Air Units: Ineffective against knowledgeable players

why you think tac bombers should be unbeatable and you should destroy everything with them without get damage ?

anti airs are ranged and they can have bonus from terrain they are very good units

lets imagine if they were bad , enemy could destroy your 5 big cities easily with strategic bombers and you would go to rage quit

but still you can destroy enemy anti airs rocket artilleries , sp rocket artilleries are your best friends ( ranged units )

commandos and motorized infantries can catch them ( stealth or faster units )

you can use even rockets against enemy artillery and anti airs ( cheap long range units )

for example if you play with allies you can't win with only tac bombers

you have many options to have sp artillery , sp rocket artillery , sp anti air , tank destroyer , armored car , commando

some allies countries have many oil like greece , odisha , north usa

They aren’t supposed to be “unbeatable”, but they are supposed to be useful. Currently against competent player, they are unusable. I demonstrated this above if you took the time to read. Based on the logic of your response it might be a bit of a reach.

Based on your response and your remedial logic, I’m not sure this post really applies to you. As I said: GOOD players can negate them entirely. Currently any player using air units against me on a large scale will lose. They are no longer viable except against new, experienced or just bad players. Even then they are really only good at attacking poorly defended units. Based on your “suggestions,” it appears you aren’t really at a level to make a judgement here.

It should be somewhat challenging to counter air units because in order to develop them it requires more resources, buildings specific to just those units and a network of airbases that require significant resources to build. For that reason they should be a challenge to counter that an opponent actively has to invest in order to win. Currently air units can be completely negated cheaply and easily. And that’s bad balance.

Air units are too easy to beat. Stop excusing poor game balance.

Im here since 2015 and just saying your logic is funny

Your logic : I built spesific buildings and produced planes so I should beat everyone easily

I spent too many resources Why game dont allow mee to bomb everyone easilyyy ohhh noooo ( LOL

with planes you can defend a big area and attack at the same time you can send them to help your ally you can bomb cities you can destroy enemy military production you can destroy enemy economy you can sink ships you can scout enemy positions. You can do everything with them in a short time while ground units still trying to reach next target and you compare with them what ?? really ?

If you dont like them basically stop produce them and be a tank lover guy

Why dont you be a tank lover guy and keep crying here ?

You solved everything be a tank guy and conquer world

planes are expensive because they have more ability it is not hard to understand

this game is not a produce 100 tactical bomber and conquer world game

if you want to use planes against experienced ones produce rocket artillery and destroy enemy artillery and aa units

Air units are OP and need to be nerfed. Bytro's update nerfs them indirectly - giving AA a defense range - which helps especially when defending against patrolling planes, which in many cases your int stacks are too far away to help in time, or at all. That Patrol mechanic is the main reason why planes are OP in my opinion, not to mention their relative cheapness (especially ints and NBs)

This change was necessary to help newer players who generally don't use air units and don't understand air combat. It's no fun when your tanks and infantry are being zapped out by enemy tacs or ABs. Either way, air units are not supposed to be "hard to beat"; in reality they were easier to beat than they are in the game currently.

“Im here since 2015 and just saying your logic is funny

Your logic : I built spesific buildings and produced planes so I should beat everyone easily

I spent too many resources Why game dont allow mee to bomb everyone easilyyy ohhh noooo ( LOL”

You see this is called a “straw man argument.” It happens when someone misrepresents your argument to make it easier to attack, often by exaggerating, distorting, or oversimplifying your position. It is used by stupid people to combat more effective and logical arguments.

Never said any of that. I said that planes are completely negated by far fewer anti aircraft units comparatively and against any halfway decent player, they are a complete waste of resources. Those resources are better diverted to more effective units. Units that are cheaper to research and build than don’t require extra buildings and an airfield network. There is a big difference between saying something should be balanced and useful and complaining that it’s not overpowered enough.

And if you are here since 2015. Let’s compare profile stats. I have a hunch you don’t win very many games.

“with planes you can defend a big area and attack at the same time you can send them to help your ally you can bomb cities you can destroy enemy military production you can destroy enemy economy you can sink ships you can scout enemy positions. You can do everything with them in a short time while ground units still trying to reach next target and you compare with them what ?? really ?“

Against any halfway decent players you can do exactly none of those things. Against me you can attack exactly nothing with planes without losing more than you bring. With just a few anti air units, I can make your planes useless. And if you are actually spending resources to “bomb cities” you shouldn’t be involved in this conversation. It’s not only a complete waste, but in the case of strategic bombers, hilariously easy to counter. And any halfway decent player will never have a ship that isn’t stacked with sufficient cruisers. You aren’t sinking anything guy. It’s like I have said, planes can be made completely useless.

“If you dont like them basically stop produce them and be a tank lover guy

Why dont you be a tank lover guy and keep crying here ?

You solved everything be a tank guy and conquer world”

Your barely literate response aside:

1. the point of this forum is to discuss game balancing and offer suggestions. It’s not “crying.”

2. “Tank lover?” That’s your idea of good strategy?

How have you played this game for two years yet know nothing about it?

“planes are expensive because they have more ability it is not hard to understand

this game is not a produce 100 tactical bomber and conquer world game

if you want to use planes against experienced ones produce rocket artillery and destroy enemy artillery and aa units”

Again, another strawman argument. Did I mention that is what stupid people do?

I never said that any strategy should revolve around excessively building one type of unit. You keep referencing that for some reason. Maybe you aren’t capable of understanding the argument?

It’s about balance. Telling me that you need to build a whole other unit (rocket artillery) just to be able to use planes supports the point I am making more than anything I have said myself. They aren’t useful. Just build more rocket artillery.

See this is why I said you are an illogical poster.

In any case, tell you what. If you think you can successfully use planes against good players, use them against me. Let’s have a moderated 1v1 no-gold game. Let’s put $500 on the line. You can prove it to me. My screen name is Mad King Faunt

AleksanderZ wrote:

Air units are OP and need to be nerfed. Bytro's update nerfs them indirectly - giving AA a defense range - which helps especially when defending against patrolling planes, which in many cases your int stacks are too far away to help in time, or at all. That Patrol mechanic is the main reason why planes are OP in my opinion, not to mention their relative cheapness (especially ints and NBs)

This change was necessary to help newer players who generally don't use air units and don't understand air combat. It's no fun when your tanks and infantry are being zapped out by enemy tacs or ABs. Either way, air units are not supposed to be "hard to beat"; in reality they were easier to beat than they are in the game currently.

And your lack of understanding of the real cost of these units, calling them “relatively cheap” is telling. You must not be in a lot of situations where you have enough territory to understand this. They require comparatively more research to be effective in terms of how they scale. They require a building and building upgrades you wouldn’t otherwise build. They require a lot of airbases,

Especially in large empires. They are effectively triple the cost of land units.

faunt7 wrote:

You see this is called a “straw man argument.” It happens when someone misrepresents your argument to make it easier to attack, often by exaggerating, distorting, or oversimplifying your position. It is used by stupid people to combat more effective and logical arguments.

try to find an another internet term for this too

you think easy to defend against strategic bombers so what will you produce against them to protect your 5 big cities ??

planes or anti airs ? how many ? which levels ? how long you will keep them in there ?

if you have planes and lost airbase they are basically dead , if you have anti airs how many you will put there ?

if you lose 5 big cities you are nothing , if you think spending resource to destroy enemy cities is a bad thing , shortly you are bad a very bad player

how many minutes strategic bomber group need to destroy your cities morale ??? how many hours you need to regenerate your cities morale ???

have you play any speed server world war map ??? can you go sleep easily with your best anti air tactics ???

while enemy is scouting every meter of your country with strategic bombers what will you do against them if you have no planes ??? enemy knows what you have and where are they going which places are defenceless and easy to bomb

yes you can try to invade him with your heavy stacks which is including many anti air

and he can stop you easily with his other cheap unit stacks

stop to heavy stacks is easiest thing at this game with cheap units which has more terrain advantages and you can still have planes to do another things

if we look your logic about rocket artillery and planes , artillery is a bad thing without a protection you cant use them why don't you produce more tanks basically produce more tanks LOL and you think you talk about balance yeah if you need infantry and anti air to use artillery , artillery is a bad thing what a brilliant idea

I think you don't read even what you wrote do you think you don't need anti airs for tanks too ?

planes are like special forces having them is good if you put them front of a big infantry group they will die if you use them for special missions they will do it I won't write them again all of them , you think they should kill everyone and stay alive because they are special and expensive , special forces are not immortal

don't produce artillery because you need infantry and anti air too so produce more tanks LOL what a brilliant idea it is your perfect logic about rocket artillery and planes

by the way there is thread under of this one called nerf to strategic bombers LOL

We need to or being used, air unit cover the flank not for main stack to attack, so i think we dnt need air unit to become unbeatable, its supposed to be strategical advantage, yes after the recent upgrade, they become more vulnerable, but still they are useful.

And its now good against Nukes.

“you started it first and now attacking me with internet terms LOL

try to find an another internet term for this too”

“Straw man” isn’t an Internet term. It’s a commonly used term in academia. But you seem barely literate so it’s probably new for you.

“you think easy to defend against strategic bombers so what will you produce against them to protect your 5 big cities ??

planes or anti airs ? how many ? which levels ? how long you will keep them in there ?

if you have planes and lost airbase they are basically dead , if you have anti airs how many you will put there ?

if you lose 5 big cities you are nothing , if you think spending resource to destroy enemy cities is a bad thing , shortly you are bad a very bad player

how many minutes strategic bomber group need to destroy your cities morale ??? how many hours you need to regenerate your cities morale ???

have you play any speed server world war map ??? can you go sleep easily with your best anti air tactics ???”

It’s hilarious that you actually believe strategic bombers are effective and not immediately counterable with any anti air or interceptors. No good player is going to be bothered by them. Ever.

“while enemy is scouting every meter of your country with strategic bombers what will you do against them if you have no planes ??? enemy knows what you have and where are they going which places are defenceless and easy to bomb”

If you are using strategic bombers for “scouting” and don’t know how to generate actual intel in this game, you are worse off than i thought. Using expensive, slow, defenseless air units for scouting. That is hilarious.

“yes you can try to invade him with your heavy stacks which is including many anti air

and he can stop you easily with his other cheap unit stacks

stop to heavy stacks is easiest thing at this game with cheap units which has more terrain advantages and you can still have planes to do another things”

It’s easy? Is that why it’s the meta game that every single winning player uses in this game? Is that why I haven’t lost a game in more than 4 years? Is that why every single competent player in the game leans on ground artillery stacks?

“if we look your logic about rocket artillery and planes , artillery is a bad thing without a protection you cant use them why don't you produce more tanks basically produce more tanks LOL and you think you talk about balance yeah if you need infantry and anti air to use artillery , artillery is a bad thing what a brilliant idea

I think you don't read even what you wrote do you think you don't need anti airs for tanks too”

Am I supposed to understand what you just said? Good lord what a mess. Try to make sense.

“planes are like special forces having them is good if you put them front of a big infantry group they will die if you use them for special missions they will do it I won't write them again all of them , you think they should kill everyone and stay alive because they are special and expensive , special forces are not immortal”

The only thing I was able to understand in that grammatical mess was another straw man argument, claiming I said something which I clearly didn’t. You keep going back to this idea that I think air units need to be overpowered. They don’t. They need to be balanced. They need to be useful against good players so they can’t be completely negated. You’ve yet to make a case to effectively use air units where other units can’t do the same thing more cheaply and effectively.

“don't produce artillery because you need infantry and anti air too so produce more tanks LOL what a brilliant idea it is your perfect logic about rocket artillery and planes

by the way there is thread under of this one called nerf to strategic bombers LOL“

You still aren’t making sense. No idea what you are talking about. If it’s regarding using rocket arty to defeat anti-air, you were the one who brought it up. And using land units to defeat anti air means you defeated the land stack anyway which means you still don’t need bombers. You have a really poor grasp of logic.

All this grammatical and semantical mess you have vomited into this thread and you still haven’t even come close to making a coherent point. You are way way way out of your depth here. The actual data supports my argument. And you can’t counter it because you are obviously not a strong player and don’t have a good grasp on game mechanics. Anyone that argues for nerfing strategic bombers is a lightweight. Anyone that thinks tac bombers are

Effective against good players is a novice.

I say it again. Post your ingame name. Let’s see your stats. I could be willing to bet you are a sub 1.00 kill/death ratio player that wins less than 10% of the time. I also invite you once again to play me 1v1. Moderated. No gold. Show me these tactics

faunt7 wrote:

“you started it first and now attacking me with internet terms LOL

try to find an another internet term for this too”

“Straw man” isn’t an Internet term. It’s a commonly used term in academia. But you seem barely literate so it’s probably new for you.

“you think easy to defend against strategic bombers so what will you produce against them to protect your 5 big cities ??

planes or anti airs ? how many ? which levels ? how long you will keep them in there ?

if you have planes and lost airbase they are basically dead , if you have anti airs how many you will put there ?

if you lose 5 big cities you are nothing , if you think spending resource to destroy enemy cities is a bad thing , shortly you are bad a very bad player

how many minutes strategic bomber group need to destroy your cities morale ??? how many hours you need to regenerate your cities morale ???

have you play any speed server world war map ??? can you go sleep easily with your best anti air tactics ???”

It’s hilarious that you actually believe strategic bombers are effective and not immediately counterable with any anti air or interceptors. No good player is going to be bothered by them. Ever.

“while enemy is scouting every meter of your country with strategic bombers what will you do against them if you have no planes ??? enemy knows what you have and where are they going which places are defenceless and easy to bomb”

If you are using strategic bombers for “scouting” and don’t know how to generate actual intel in this game, you are worse off than i thought. Using expensive, slow, defenseless air units for scouting. That is hilarious.

“yes you can try to invade him with your heavy stacks which is including many anti air

and he can stop you easily with his other cheap unit stacks

stop to heavy stacks is easiest thing at this game with cheap units which has more terrain advantages and you can still have planes to do another things”

It’s easy? Is that why it’s the meta game that every single winning player uses in this game? Is that why I haven’t lost a game in more than 4 years? Is that why every single competent player in the game leans on ground artillery stacks?

“if we look your logic about rocket artillery and planes , artillery is a bad thing without a protection you cant use them why don't you produce more tanks basically produce more tanks LOL and you think you talk about balance yeah if you need infantry and anti air to use artillery , artillery is a bad thing what a brilliant idea

I think you don't read even what you wrote do you think you don't need anti airs for tanks too”

Am I supposed to understand what you just said? Good lord what a mess. Try to make sense.

“planes are like special forces having them is good if you put them front of a big infantry group they will die if you use them for special missions they will do it I won't write them again all of them , you think they should kill everyone and stay alive because they are special and expensive , special forces are not immortal”

The only thing I was able to understand in that grammatical mess was another straw man argument, claiming I said something which I clearly didn’t. You keep going back to this idea that I think air units need to be overpowered. They don’t. They need to be balanced. They need to be useful against good players so they can’t be completely negated. You’ve yet to make a case to effectively use air units where other units can’t do the same thing more cheaply and effectively.

“don't produce artillery because you need infantry and anti air too so produce more tanks LOL what a brilliant idea it is your perfect logic about rocket artillery and planes

by the way there is thread under of this one called nerf to strategic bombers LOL“

You still aren’t making sense. No idea what you are talking about. If it’s regarding using rocket arty to defeat anti-air, you were the one who brought it up. And using land units to defeat anti air means you defeated the land stack anyway which means you still don’t need bombers. You have a really poor grasp of logic.

All this grammatical and semantical mess you have vomited into this thread and you still haven’t even come close to making a coherent point. You are way way way out of your depth here. The actual data supports my argument. And you can’t counter it because you are obviously not a strong player and don’t have a good grasp on game mechanics. Anyone that argues for nerfing strategic bombers is a lightweight. Anyone that thinks tac bombers are

Effective against good players is a novice.

I say it again. Post your ingame name. Let’s see your stats. I could be willing to bet you are a sub 1.00 kill/death ratio player that wins less than 10% of the time. I also invite you once again to play me 1v1. Moderated. No gold. Show me these tactics

kid : noone beat me along 4 years

LOL

you think you won't give resources for planes and anti airs to protect your cities because you think protect and destroy cities are useless now you have many planes and anti airs to protect them against strategic bombers and bombers are useless according to you LOL what a kid if enemy is thinking like you strategic bombers are very good scouts but your sentences always changing it is normal for a kid good luck

duello requests again and again shows it is totally correct what a kid

“I can say basically from your posts you never join solo x4 100p maps and have obsession about win rate at 10p 22p maps I won't give more answer for teen boys who have obsession about win rate you guys are small map noobs who is satisfied with beating alone rookies and inactives you can have %99.99 win rate if you like to killing units of new ones why we should care it ?

kid : noone beat me along 4 years

LOL

you think you won't give resources for planes and anti airs to protect your cities because you think protect and destroy cities are useless now you have many planes and anti airs to protect them against strategic bombers and bombers are useless according to you LOL what a kid if enemy is thinking like you strategic bombers are very good scouts but your sentences always changing it is normal for a kid good luck

duello requests again and again shows it is totally correct what a kid“

Another total grammatical, semantical mess of a post from you, doubling down on your horrible tactics.

I don’t play small maps. I play 100. Regular and 4x. Even 10x on the rare occasion it pops up. I have multiple Supremacy wins as well. But then again, I post my in-game name. You don’t. You can go see what maps I play.

So my point stands. You aren’t qualified to comment here. Post your ingame name. Prove me wrong.

This post was about how good players can negate all offensive air units with comparatively small investments in anti air. You’ve done nothing to contradict that assertion. I can log into a game right now with you and prove my point.

Prior to changes:

Day 4 -6

Allies with 10 tacts lvl3 - 81 dmg.

Comintern 10 anti-air lvl2 - 72 dmg.

And you expect Comintern player to have 10 AA in every stack in range of those tacts. While he has to move that big stack with speed of 35 back and forth bcs any split unit will get evaporated at instant.

No. AA was terrible. 10 high lvl bombers force enemy to have max amount of AA in every single stack or contest air superiority which in case of Comintern is basicly impossible.

And if you want to be able to kill doomstacks with aircrafts then lets just delete ground units and play air only.

Sewur wrote:

Prior to changes:

Day 4 -6

Allies with 10 tacts lvl3 - 81 dmg.

Comintern 10 anti-air lvl2 - 72 dmg.

And you expect Comintern player to have 10 AA in every stack in range of those tacts. While he has to move that big stack with speed of 35 back and forth bcs any split unit will get evaporated at instant.

No. AA was terrible. 10 high lvl bombers force enemy to have max amount of AA in every single stack or contest air superiority which in case of Comintern is basicly impossible.

And if you want to be able to kill doomstacks with aircrafts then lets just delete ground units and play air only.

Kid will invite you a duello now ,noone beat him along 4 years haha

How much money have you guys spent on game??

Sewur wrote:

Prior to changes:

Day 4 -6

Allies with 10 tacts lvl3 - 81 dmg.

Comintern 10 anti-air lvl2 - 72 dmg.

And you expect Comintern player to have 10 AA in every stack in range of those tacts. While he has to move that big stack with speed of 35 back and forth bcs any split unit will get evaporated at instant.

No. AA was terrible. 10 high lvl bombers force enemy to have max amount of AA in every single stack or contest air superiority which in case of Comintern is basicly impossible.

And if you want to be able to kill doomstacks with aircrafts then lets just delete ground units and play air only.

That would be true if we are talking about units by themselves. But because of how damage works, you just need a few extra units to soak damage and air units become untenable. When you understand this game, truly, you understand that this game revolves around “trades.” You risk an attack with the expectation of gaining more than you lose.

So sure, the first attack is somewhat on par in terms of giving and receiving damage. However, because of how attack damage rapidly scales downward with damaged units, air units suffer exorbitant diminishing returns in relation to comparable anti-air. After the first attack, air units have already been damaged to the point that they cannot give sufficient reciprocal trades in damage to be worthwhile using. They can’t really hit the AA directly and can’t cause that defensive (and now offensive) damage to diminish. You don’t need a full 10 stack of AA to beat air units. You just need enough other units to protect them from taking damage.

And the point of this post isn’t to say that you should be able to beat a “doom stack” with a single stack of planes. It’s to say that planes should be viable and balanced so that they are a not a waste of resources in comparison to most ground compositions. Presently, there isn’t a compelling reason to use any air units aside from interceptors. Those resources are better spent elsewhere. I haven’t faced anyone who is actually effective against me using air units for several years. At least since the current meta was developed. I’d love a reason to start using air units again. Presently however they can be completely negated by any player with a brain.

Undaunted wrote:

Sewur wrote:

Prior to changes:

Day 4 -6

Allies with 10 tacts lvl3 - 81 dmg.

Comintern 10 anti-air lvl2 - 72 dmg.

And you expect Comintern player to have 10 AA in every stack in range of those tacts. While he has to move that big stack with speed of 35 back and forth bcs any split unit will get evaporated at instant.

No. AA was terrible. 10 high lvl bombers force enemy to have max amount of AA in every single stack or contest air superiority which in case of Comintern is basicly impossible.

And if you want to be able to kill doomstacks with aircrafts then lets just delete ground units and play air only.

how dare you ?Kid will invite you a duello now ,noone beat him along 4 years haha

faunt7 wrote:

Undaunted wrote:

Sewur wrote:

Prior to changes:

Day 4 -6

Allies with 10 tacts lvl3 - 81 dmg.

Comintern 10 anti-air lvl2 - 72 dmg.

And you expect Comintern player to have 10 AA in every stack in range of those tacts. While he has to move that big stack with speed of 35 back and forth bcs any split unit will get evaporated at instant.

No. AA was terrible. 10 high lvl bombers force enemy to have max amount of AA in every single stack or contest air superiority which in case of Comintern is basicly impossible.

And if you want to be able to kill doomstacks with aircrafts then lets just delete ground units and play air only.

how dare you ?Kid will invite you a duello now ,noone beat him along 4 years haha

Well no because he makes a coherent (though wrong) argument and seems like he knows his way around the game a bit. You are functionally illiterate, low IQ and arguing with what seems to be zero actual game knowledge. That’s why you never posted your ingame name because you don’t win games very often. So you don’t really belong in this conversation.

ıt is cute you think win rate Shows knowledge

Keep to play small maps join them as last and have %99.99 rate you are unbeatable

Who are you ? Lost child of Rambo ?

If you are not interested with playing Bhutan at all in map it is ok but I dont care your useless win rate

Top rank guys at ranking are noobs for you because they have %10 win rate ? LOL you are just a child

now go to increase your win rate at your boring games

Undaunted wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

Undaunted wrote:

Sewur wrote:

Prior to changes:

Day 4 -6

Allies with 10 tacts lvl3 - 81 dmg.

Comintern 10 anti-air lvl2 - 72 dmg.

And you expect Comintern player to have 10 AA in every stack in range of those tacts. While he has to move that big stack with speed of 35 back and forth bcs any split unit will get evaporated at instant.

No. AA was terrible. 10 high lvl bombers force enemy to have max amount of AA in every single stack or contest air superiority which in case of Comintern is basicly impossible.

And if you want to be able to kill doomstacks with aircrafts then lets just delete ground units and play air only.

how dare you ?Kid will invite you a duello now ,noone beat him along 4 years haha

Well no because he makes a coherent (though wrong) argument and seems like he knows his way around the game a bit. You are functionally illiterate, low IQ and arguing with what seems to be zero actual game knowledge. That’s why you never posted your ingame name because you don’t win games very often. So you don’t really belong in this conversation.

Yeah what is academia term for angry children ?

ıt is cute you think win rate Shows knowledge

Keep to play small maps join them as last and have %99.99 rate you are unbeatable

Who are you ? Lost child of Rambo ?

If you are not interested with playing Bhutan at all in map it is ok but I dont care your useless win rate

Top rank guys at ranking are noobs for you because they have %10 win rate ? LOL you are just a child

now go to increase your win rate at your boring games

Guy, are you ok? I haven’t played a small map since the tutorial. You can search my name and see exactly what games I play. World Map, Homeland, Pacific, in that order. It’s like you are deliberately stupid or something. Rambo? Bhutan? Are you OK guy?

And yes, top ranked guys with 10% win rates are easy to beat. Level is a poor indication of proficiency. Kill/death ratio and win rates are what I use to know if I need to be careful with a particular player.

In any case, you have demonstrated that you have a very novice understanding of the game. At this point it’s just amusing to see you trying to fight with literally no ammunition.

faunt7 wrote:

Undaunted wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

Undaunted wrote:

Sewur wrote:

Prior to changes:

Day 4 -6

Allies with 10 tacts lvl3 - 81 dmg.

Comintern 10 anti-air lvl2 - 72 dmg.

And you expect Comintern player to have 10 AA in every stack in range of those tacts. While he has to move that big stack with speed of 35 back and forth bcs any split unit will get evaporated at instant.

No. AA was terrible. 10 high lvl bombers force enemy to have max amount of AA in every single stack or contest air superiority which in case of Comintern is basicly impossible.

And if you want to be able to kill doomstacks with aircrafts then lets just delete ground units and play air only.

how dare you ?Kid will invite you a duello now ,noone beat him along 4 years haha

Well no because he makes a coherent (though wrong) argument and seems like he knows his way around the game a bit. You are functionally illiterate, low IQ and arguing with what seems to be zero actual game knowledge. That’s why you never posted your ingame name because you don’t win games very often. So you don’t really belong in this conversation.

Yeah what is academia term for angry children ?ıt is cute you think win rate Shows knowledge

Keep to play small maps join them as last and have %99.99 rate you are unbeatable

Who are you ? Lost child of Rambo ?

If you are not interested with playing Bhutan at all in map it is ok but I dont care your useless win rate

Top rank guys at ranking are noobs for you because they have %10 win rate ? LOL you are just a child

now go to increase your win rate at your boring games

Guy, are you ok? I haven’t played a small map since the tutorial. You can search my name and see exactly what games I play. World Map, Homeland, Pacific, in that order. It’s like you are deliberately stupid or something. Rambo? Bhutan? Are you OK guy?

And yes, top ranked guys with 10% win rates are easy to beat. Level is a poor indication of proficiency. Kill/death ratio and win rates are what I use to know if I need to be careful with a particular player.

In any case, you have demonstrated that you have a very novice understanding of the game. At this point it’s just amusing to see you trying to fight with literally no ammunition.

Useless kid get a life

Undaunted wrote:

yes you should be fan of top rank 1 guy silverbrains LoL he is best one. not like you noobUseless kid get a life

Undaunted, not sure if you realize this, but a lot of threads where you decide to participate end up like this. Doesn't mean you're a bad person or that it's all your fault, just pay attention, and try not to let this happen so often.

Air units have always been OP, and they still are.

1. What makes air units OP is their ability to quickly move around the world. Regular airfields have no limits to how many planes they can service, and they can service the planes of your allies. Planes allow you and your allies to concentrate a very large force in a very small area in a very short amount of time. That's a strategic advantage that cannot be countered.

2. The secondary reason planes are OP is the patrol mechanic. Ranged AA tries to lessen this advantage somewhat, by making patrols more risky. Time will tell how effective the change is, but at first blush, it looks promising.

3. Planes got an additional boost in utility with WB healing. Making planes last longer solves counters their fragility. You can even heal planes while on patrol, making air duels an exercise in who's better at saving their WB.

IMO, it was #3 that boosted air power beyond anything that CoW has seen in the past. Ranged AA negates some of this power, but on the whole, the strategic benefits of air power, the patrol mechanic, and the healing potential, continue to make air power an essential tool in beating top CoW players.