Prior to the recent changes to Anti Air units, Air units were already in a pretty bad place. Stacked ground units and stacked naval units with anti air units and cruisers could essentially negate them completely by distributing the damage sufficiently across multiple units that any attacking planes lacked the hit points to be effective against large stacks of ground or naval units. The “effectiveness” limitation of large stacks is easily manipulated and overcome by attentive players. So essentially there is no real downside toward keeping large stacks of units stacked with anti air units, making them essentially invulnerable to air attacks.
Now, with recent changes, air units are even more limited. They still contend with the issues listed above, but now they take 50% more damage per attack due to the ranged proactive air defense addition. Air units are now able to be completely negated by any decent player who is attending his/her units.
So I guess my question here to Bytro is. Do you all even play your own game? Why would you significantly buff anti air units when air units were already almost completely irrelevant ? Why would you not make changes to air units to counter the added effectiveness of the anti air units? Air units were only effective against inexperienced players who don’t understand the games mechanics. Presently there is no real reason to invest in air units when you could instead invest in the artillery meta game.
Air units haven’t really been good for a long time. And I think it would be a better experience if players couldn’t just avoid them by stacking up all their units with multiple AA. Conflict of Nations has a pretty good balance on this because their “effectiveness” trait makes unit stacking more challenging as it makes units much slow and do dramatically less damage. In Call of War you will
Automatically attack or defend with your best 10 units as it relates to the units you are attacking or defending against.
when you do that math, the problem becomes more evident.
Let’s just say that you have a stack that looks like this:
5 level 1 Anti Air
5 level 1 infantry
3 level 1 armored car
3 level 1 artillery
225 total HP.
And you have 10 Tactical Bombers.
200 total hp.
there are a lot of variables here but let’s stick to a direct attack.
Tac bombers inflict 41 total damage, accounting for the light armor of the armored cars.
Stack defends at 14 proactive Radial damage plus 35.5. So nearly 10 damage more than the attacker.
That in of itself isn’t great. However it gets worse over time as the AA units take less comparative damage because the other units in the stack soak damage. So the air unit gets rapidly diminishing returns. If you keep this attack going until one of the stacks is gone, the land stack will have done more than 7 times the damage of the air units.
Even stacking the bombers with fighters only delays the inevitable. Now consider scaling with levels, the cost associated with maintaining and Air Force, the research, extra production facilities and the airfields through the map and there isn’t any compelling reason to use them.
These days if someone uses air units I know I will win. It’s that simple.
Please log in to post a reply.
English is the official language of this forum.Jotero wrote:
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.
You already proved you don’t belong in this thread. Shush now.Undaunted wrote:
He is a lifeless kid never mindJotero wrote:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.Jotero wrote:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.Jotero wrote:
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:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.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.
You result to insults because you have no argument. I’m not really interested in what a player with a .66 kill.death ratio thinks. You aren’t good at the gameJotero wrote:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.Jotero wrote:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.Jotero wrote:
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:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.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.
Why y’all yapping that much
no you are wrong I have 0.01 K/d ratiofaunt7 wrote:
You result to insults because you have no argument. I’m not really interested in what a player with a .66 kill.death ratio thinks. You aren’t good at the gameJotero wrote:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.Jotero wrote:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.Jotero wrote:
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:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.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.
useless kid your all paragraphs only have insults and blame people here
People is trying to explain why planes are important to a kid along days it is funny
You have no capacity to understand people here
it seems noone interested with your rubbish ideas
you can keep to give answer after came from school LoL your mama proud with your useless account
Undaunted wrote:
no you are wrong I have 0.01 K/d ratiofaunt7 wrote:
You result to insults because you have no argument. I’m not really interested in what a player with a .66 kill.death ratio thinks. You aren’t good at the gameJotero wrote:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.Jotero wrote:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.Jotero wrote:
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:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.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.useless kid your all paragraphs only have insults and blame people here
People is trying to explain why planes are important to a kid along days it is funny
You have no capacity to understand people here
it seems noone interested with your rubbish ideas
you can keep to give answer after came from school LoL your mama proud with your useless account
How polite
Undaunted wrote:
no you are wrong I have 0.01 K/d ratio
Actually?
You were extricated from this thread due to being unqualified to participate. Novices don’t understand the game mechanics. Shush.Undaunted wrote:
no you are wrong I have 0.01 K/d ratiofaunt7 wrote:
You result to insults because you have no argument. I’m not really interested in what a player with a .66 kill.death ratio thinks. You aren’t good at the gameJotero wrote:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.Jotero wrote:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.Jotero wrote:
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:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.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.useless kid your all paragraphs only have insults and blame people here
People is trying to explain why planes are important to a kid along days it is funny
You have no capacity to understand people here
it seems noone interested with your rubbish ideas
you can keep to give answer after came from school LoL your mama proud with your useless account
Interesting discussion guys, although it could use a bit less of personal attacks and stats comparisons, focus more on the matter at hand so it remains readable.
I personally see situations in which aircraft are too weak, and situations in which aircraft are too strong. Overall I would consider them to be rather balanced still.
If I got OP's main argument correct it is that aircraft cannot be used to cost-effectively dismantle larger stacks which have anti air. This is probably true in most cases. But it is also not the sole intended purpose of aircraft. Zoom-zoom brings forth a good argument here as well - if a player focuses most of their units in doomstacks, smart players will avoid those doomstacks and attack unreinforced stacks or production centers, essentially cutting off the supply lines. The doomstacks will then be widdled down over time by other types of units (such as artillery).
The biggest advantage of aircrafts in my book is their flexibility and their ability to strike anywhere at their own terms. Before the introduction of ranged anti air a ground-only player could do nothing to force an aircraft player to engage, they had to wait until the aircraft-player strikes at their own terms. Now with the intro of range anti air, this has been balanced a bit better.
But even now, unless a player stations enough anti air in all of their cities, cities will remain vulnerable to bombings. Losing production buildings and province morale (thus also resource production) is more hurtful in the long run than losing some planes in the process. The player who loses their production sites cannot sustain the war effort in the long run and gets eventually outproduced by other players. In addition, just the threat of having their production centers bombed may force a player to spend more resources into anti air coverage than the air player had to invest in their airforce.
A player who has 5 Stratbombers for example could strike 5 different core cities, so each needs its own anti air stack of multiple anti air units to have a chance to prevent the loss of production capabilities. So potentially 5x5 anti air units and other damage soakers, as an example, which is more expensive than the 5 Stratbombers. Maybe now with ranged anti air not as many defenders are needed anymore, since in some countries you can now cover 2 cities with 1 anti air stack, so this should be a bit more balanced now as well.
Another aspect: Usually if you just start building the anti air when you notice the incoming bombers, it's already too late. So the potential of getting air raided even forces players to produce counter-measures pre-emptively, potentially wasting resources into a scenario that might not happen. A smart air player may also not spend all resources into air units, but just enough to either be able to pick vulnerable targets and bomb cities cost-effectively, or to scare the enemy into overspending into air defence, just to then beat them at the ground game.
I think an aircraft vs ground discussion cannot focus solely on a one-dimensional cost effectivenes comparison of a big air stack vs a big ground stack (including AA). All of the other advantages and disadvantages of air / ground and their potential use cases, which I have hinted at (there are probably more aspects), have to be included in the discussion as well.
I have more experience in game than youfaunt7 wrote:
You were extricated from this thread due to being unqualified to participate. Novices don’t understand the game mechanics. Shush.Undaunted wrote:
no you are wrong I have 0.01 K/d ratiofaunt7 wrote:
You result to insults because you have no argument. I’m not really interested in what a player with a .66 kill.death ratio thinks. You aren’t good at the gameJotero wrote:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.Jotero wrote:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.Jotero wrote:
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:
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.faunt7 wrote:
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.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.useless kid your all paragraphs only have insults and blame people here
People is trying to explain why planes are important to a kid along days it is funny
You have no capacity to understand people here
it seems noone interested with your rubbish ideas
you can keep to give answer after came from school LoL your mama proud with your useless account
You can show your useless account your school friends and proud with it. Kid
you started with win rate and now turned to k/d ratio your sentences always changing cos you are a child
if someone have 5 k/d ratio I can say who has under 6.00 is a noob there is no certain way to decide it
If a player like to playing nuclear homefront map and his neighbour bomb his cities with nuclear you lost 100 units so ?
If you like playing comintern you will never have 30.00 k/d ratio so ?
we can just decide a average ratio like over 2.00 even you like play luxembourg you can do this without paying money to game with enough experience about game
so if you have over 2. it is 2 or 30 not important it just show obsession level and paying real money to game
like playing 10 player maps with noobs or watching advertisements along months to join a world war map to win easier with more gold and resource card.
I dont care you have 5 or 50 You have no capacity even to find our accounts at ranking. Why we try to still explain you useless kid ? Look ZoomZoom he has obsession like you but he knows importance of planes he has more brain cell than you. Your ideas are rubbish
now sleep you will go school tomorrow
See what I mean about him being mean to other peopleUndaunted wrote:
I have more experience in game than youYou can show your useless account your school friends and proud with it. Kidyou started with win rate and now turned to k/d ratio your sentences always changing cos you are a child
if someone have 5 k/d ratio I can say who has under 6.00 is a noob there is no certain way to decide it
If a player like to playing nuclear homefront map and his neighbour bomb his cities with nuclear you lost 100 units so ?
If you like playing comintern you will never have 30.00 k/d ratio so ?
we can just decide a average ratio like over 2.00 even you like play luxembourg you can do this without paying money to game with enough experience about game
so if you have over 2. it is 2 or 30 not important it just show obsession level and paying real money to game
like playing 10 player maps with noobs or watching advertisements along months to join a world war map to win easier with more gold and resource card.
I dont care you have 5 or 50 You have no capacity even to find our accounts at ranking. Why we try to still explain you useless kid ? Look ZoomZoom he has obsession like you but he knows importance of planes he has more brain cell than you. Your ideas are rubbish
now sleep you will go school tomorrow
yeah Im very mean but this kid is very kind
everyone at forum from 10 year experienced guys to 1 day experienced ones even game designers trying to explain him importance of planes along days but he just insults them and talking about noone beat him along years and his mamma proud with his account
it is a comedy we talking about why planes are important and he just insults them again
Call of War was launched in 2016. How could anyone have 10 years of experience then?
2015 not 2016Phillip Bosley wrote:
Call of War was launched in 2016. How could anyone have 10 years of experience then?
Are you sure about that?
look website of bytroPhillip Bosley wrote:
Are you sure about that?
Hello, thank you for your detailed reply.freezy wrote:
Interesting discussion guys, although it could use a bit less of personal attacks and stats comparisons, focus more on the matter at hand so it remains readable.I personally see situations in which aircraft are too weak, and situations in which aircraft are too strong. Overall I would consider them to be rather balanced still.
If I got OP's main argument correct it is that aircraft cannot be used to cost-effectively dismantle larger stacks which have anti air. This is probably true in most cases. But it is also not the sole intended purpose of aircraft. Zoom-zoom brings forth a good argument here as well - if a player focuses most of their units in doomstacks, smart players will avoid those doomstacks and attack unreinforced stacks or production centers, essentially cutting off the supply lines. The doomstacks will then be widdled down over time by other types of units (such as artillery).
The biggest advantage of aircrafts in my book is their flexibility and their ability to strike anywhere at their own terms. Before the introduction of ranged anti air a ground-only player could do nothing to force an aircraft player to engage, they had to wait until the aircraft-player strikes at their own terms. Now with the intro of range anti air, this has been balanced a bit better.
But even now, unless a player stations enough anti air in all of their cities, cities will remain vulnerable to bombings. Losing production buildings and province morale (thus also resource production) is more hurtful in the long run than losing some planes in the process. The player who loses their production sites cannot sustain the war effort in the long run and gets eventually outproduced by other players. In addition, just the threat of having their production centers bombed may force a player to spend more resources into anti air coverage than the air player had to invest in their airforce.
A player who has 5 Stratbombers force example could strike 5 different core cities, which each needs their own anti air stack of multiple anti air units to have a chance to prevent the loss of production capabilities. So potentially 5x5 anti air units and other damage soakers, as an example, which is more expensive than the 5 Stratbombers. Maybe now with ranged anti air not as many anymore, since in some countries you can now cover 2 cities with 1 anti air stack, so this should be a bit more balanced now as well.
Another aspect: Usually if you just start building the anti air when you notice the incoming bombers, it's already too late. So the potential of getting air raided even forces players to produce counter-measures pre-emptively, potentially wasting resources into a scenario that might not happen. A smart air player may also not spend all resources into air units, but just enough to either be able to pick vulnerable targets and bomb cities cost-effectively, or to scare the enemy into overspending into air defence, just to then beat them at the ground game.
I think an aircraft vs ground discussion cannot focus solely on a one-dimensional cost effectivenes comparison of a big air stack vs a big ground stack (including AA). All of the other advantages and disadvantages of air / ground and their potential use cases, which I have hinted at (there are probably more aspects), have to be included in the discussion as well.
I like the addition of adding range to AA and SPAA units, as it lessens the superiority air units have over ground units. However, I still note that air units, especially strategic bombers are unrealistically powerful and cheap, which allows players who primarily use air units to have an unfair advantage over players who use mostly ground units.
I have come to a conclusion: Strategic bombers are way too OP and need to be nerfed.
They have the most HP of any air unit, and a 10-stack of high level SB can level an entire city in just a couple hours. Not only is this completely unrealistic, but the unit is just way too efficient. Nobody should have to wake up to find that all their core cities have been razed by strat stacks while they were asleep, especially if they had a strong interceptor force to shoot down the SBs but couldn't because they were not active.
I recommend significantly decreasing the amount of offensive damage SBs can do against structures and morale, and (since the planes are large and require lots of fuel) make their refueling time double that of other planes.
so you want to destroy advantage of allied doctrine ?? you should be very careful if your neighbour is allied doctrine choose an rich oil country like greece odisha north usa , especially greece is perfect for this role produce strategic bombers and send your neighbours to stone age while they are trying to have more tanks and artilleries but why you don't listen to this unbeatable kid who is owner of this useless thread ?? he destroys all 100p maps as solo without planes and never lose any gameCount Bistrita wrote:
Hello, thank you for your detailed reply.freezy wrote:
Interesting discussion guys, although it could use a bit less of personal attacks and stats comparisons, focus more on the matter at hand so it remains readable.I personally see situations in which aircraft are too weak, and situations in which aircraft are too strong. Overall I would consider them to be rather balanced still.
If I got OP's main argument correct it is that aircraft cannot be used to cost-effectively dismantle larger stacks which have anti air. This is probably true in most cases. But it is also not the sole intended purpose of aircraft. Zoom-zoom brings forth a good argument here as well - if a player focuses most of their units in doomstacks, smart players will avoid those doomstacks and attack unreinforced stacks or production centers, essentially cutting off the supply lines. The doomstacks will then be widdled down over time by other types of units (such as artillery).
The biggest advantage of aircrafts in my book is their flexibility and their ability to strike anywhere at their own terms. Before the introduction of ranged anti air a ground-only player could do nothing to force an aircraft player to engage, they had to wait until the aircraft-player strikes at their own terms. Now with the intro of range anti air, this has been balanced a bit better.
But even now, unless a player stations enough anti air in all of their cities, cities will remain vulnerable to bombings. Losing production buildings and province morale (thus also resource production) is more hurtful in the long run than losing some planes in the process. The player who loses their production sites cannot sustain the war effort in the long run and gets eventually outproduced by other players. In addition, just the threat of having their production centers bombed may force a player to spend more resources into anti air coverage than the air player had to invest in their airforce.
A player who has 5 Stratbombers force example could strike 5 different core cities, which each needs their own anti air stack of multiple anti air units to have a chance to prevent the loss of production capabilities. So potentially 5x5 anti air units and other damage soakers, as an example, which is more expensive than the 5 Stratbombers. Maybe now with ranged anti air not as many anymore, since in some countries you can now cover 2 cities with 1 anti air stack, so this should be a bit more balanced now as well.
Another aspect: Usually if you just start building the anti air when you notice the incoming bombers, it's already too late. So the potential of getting air raided even forces players to produce counter-measures pre-emptively, potentially wasting resources into a scenario that might not happen. A smart air player may also not spend all resources into air units, but just enough to either be able to pick vulnerable targets and bomb cities cost-effectively, or to scare the enemy into overspending into air defence, just to then beat them at the ground game.
I think an aircraft vs ground discussion cannot focus solely on a one-dimensional cost effectivenes comparison of a big air stack vs a big ground stack (including AA). All of the other advantages and disadvantages of air / ground and their potential use cases, which I have hinted at (there are probably more aspects), have to be included in the discussion as well.
I like the addition of adding range to AA and SPAA units, as it lessens the superiority air units have over ground units. However, I still note that air units, especially strategic bombers are unrealistically powerful and cheap, which allows players who primarily use air units to have an unfair advantage over players who use mostly ground units.
I have come to a conclusion: Strategic bombers are way too OP and need to be nerfed.
They have the most HP of any air unit, and a 10-stack of high level SB can level an entire city in just a couple hours. Not only is this completely unrealistic, but the unit is just way too efficient. Nobody should have to wake up to find that all their core cities have been razed by strat stacks while they were asleep, especially if they had a strong interceptor force to shoot down the SBs but couldn't because they were not active.
I recommend significantly decreasing the amount of offensive damage SBs can do against structures and morale, and (since the planes are large and require lots of fuel) make their refueling time double that of other planes.
Holy crap can you shut up
hey coconut noone has over 2.00 k/d ratio at your alliance and you are one of them maybe you should try to listen a bit others ?Tex_Mex2 wrote:
Holy crap can you shut up
Please log in to post a reply.
