this is a game where people have to log off for many hours at a time. It's so that you can't just pick off an entire air force just because someone had to take a shower. From the "realistic" viewpoint, what, are planes not going to scramble when an enemy is incoming? That's like complaining that Anti-tank weapons should only function if the opposing player is online when you attack them.

Of course this had the unforseen problem that when engaged in a land battle on an airport the airplanes are forever "in flight". Coding to force extended refueling on land combat in such an instance would be an easy way to handle it.

If this game cares about not putting players who are busy with RL activities at disadvantage then it would have an option to pause each game such that all players are online at the same time. This is not the case.

A plane that is considered aloft 24/7 in an airbase is a big problem , no matter how many tanks you have marching at a province with an airbase , i place a couple bombers on the airstrip and you are never making it through. This said i dont do this since i dont like exploiting bugs and calling it Tactics / Master Strategy / or being ignorant and say that it is normal

Tanks should be effective against refueling and grounded planes, but unfortunately the latter is not possible per game mechanics, because planes are considered to be flying 24/7 in airstrip with no attack/patrol order

Infantry and all ground units have very low to no offensive value against planes, and so attacking planes in an airstripe with them is suicidal, once again because the game considers the plane to be flying all the time.

Another problem that this mechanic has is that a plane beats a tank in close range/melee combat because the tank has no offensive damage against flying aircraft , how come so ? Doesnot the plane need to rearm/refuel ?

I am worried that you dont consider this a problem, if not a bug.

Phoenix King wrote:

GeneralPhara wrote:

Aurave wrote:

I think its obvious why planes not in a convoy or refueling would be considered aloft...this is a game where people have to log off for many hours at a time. It's so that you can't just pick off an entire air force just because someone had to take a shower. From the "realistic" viewpoint, what, are planes not going to scramble when an enemy is incoming? That's like complaining that Anti-tank weapons should only function if the opposing player is online when you attack them.

Of course this had the unforseen problem that when engaged in a land battle on an airport the airplanes are forever "in flight". Coding to force extended refueling on land combat in such an instance would be an easy way to handle it.

If this game cares about not putting players who are busy with RL activities at disadvantage then it would have an option to pause each game such that all players are online at the same time. This is not the case.A plane that is considered aloft 24/7 in an airbase is a big problem , no matter how many tanks you have marching at a province with an airbase , i place a couple bombers on the airstrip and you are never making it through. This said i dont do this since i dont like exploiting bugs and calling it Tactics / Master Strategy / or being ignorant and say that it is normal

Moot point since tanks are not effective against planes anyway. If you want to take a province with an air base, use infantry or AA. End of story.

GeneralPhara wrote:

Tanks should be effective against refueling and grounded planes, but unfortunately the latter is not possible per game mechanics, because planes are considered to be flying 24/7 in airstrip with no attack/patrol order

Infantry and all ground units have very low to no offensive value against planes, and so attacking planes in an airstripe with them is suicidal, once again because the game considers the plane to be flying all the time.

Another problem that this mechanic has is that a plane beats a tank in close range/melee combat because the tank has no offensive damage against flying aircraft , how come so ? Doesnot the plane need to rearm/refuel ?

I am worried that you dont consider this a problem, if not a bug.

Knowing how planes will react is actually ammunition in your corner. This is a non issue to me because as I suggested earlier, I attack them with a stack of AA and/or Infantry. I suggest you do the same.

King, the main reason it is a problem is because even if you attack it with infantry, the inf dies. Then the AA is super slow but when have no choice whether to use it or not since there is no SPAA.

Whoa whoa whoa, so the fact that planes are OP on airfields and that they kill lots of land units is not a bug????? Joe Bentleigh keeps complaining about it, and I thought it was a bug!

Well, it isn't, it is just a feature that everyone who plays the game hates and thinks should be changed.

Pablo22510 wrote:

And what in God's name is the logical explanation to it?

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

Well, you know, if there is something seriously wrong with your game that makes people hate it, why would you not change it?

P.S. Lucky for me, I've never had this situation. My enemies actually use their planes.

There was only one plane on the ground that was a killing machine and I am pretty sure it is the only fighter aircraft to make an advance and capture enemy territory: the Bf 110. It used it's rear MG to kill ground crews etc. on Norwegian airfields but I would not like to have been in one of those planes if a tank of any kind had rolled out of a hangar. No matter how good it is, a MG with RCM will never take out a tank.

Well, yeah, I heard of Bf110s landing in an enemy airfield in Crete and capturing it, but that was an isolated incident.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Well, yeah, I heard of Bf110s landing in an enemy airfield in Crete and capturing it, but that was an isolated incident.

I was thinking a little bit, this feature came about where planes are OP in airfields is because of the feature where units have certain stats and effectiveness againts other units, technically it's not a bug rather it's a flaw in the system.

The tank have low value againts planes, due to the system the tank can't kill planes on the airfield, in reality the plane is on the ground so the tanks can kill it instantly, in-game even if the plane is "grounded" (on airport) it still use full effectiveness of its stats meaning it can take a hit...without doing anything. Logically the tank should destroy a "grounded" plane, but in practice the game said "NO" and used plane stats instead as in "flying". It was made this way from the start, this problem was not anticipated, unforeseen in the devs part, I don't blame them by the looks of the game all was fine till this loophole shows up. That's right this is not a bug it's a loophole.

I agree for a change let's say...give planes "ground stat" attack and defence value on the "ground" instead of using their base stats as if their flying all the time which is not the case.

Butter Ball Bill wrote:

I was on about Norway

It is not that the tanks have bad stats against planes, have you ever sent an int(the most common to get caught on the runway) against one tank for CAS? The plane will get shot down while the tank has little to no damage. It is not that attacking units stats, it is the loophole or whatever that somehow throws a spanner in the works and breaks everything.

Phoenix King wrote:

GeneralPhara wrote:

Tanks should be effective against refueling and grounded planes, but unfortunately the latter is not possible per game mechanics, because planes are considered to be flying 24/7 in airstrip with no attack/patrol order

Infantry and all ground units have very low to no offensive value against planes, and so attacking planes in an airstripe with them is suicidal, once again because the game considers the plane to be flying all the time.

Another problem that this mechanic has is that a plane beats a tank in close range/melee combat because the tank has no offensive damage against flying aircraft , how come so ? Doesnot the plane need to rearm/refuel ?

I am worried that you dont consider this a problem, if not a bug.

Well you could do two things about it: continue to complain about it or change your tactics. I suggest the latter.

Knowing how planes will react is actually ammunition in your corner. This is a non issue to me because as I suggested earlier, I attack them with a stack of AA and/or Infantry. I suggest you do the same.

Well look I asked for a reasonable explanation as to why planes are considered flying all the time with no attack/patrol order , I have aswell listed several issues with this mechanic and I will add one more :

I can safely say that the theorotical suggestion of inf and AA has not been practiced before, since inf and AA have negligible offensive damage against planes , they are not effective for attacking planes stationed in airstripes. Only fighters will do the role. There is very little you can do to survive when A player has air superiority and is actively using this bug.

Back to my new complaint , I didnot get any reasonable explanation, all i got was that this 'bug' is normal , and that the problem is in my tactics , If i knew that people had tasks of putting down player complaints with no reasons instead of forwarding them , i wouldnot be posting in these forums at all.

GeneralPhara wrote:

inf and AA has not been practiced before

thats why i said there is very little you can do , it only takes the player a few seconds to switch his bombers to another location after your AA has being travelling for hours and is few minutes away from the airbase

thats why i said there is very little you can do , it only takes the player a few seconds to switch his bombers to another location after your AA has being travelling for hours and is few minutes away from the airbase

Also my main inquiry is not how to beat this bug , it is why this bug exists and is considered normal.

GeneralPhara wrote:

why this bug exists and is considered normal.