Air Units: Ineffective against knowledgeable players

z00mz00m wrote:

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.

Undaunted wrote:

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 knowledgeKeep 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.

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

Air units have always been OP, and they still are.They are definitely hard for newer players to deal with. They are extremely underpowered against quality players.

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.

It’s a large force that can be easily countered unfortunately. Here is the thing. Yes they can be really powerful if you are up against an opponent that hasn’t prepared for you at all or garnered intelligence. However against a well prepared opponent, those planes are practically useless. As I discussed above, your “trade” using planes gets progressively worse with diminishing returns. If the land units are stacked with sufficient units to soak the damage, a comparatively small number of anti aircraft units can defeat several large stacks of bombers. It’s about the trade of resources devoted to attacking and defending. Because of the fragility of air units you lose too much too quickly.

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.

Patrol isn’t overpowered. It’s the only thing that makes air units even remotely viable in any situation. And given the fragility of air units, patrol isn’t actually not advisable to use against quality players. Patrol seems great against newer players who don’t understand game mechanics and how to properly stack their units.

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.

You can’t balance bases on War Bonds and gold. That mechanic is actually true for any non-melee unit. People can heal artillery as well. It’s one reason why the already overpowered artillery stack meta has gotten out of control.In combat healing needs to be nerfed. Not planes. Conflict of Nations doesn’t allow combat healing, even at range, so it’s definitely possible.

The reality here is that planes are great at mopping up bad players. Any decent player can completely negate them with a very small investment. Sure, you can have them air attack some big stacks and weaken them. But whatever investment you put in them would have been better spend on more ground units because within 1-2 attacks you will start losing units and the effectiveness drops drastically. Like I said in the thread previously. If I see planes, I know I’m going to win. My resources have been better invested. That’s my point.

[/quote]

[/quote]

Faunt7, if you try to use air power all the time against every target, then yes, it's easily countered. But that misses the point.

Light armor can be countered with heavy armor. Is it useless? No, it has a role. You can flank opponents and go after their uncovered ranged stacks or their airfields.

Show me a player who's conceded air superiority to the enemy, and I'll show you a player who has lost the initiative. The enemy can scout at will. They can send runners to grab land. They can destroy reinforcements before they get to the front. They can raze empty forts, infra, and other structures.

The truth is that you need a mix of different stacks, with different roles. You need to know when to use a hammer or a scalpel. Air power is amazing, but you have to know when to stay away from a target. Look for the right opening.

I

z00mz00m wrote:

Faunt7, if you try to use air power all the time against every target, then yes, it's easily countered. But that misses the point.

Light armor can be countered with heavy armor. Is it useless? No, it has a role. You can flank opponents and go after their uncovered ranged stacks or their airfields.

Show me a player who's conceded air superiority to the enemy, and I'll show you a player who has lost the initiative. The enemy can scout at will. They can send runners to grab land. They can destroy reinforcements before they get to the front. They can raze empty forts, infra, and other structures.

The truth is that you need a mix of different stacks, with different roles. You need to know when to use a hammer or a scalpel. Air power is amazing, but you have to know when to stay away from a target. Look for the right opening.

Part of what you said is telling: “Players can grab land at will.” This is a mistaken notion of how the game works though it is what so many players do. They spend resources to grab land and provinces. That isn’t how you win at this game. You win by destroying armies. If you properly deploy your units you can’t be flanked. And losing a few provinces has little to no bearing on victory. I see so many players focusing on grabbing provinces, even sacrificing units to so. Players like that do not win.

And no. You don’t need stacks of different uses. You need one stack of 3-4 different units that can’t be countered except by larger numbers of the same stuff. You need fast units to be part of that stack so they can quickly fan out grab land and then reconsolidate as you push through and destroy armies, but the key is that you are destroying armies.

Destroying reinforcements sounds great in theory. However, if I know you have air units, I’m just going to consolidate my stacks before I bring them to the front.

The point is as I said: Air units are not useless. They are just useless relative to the required investment and that those resources could be more

Effectively used elsewhere. This game has a meta that can guarantee victory if you know how to do it. Air units don’t factor into that.

Jotero wrote:

I don't support that. This player is an old fan of huge aviation stacks. Previously, there was no balance, and whoever had more aviation and time to command it won. Of the ground units, only an APC was used and that was it.Now this is one of the good introductions, now you can safely use a lot of units, combinations, anti-aircraft guns have become necessary.I think this is a good update and there is no need to improve aviation!If you look at history, the main role was played by fighter aircraft, which provided reconnaissance and overlap, while attack aircraft in the flesh had extremely poor performance until the end of WWII.And the Allies suffered catastrophic losses in strategic aviation, and then it turned out that the destruction of cities had almost no effect.

I’m a fan of balance. And against good players, Planes are not useful. There is no real reason to use them aside from one stack of interceptors for defense and reconnaissance. I don’t think that is a good game dynamic. It isn’t a good game dynamic that 3-4 anti aircraft units in a stack can basically nullify an entire stack of bombers in 2 rounds of combat.

I’m realizing something here:

This is pointless. I have a different game experience than the people participating in this thread. They talk about things like scouting and flanking and all the ancillary benefits of air units. They talk about grabbing land. But it’s all based on the mistaken notion that any of that is actually more important than simply building the best army for killing other armies. None of what any of you have discussed contributes to that basic necessity. It’s why someone like me will always win. I’m coming from the perspective of absolute min-maxing, data-crunching use of resources. And from that perspective, it’s a bad idea to invest in bombers.

A big part of this problem has to do with how this game deals with the efficiency mechanic. In Conflict of War, their WW3 port of this game, there are huge penalties in terms of speed and damage, to keeping units over stacked. In this game the only real penalty is that most units won’t be doing any damage when attacking or defending. Ultimately that is ok because you are able to “hide” a lot of units in your stack and use cheaper or more durable units to absorb damage and keep your best 10 offensive units operating at peak effect. Those 10 units suffer no penalty for being overstacked.

It’s just a question of perception. Novice players get wrecked by air units. I see them as an immediate mistake.

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

I don't support that. This player is an old fan of huge aviation stacks. Previously, there was no balance, and whoever had more aviation and time to command it won. Of the ground units, only an APC was used and that was it.Now this is one of the good introductions, now you can safely use a lot of units, combinations, anti-aircraft guns have become necessary.I think this is a good update and there is no need to improve aviation!If you look at history, the main role was played by fighter aircraft, which provided reconnaissance and overlap, while attack aircraft in the flesh had extremely poor performance until the end of WWII.And the Allies suffered catastrophic losses in strategic aviation, and then it turned out that the destruction of cities had almost no effect.

Don’t put words in my mouth. You don’t know what I’m a “fan of.”

I’m a fan of balance. And against good players, Planes are not useful. There is no real reason to use them aside from one stack of interceptors for defense and reconnaissance. I don’t think that is a good game dynamic. It isn’t a good game dynamic that 3-4 anti aircraft units in a stack can basically nullify an entire stack of bombers in 2 rounds of combat.

What are you talking about?

The aircraft were not destroyed, just the anti-aircraft guns were slightly reinforced. You propose to improve aviation. Question. How? What would you add to that? It is already strong, its role has been preserved, aviation cannot be an assault unit, aviation has always played a supporting role. Tanks break through the defenses.

So I don't support you at all, you're talking nonsense.

This is a bizarre discussion.

Faunt7 how do you win 100% of your games without air power? How do you build mega stacks in sufficient quantity to control the map?

A mega stack strategy is not viable, in the long run. You have to spread out and take land sooner or later, or you'll be crawling across enemy hills at half speed. If you spread out, here come the planes. If you don't, you're bumping around of the dark like a blind elephant. The enemy sees your stack and wisely decides to go around you. You're only going to kill bad players who suicide units. Nobody I know would lose to your strategy.

Jotero wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

I don't support that. This player is an old fan of huge aviation stacks. Previously, there was no balance, and whoever had more aviation and time to command it won. Of the ground units, only an APC was used and that was it.Now this is one of the good introductions, now you can safely use a lot of units, combinations, anti-aircraft guns have become necessary.I think this is a good update and there is no need to improve aviation!If you look at history, the main role was played by fighter aircraft, which provided reconnaissance and overlap, while attack aircraft in the flesh had extremely poor performance until the end of WWII.And the Allies suffered catastrophic losses in strategic aviation, and then it turned out that the destruction of cities had almost no effect.

Don’t put words in my mouth. You don’t know what I’m a “fan of.”I’m a fan of balance. And against good players, Planes are not useful. There is no real reason to use them aside from one stack of interceptors for defense and reconnaissance. I don’t think that is a good game dynamic. It isn’t a good game dynamic that 3-4 anti aircraft units in a stack can basically nullify an entire stack of bombers in 2 rounds of combat.

What kind of balance are we talking about? The game has power-up cards, unit cards, and gold.What are you talking about?

The aircraft were not destroyed, just the anti-aircraft guns were slightly reinforced. You propose to improve aviation. Question. How? What would you add to that? It is already strong, its role has been preserved, aviation cannot be an assault unit, aviation has always played a supporting role. Tanks break through the defenses.

So I don't support you at all, you're talking nonsense.

Jotero wrote:

Jotero wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

I don't support that. This player is an old fan of huge aviation stacks. Previously, there was no balance, and whoever had more aviation and time to command it won. Of the ground units, only an APC was used and that was it.Now this is one of the good introductions, now you can safely use a lot of units, combinations, anti-aircraft guns have become necessary.I think this is a good update and there is no need to improve aviation!If you look at history, the main role was played by fighter aircraft, which provided reconnaissance and overlap, while attack aircraft in the flesh had extremely poor performance until the end of WWII.And the Allies suffered catastrophic losses in strategic aviation, and then it turned out that the destruction of cities had almost no effect.

Don’t put words in my mouth. You don’t know what I’m a “fan of.”I’m a fan of balance. And against good players, Planes are not useful. There is no real reason to use them aside from one stack of interceptors for defense and reconnaissance. I don’t think that is a good game dynamic. It isn’t a good game dynamic that 3-4 anti aircraft units in a stack can basically nullify an entire stack of bombers in 2 rounds of combat.

What kind of balance are we talking about? The game has power-up cards, unit cards, and gold.What are you talking about?The aircraft were not destroyed, just the anti-aircraft guns were slightly reinforced. You propose to improve aviation. Question. How? What would you add to that? It is already strong, its role has been preserved, aviation cannot be an assault unit, aviation has always played a supporting role. Tanks break through the defenses.

So I don't support you at all, you're talking nonsense.

The truth is that people want to sleep at night. And now it's become a little easier. And people like you, who don't care about health, destroy players with their planes overnight.And now you haven't had a chance to take advantage of it, and you're crying here.

Jotero wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

I don't support that. This player is an old fan of huge aviation stacks. Previously, there was no balance, and whoever had more aviation and time to command it won. Of the ground units, only an APC was used and that was it.Now this is one of the good introductions, now you can safely use a lot of units, combinations, anti-aircraft guns have become necessary.I think this is a good update and there is no need to improve aviation!If you look at history, the main role was played by fighter aircraft, which provided reconnaissance and overlap, while attack aircraft in the flesh had extremely poor performance until the end of WWII.And the Allies suffered catastrophic losses in strategic aviation, and then it turned out that the destruction of cities had almost no effect.

Don’t put words in my mouth. You don’t know what I’m a “fan of.”I’m a fan of balance. And against good players, Planes are not useful. There is no real reason to use them aside from one stack of interceptors for defense and reconnaissance. I don’t think that is a good game dynamic. It isn’t a good game dynamic that 3-4 anti aircraft units in a stack can basically nullify an entire stack of bombers in 2 rounds of combat.

What kind of balance are we talking about? The game has power-up cards, unit cards, and gold.What are you talking about?

The aircraft were not destroyed, just the anti-aircraft guns were slightly reinforced. You propose to improve aviation. Question. How? What would you add to that? It is already strong, its role has been preserved, aviation cannot be an assault unit, aviation has always played a supporting role. Tanks break through the defenses.

So I don't support you at all, you're talking nonsense.

How would you balance them? That gets down to game mechanics. The system rewards mega stacks. Planes are useless with incredible diminishing returns against large stacks of land units due to their fragility. There is no counter to this that doesn’t involve building more land units. So it stands to reason, and the data bears this out, that resources are better spent just making land units. The sister game to this, Conflict of Nations has heavy penalties for overstacking. In this game, large stacks don’t affect efficiency in the same way with respect to damage nor speed. It means you can protect your anti air units in a large stack and they will continue inflicting damage on plane stacks at near 100% damage (up to 10 units) while planes experience dramatic diminishing returns due to the severe penalty on damage inflicted due to the units health. So a solution is not to buff planes, but to fix the exploitation of the efficiency mechanic

Jotero wrote:

Jotero wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

I don't support that. This player is an old fan of huge aviation stacks. Previously, there was no balance, and whoever had more aviation and time to command it won. Of the ground units, only an APC was used and that was it.Now this is one of the good introductions, now you can safely use a lot of units, combinations, anti-aircraft guns have become necessary.I think this is a good update and there is no need to improve aviation!If you look at history, the main role was played by fighter aircraft, which provided reconnaissance and overlap, while attack aircraft in the flesh had extremely poor performance until the end of WWII.And the Allies suffered catastrophic losses in strategic aviation, and then it turned out that the destruction of cities had almost no effect.

Don’t put words in my mouth. You don’t know what I’m a “fan of.”I’m a fan of balance. And against good players, Planes are not useful. There is no real reason to use them aside from one stack of interceptors for defense and reconnaissance. I don’t think that is a good game dynamic. It isn’t a good game dynamic that 3-4 anti aircraft units in a stack can basically nullify an entire stack of bombers in 2 rounds of combat.

What kind of balance are we talking about? The game has power-up cards, unit cards, and gold.What are you talking about?The aircraft were not destroyed, just the anti-aircraft guns were slightly reinforced. You propose to improve aviation. Question. How? What would you add to that? It is already strong, its role has been preserved, aviation cannot be an assault unit, aviation has always played a supporting role. Tanks break through the defenses.

So I don't support you at all, you're talking nonsense.

The truth is that people want to sleep at night. And now it's become a little easier. And people like you, who don't care about health, destroy players with their planes overnight.And now you haven't had a chance to take advantage of it, and you're crying here.

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

Jotero wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

I don't support that. This player is an old fan of huge aviation stacks. Previously, there was no balance, and whoever had more aviation and time to command it won. Of the ground units, only an APC was used and that was it.Now this is one of the good introductions, now you can safely use a lot of units, combinations, anti-aircraft guns have become necessary.I think this is a good update and there is no need to improve aviation!If you look at history, the main role was played by fighter aircraft, which provided reconnaissance and overlap, while attack aircraft in the flesh had extremely poor performance until the end of WWII.And the Allies suffered catastrophic losses in strategic aviation, and then it turned out that the destruction of cities had almost no effect.

Don’t put words in my mouth. You don’t know what I’m a “fan of.”I’m a fan of balance. And against good players, Planes are not useful. There is no real reason to use them aside from one stack of interceptors for defense and reconnaissance. I don’t think that is a good game dynamic. It isn’t a good game dynamic that 3-4 anti aircraft units in a stack can basically nullify an entire stack of bombers in 2 rounds of combat.

What kind of balance are we talking about? The game has power-up cards, unit cards, and gold.What are you talking about?The aircraft were not destroyed, just the anti-aircraft guns were slightly reinforced. You propose to improve aviation. Question. How? What would you add to that? It is already strong, its role has been preserved, aviation cannot be an assault unit, aviation has always played a supporting role. Tanks break through the defenses.So I don't support you at all, you're talking nonsense.

The truth is that people want to sleep at night. And now it's become a little easier. And people like you, who don't care about health, destroy players with their planes overnight.And now you haven't had a chance to take advantage of it, and you're crying here.

So your argument is that you are an inattentive and careless player and are too lazy to properly defend your units so air power should be effectively useless against good players simply because it causes problems for you.

z00mz00m wrote:

This is a bizarre discussion.

Faunt7 how do you win 100% of your games without air power? How do you build mega stacks in sufficient quantity to control the map?

A mega stack strategy is not viable, in the long run. You have to spread out and take land sooner or later, or you'll be crawling across enemy hills at half speed. If you spread out, here come the planes. If you don't, you're bumping around of the dark like a blind elephant. The enemy sees your stack and wisely decides to go around you. You're only going to kill bad players who suicide units. Nobody I know would lose to your strategy.

If you think that using a mega stack means “crawling” then you don’t really understand the strategy. And based on YOUR STATS you aren’t really qualified to talk about what is or isn’t viable. If you want to test that theory, let’s play a game. Happy to do so.

Jotero wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

Jotero wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

I don't support that. This player is an old fan of huge aviation stacks. Previously, there was no balance, and whoever had more aviation and time to command it won. Of the ground units, only an APC was used and that was it.Now this is one of the good introductions, now you can safely use a lot of units, combinations, anti-aircraft guns have become necessary.I think this is a good update and there is no need to improve aviation!If you look at history, the main role was played by fighter aircraft, which provided reconnaissance and overlap, while attack aircraft in the flesh had extremely poor performance until the end of WWII.And the Allies suffered catastrophic losses in strategic aviation, and then it turned out that the destruction of cities had almost no effect.

Don’t put words in my mouth. You don’t know what I’m a “fan of.”I’m a fan of balance. And against good players, Planes are not useful. There is no real reason to use them aside from one stack of interceptors for defense and reconnaissance. I don’t think that is a good game dynamic. It isn’t a good game dynamic that 3-4 anti aircraft units in a stack can basically nullify an entire stack of bombers in 2 rounds of combat.

What kind of balance are we talking about? The game has power-up cards, unit cards, and gold.What are you talking about?The aircraft were not destroyed, just the anti-aircraft guns were slightly reinforced. You propose to improve aviation. Question. How? What would you add to that? It is already strong, its role has been preserved, aviation cannot be an assault unit, aviation has always played a supporting role. Tanks break through the defenses.So I don't support you at all, you're talking nonsense.

The truth is that people want to sleep at night. And now it's become a little easier. And people like you, who don't care about health, destroy players with their planes overnight.And now you haven't had a chance to take advantage of it, and you're crying here.

So your argument is that you are an inattentive and careless player and are too lazy to properly defend your units so air power should be effectively useless against good players simply because it causes problems for you.

No, I just prefer to sleep at night. And you probably like to wait until the player falls asleep and just destroy his army with the help of aviation. That's why you win, all your tactics. I know many of them, and you are no better than those who update statistics on inactive players. And yes, aviation has never broken through the front, it has always played the role of support.And the NEW update has been done as well as possible, I fully support it.And your stupid links about beginners and experienced players are complete nonsense.

Why y’all yapping that much

z00mz00m wrote:

This is a bizarre discussion.

Faunt7 how do you win 100% of your games without air power? How do you build mega stacks in sufficient quantity to control the map?

A mega stack strategy is not viable, in the long run. You have to spread out and take land sooner or later, or you'll be crawling across enemy hills at half speed. If you spread out, here come the planes. If you don't, you're bumping around of the dark like a blind elephant. The enemy sees your stack and wisely decides to go around you. You're only going to kill bad players who suicide units. Nobody I know would lose to your strategy.

His mama is proud with his win rate

Noone beat him along 4 years

Duello time 1 vs 1

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

Jotero wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

I don't support that. This player is an old fan of huge aviation stacks. Previously, there was no balance, and whoever had more aviation and time to command it won. Of the ground units, only an APC was used and that was it.Now this is one of the good introductions, now you can safely use a lot of units, combinations, anti-aircraft guns have become necessary.I think this is a good update and there is no need to improve aviation!If you look at history, the main role was played by fighter aircraft, which provided reconnaissance and overlap, while attack aircraft in the flesh had extremely poor performance until the end of WWII.And the Allies suffered catastrophic losses in strategic aviation, and then it turned out that the destruction of cities had almost no effect.

Don’t put words in my mouth. You don’t know what I’m a “fan of.”I’m a fan of balance. And against good players, Planes are not useful. There is no real reason to use them aside from one stack of interceptors for defense and reconnaissance. I don’t think that is a good game dynamic. It isn’t a good game dynamic that 3-4 anti aircraft units in a stack can basically nullify an entire stack of bombers in 2 rounds of combat.

What kind of balance are we talking about? The game has power-up cards, unit cards, and gold.What are you talking about?The aircraft were not destroyed, just the anti-aircraft guns were slightly reinforced. You propose to improve aviation. Question. How? What would you add to that? It is already strong, its role has been preserved, aviation cannot be an assault unit, aviation has always played a supporting role. Tanks break through the defenses.So I don't support you at all, you're talking nonsense.

The truth is that people want to sleep at night. And now it's become a little easier. And people like you, who don't care about health, destroy players with their planes overnight.And now you haven't had a chance to take advantage of it, and you're crying here.

So your argument is that you are an inattentive and careless player and are too lazy to properly defend your units so air power should be effectively useless against good players simply because it causes problems for you.

No, I just prefer to sleep at night. And you probably like to wait until the player falls asleep and just destroy his army with the help of aviation. That's why you win, all your tactics. I know many of them, and you are no better than those who update statistics on inactive players. And yes, aviation has never broken through the front, it has always played the role of support.And the NEW update has been done as well as possible, I fully support it.And your stupid links about beginners and experienced players are complete nonsense.

sleep? What are you talking about? Lol! Is that your excuse for losing? Everyone sleeps you weirdo. Maybe you should stop using Google translate to post on this forum. You aren’t making sense. Update statistics on inactive players? WHAT? lol.

И никто твой пост не поддержал. Ибо то,что ты предлагаешь чушь. Которую заметили даже русскоязычные.

Jotero wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

Jotero wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

I don't support that. This player is an old fan of huge aviation stacks. Previously, there was no balance, and whoever had more aviation and time to command it won. Of the ground units, only an APC was used and that was it.Now this is one of the good introductions, now you can safely use a lot of units, combinations, anti-aircraft guns have become necessary.I think this is a good update and there is no need to improve aviation!If you look at history, the main role was played by fighter aircraft, which provided reconnaissance and overlap, while attack aircraft in the flesh had extremely poor performance until the end of WWII.And the Allies suffered catastrophic losses in strategic aviation, and then it turned out that the destruction of cities had almost no effect.

Don’t put words in my mouth. You don’t know what I’m a “fan of.”I’m a fan of balance. And against good players, Planes are not useful. There is no real reason to use them aside from one stack of interceptors for defense and reconnaissance. I don’t think that is a good game dynamic. It isn’t a good game dynamic that 3-4 anti aircraft units in a stack can basically nullify an entire stack of bombers in 2 rounds of combat.

What kind of balance are we talking about? The game has power-up cards, unit cards, and gold.What are you talking about?The aircraft were not destroyed, just the anti-aircraft guns were slightly reinforced. You propose to improve aviation. Question. How? What would you add to that? It is already strong, its role has been preserved, aviation cannot be an assault unit, aviation has always played a supporting role. Tanks break through the defenses.So I don't support you at all, you're talking nonsense.

The truth is that people want to sleep at night. And now it's become a little easier. And people like you, who don't care about health, destroy players with their planes overnight.And now you haven't had a chance to take advantage of it, and you're crying here.

So your argument is that you are an inattentive and careless player and are too lazy to properly defend your units so air power should be effectively useless against good players simply because it causes problems for you.

No, I just prefer to sleep at night. And you probably like to wait until the player falls asleep and just destroy his army with the help of aviation. That's why you win, all your tactics. I know many of them, and you are no better than those who update statistics on inactive players. And yes, aviation has never broken through the front, it has always played the role of support.And the NEW update has been done as well as possible, I fully support it.And your stupid links about beginners and experienced players are complete nonsense.

sleep? What are you talking about? Lol! Is that your excuse for losing? Everyone sleeps you weirdo. Maybe you should stop using Google translate to post on this forum. You aren’t making sense. Update statistics on inactive players? WHAT? lol.

Хорошо, не буду использовать Google-переводчик. Правда в том, что ты клоун. И все тебя знают как клоуна.И никто твой пост не поддержал. Ибо то,что ты предлагаешь чушь. Которую заметили даже русскоязычные.