Air bases and air fields

Thanks for the suggestion. We already looked into that idea and won't implement it for now due to balancing reasons.

Balancing reasons as in:

- aircrafts are arguably the strongest unit type in the game already. Those air strips would make them even stronger.

- It would make overunning countries in a small time easier (for example during the night when you are offline), which goes against the idea of what CoW is, a strategy game that you can enjoy for a longer period of time, where you don't have to be online every 2 hours.

- if implemented as movable "carrier-like" unit instead of building, it cannot be sabotaged -> loss of one strategy to deal with enemy air force

- less air fields need to be built -> less spendings made on airfields; less ground units need to be healed/replaced due to better air support -> less spendings on units; = risk of monetary loss from this change

Hope you guys don't mind honest answers . I encourage you all to think about all these angles when coming up with new features, it is a good exercise.

If that's the case then it's ok as it can overpower the game. But I think it wouldn't really matter as aircraft can exceed very high range. Maybe to implement it after Day 12 would be ok. But it should be implemented as this game is built on realism.

freezy wrote:

Thanks for the suggestion. We already looked into that idea and won't implement it for now due to balancing reasons.

Balancing reasons as in:

- aircrafts are arguably the strongest unit type in the game already. Those air strips would make them even stronger.

- It would make overunning countries in a small time easier (for example during the night when you are offline), which goes against the idea of what CoW is, a strategy game that you can enjoy for a longer period of time, where you don't have to be online every 2 hours.

- if implemented as movable "carrier-like" unit instead of building, it cannot be sabotaged -> loss of one strategy to deal with enemy air force

- less air fields need to be built -> less spendings made on airfields; less ground units need to be healed/replaced due to better air support -> less spendings on units; = risk of monetary loss from this change

Hope you guys don't mind honest answers . I encourage you all to think about all these angles when coming up with new features, it is a good exercise.

This was discussed back in the old days and support fell away because of being able to use an airbase in 9 hours iirc. The naval base was not brought into the discussion as it is very different like Odin said lol.

I like this idea. it goes hand in hand with my idea about having cargo planes to transport troops over great land distances quicker than just marching....which also goes hand in hand with *GASP* paratroopers....

enochen wrote:

I like this idea. it goes hand in hand with my idea about having cargo planes to transport troops over great land distances quicker than just marching....which also goes hand in hand with *GASP* paratroopers....

Quasi-duck wrote:

enochen wrote:

I like this idea. it goes hand in hand with my idea about having cargo planes to transport troops over great land distances quicker than just marching....which also goes hand in hand with *GASP* paratroopers....

Cargo planes make this idea even worse lol. One problem with logistics in WWII was the lack of heavy airlift capabilities and you want it now lol.

fair enough.

the research I did shows they were used later in the war, but mostly as troop transport and supplies which doesn't reflect in the current gamer system. (receiving supplies that is, since the game engine just means everyone just has access to what ever resources you have)

advanced airfields does seem weird because the biggest point of airfields is to refuel.

Just wanted to throw my two cents into this thread, Airbases should be a city building only as should be Factories, Naval Bases, and Fortifications. Meaning that you can only build those types of buildings in Cities. While, in non-city provinces you could build Airfields, Naval PORTS, Local Factories (to increase resource production), Field Hospitals, and Outposts (fortifications but not as good). The City buildings would be able to build things, but the non-city buildings can't (except barracks), just provide support. So, Airfields can have aircraft land there, but can't produce aircraft. Naval Ports can't produce naval units, but can be used to heal them and have troops embark faster. Local Factories can't provide infantry production, instead they will increase resource production in that province. Field Hospitals are self explanatory, they heal ground units.

OH couple more things,

Aircraft cannot land anywhere, at least nowadays, C-130s (HOOAH USAF AIR POWER!) can land anywhere, that is their job. However, Jets cannot, Their engines suck in the air around them, meaning it would suck up any debris on that airfield. So, If an airfield is going to be built quickly, the engineers will clear out a strip big enough for a C-130, throw up some tents for sleep and whatnot then they are done until the 82nd, Rangers, and 101st can take a proper airfield for the Jets and other Cargo Aircraft.

In CoW, most of the planes are Propeller driven, so they can land anywhere as long as it is flat. In all reality, it should take a few hours to build an Airfield/Airstrip. All you have to do is, clear/secure a flat area with no debris in that area, throw up some tents, bring up a couple refueling trucks and you are good to go. That should be reflected in CoW.

Reasons why not to do that are really reasonable. I like the idea from the start too but yes, it is better not to do it.

JCS Darragh wrote:

Just wanted to throw my two cents into this thread, Airbases should be a city building only as should be Factories, Naval Bases, and Fortifications. Meaning that you can only build those types of buildings in Cities. While, in non-city provinces you could build Airfields, Naval PORTS, Local Factories (to increase resource production), Field Hospitals, and Outposts (fortifications but not as good). The City buildings would be able to build things, but the non-city buildings can't (except barracks), just provide support. So, Airfields can have aircraft land there, but can't produce aircraft. Naval Ports can't produce naval units, but can be used to heal them and have troops embark faster. Local Factories can't provide infantry production, instead they will increase resource production in that province. Field Hospitals are self explanatory, they heal ground units.

Ik that is CoN, my school blocked it. I think that is a good way it works. I still think that you should be able to build a Barracks anywhere you want, but in Urban Provinces you can produce Infantry, and in Rural or non-city provinces, you could build Militia.

JCS Darragh wrote:

I still think that you should be able to build a Barracks anywhere you want, but in Urban Provinces you can produce Infantry, and in Rural or non-city provinces, you could build Militia.

I do see what you are saying, I am simply suggesting that we are able to build militia training camps.

JCS Darragh wrote:

I do see what you are saying, I am simply suggesting that we are able to build militia training camps.

SuomiHunajaa wrote:

'(Exploit phase' - are you not being one-sided here, thinking only of offence? ok, rhetorical question. )

As discussed, there are several points and angles to be considered. Thanks. Ultima dictum.

Usually the person or coalition with local air superiority already has a huge advantage.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Cargo planes make this idea even worse lol. One problem with logistics in WWII was the lack of heavy airlift capabilities and you want it now lol.

Even today in 2018, there are only two, maybe three countries (United States, Russia, China) that have the airlift capability to move an entire division (the equivalent of 3 full infantry regiments, plus support units) by air transport in 24 to 48 hours. Probably only the United States has the capacity to airlift an armor division, and that is not the preferred way of moving main battle tanks because of the cost and stress it puts on the airframes.

And for the record, I am strongly in favor of adding an airborne infantry regiment to the game, provided that the in-game unit is properly designed and further provided that no country can produce more than 6 to 9 of them (the equivalent of 2 to 3 divisions). Transport planes for other kinds of units is a bridge too far, however, given the historical limitations and realities.

I find that would gravely unbalance the game as having constant Air superiority with fighters and most importantly tac bombers basically anywhere would be far too advantageous for the invader. I don't think I need to illustrate how powerful tac bombers are.

9 hours is more than quick enough to have your planes catch up with your land progress. There isn't even that much territory your ground units can conquer in the span of 9 hours. If you conquer enemy territory with air bases you can use those even sooner than that.

A good tactician distinguishes himself, among other things, by how well he coordinates the joint attack of all arms at his disposal and which territories he chooses to conquer first in order to ensure constant aerial cover of his ground units. It's all about timing - and honestly, it's not hard to get it right.

The only hypothesis where I would find that acceptable is if those airstrips made for a significantly reduced circle of operation for the planes that use it.

VIRVCOBRV wrote:

A good tactician distinguishes himself, among other things, by how well he coordinates the joint attack of all arms at his disposal and which territories he chooses to conquer first in order to ensure constant aerial cover of his ground units. It's all about timing - and honestly, it's not hard to get it right.