Air Units: Ineffective against knowledgeable players

Sir I ain’t a coconut

Plus I am just saying that people were just arguing and It’s annoying as fuck and Undaunted im not here to spread hate to anyone

freezy wrote:

Interesting discussion guys

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”

Balance is from your perspective really. However, they are supremely under-balanced given the investment required and how ineffective they are against prepared players.

“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).”

This sounds great in practice, however no one is talking about rolling around with stacks of 100 units. It is simply enough units to sufficiently “hide” the anti aircraft units and prevent them from taking full damage. You can use comparatively few of these units to repel a full stack of bombers. And “attacking production centers” doesn’t really happen in mid to late game. These battles are taking place between good players. They are already expanded enough to shield their production. So losing a few provinces on the front means almost nothing. You can simply pull back and use the advantage of speed (that is, not being on friendly territory) to reinforce as needed. I have never been flanked enough to worry about what you are describing. Not ever.

“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.”

A player that is sufficiently prepared can ensure that no units, within reason, are vulnerable to air units. Again, we are taking trade offs in damage here. Losing a smaller stack, but inflicting disproportionate damage to the air units is fine. That’s the secret to success in this game. Trades of damage. Because of how the game works, a small number of anti aircraft can do disproportionate damage to air units due to their fragility. If the game actually did a fair job in balancing out stack size like Conflict of Nations then the story would be different. However even in that game, anti aircraft units are too powerful.

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.

This sounds great in practice however, any quality player will stop strategic bombers. I myself do use one stack of interceptors for defense and if I know through the newspaper or intelligence that they have strategic bombers I will keep anti aircraft units stationed in my main cities or production hubs. Again, I make strat bombers useless.

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.

Again. I think maybe you aren’t understanding the point of this post. I’m not talking about any player that is going to be surprised that his opponent has bombers or any kind. A good player will know what units are coming. There are no surprises here. If I know my opponent has strategic bombers, I will know this before he has enough of them to be dangerous. And I will be sufficiently prepared to destroy them when they show up. Anti air is super cheap, especially when we are talking about attacks from strategic bombers which cannot kill them. So you don’t have to make any extra units to soak damage. It’s an easy counter. You kind of made the case for my argument here.

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.

The problem is that against a prepared player who understands how the game works, who uses intelligence and the newspaper to know what’s coming, who has the proper unit preparation, you can 100% negate air units. It’s why I’ve simply told players to enter into a game with me and try to use air units. It’s a pointless exercise.

The MAJOR problem here friend is not air units or anti aircraft units. It is how the game encourages people to make large stacks of units and does not properly penalize them for this. It is a bit discouraging to hear that you, as a game designer do not understand this. Take it from me. I don’t lose. It’s not a flex. It’s a fact. Yes some players have issues with air units but good players negate them. Always. And the core issue is that the game needs to penalize large stacks. If that gets fixed, it resolves this issue for the most part.

Undaunted wrote:

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

Count Bistrita wrote:

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.

Hello, thank you for your detailed reply.

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.

Freezy wrote:

Please don't listen to him. Yes, he writes beautifully, but the bottom line is that he had one strategy - to create a huge number of planes and destroy enemy armies overnight. The new update has become more fair, and it infuriates him that his old tactics are not working. Please do not improve aviation, everything is working as it should now.

faunt7 wrote:

Undaunted wrote:

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

You’ve demonstrated you aren’t knowledgeable about the game and you are barely literate. You have nothing to contribute. Shush.

kid still trying to understand importance of planes

Jotero wrote:

Freezy wrote:

Please don't listen to him. Yes, he writes beautifully, but the bottom line is that he had one strategy - to create a huge number of planes and destroy enemy armies overnight. The new update has become more fair, and it infuriates him that his old tactics are not working. Please do not improve aviation, everything is working as it should now.

he thinks he will have anti air units at every stack he will defend everywhere with them at the same time he will have enough interceptors at core cities and never sleep to use them. by the way he will have enough anti air to protect airbase and cities as a result he will spend lesser resource than planes

dreams of kid

Stop being mean

Holy yapping Undaunted

Jotero wrote:

Freezy wrote:

Please don't listen to him. Yes, he writes beautifully, but the bottom line is that he had one strategy - to create a huge number of planes and destroy enemy armies overnight. The new update has become more fair, and it infuriates him that his old tactics are not working. Please do not improve aviation, everything is working as it should now.

Maybe your reading comprehension is really poor or are you just deliberately obtuse? I don’t use air units and win 100% of my games. I’d like a reason to use them.

Undaunted wrote:

Bandersnatch wrote:

Spoiler

Stop being mean

This kid think interceptors are enough to protect 5 cities and he is always prepared ( lifeless video game boy with melted brain )

if they are same levels you need at least hit 5 times to shot down a strategic bomber with an interceptor. and you need to catch them with small attack triangle while doing this you need to defend your airbase too against war bonds or others groups too

Probably enemy will have more planes with higher levels too because this kid don’t need to spend resource to planes

maybe we should discuss it with his qualified mamma

faunt7 wrote:

Undaunted wrote:

Bandersnatch wrote:

Spoiler

Stop being mean

This kid think interceptors are enough to protect 5 cities and he is always prepared ( lifeless video game boy with melted brain )if they are same levels you need at least hit 5 times to shot down a strategic bomber with an interceptor. and you need to catch them with small attack triangle while doing this you need to defend your airbase too against war bonds or others groups too

Probably enemy will have more planes with higher levels too because this kid don’t need to spend resource to planes

maybe we should discuss it with his qualified mamma

I don’t really read your replies anymore. Bro you just are not qualified to comment here. Sorry if that hurts your feelings. You should go do tutorial games for a while and get the basics down.

game designer , 10 year experinced guys , 10 k/d ratio guys

I guess only qualified person is your mamma on world

so ? call your qualified mamma we will discuss with her we are not tutorial kids like you

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

Freezy wrote:

Please don't listen to him. Yes, he writes beautifully, but the bottom line is that he had one strategy - to create a huge number of planes and destroy enemy armies overnight. The new update has become more fair, and it infuriates him that his old tactics are not working. Please do not improve aviation, everything is working as it should now.

Are there enough eye roll emojis for this?

Maybe your reading comprehension is really poor or are you just deliberately obtuse? I don’t use air units and win 100% of my games. I’d like a reason to use them.

his math is level 1 tac vs level 1 anti air with some infantry

this kid never look to doctrine page and see allies has level 3 tac bombers at 4th day

because this kid only play maps with noobs with a obsession of rate

thinks planes are useless kamikazes and have to attack everywhere , your mamma is proud with you

yes a plane focus guy will send 10 level 1 tac bombers to your level 1 anti airs what a brilliant kid need to learn more at school

I think this is the maddest lad ever.

Just can’t accept that his poor writing and poor game knowledge disqualify him from this thread

faunt7 wrote:

I think this is the maddest lad ever.

Just can’t accept that his poor writing and poor game knowledge disqualify him from this thread

they stopped even answer you because they know you are useless

but I have fun with you

when will you call your qualified mamma ? does she proud with your bad math too ???

faunt7 wrote:

I think this is the maddest lad ever.

Just can’t accept that his poor writing and poor game knowledge disqualify him from this thread

and noone keep answers to your bad math and rubbish ideas

you still think always anti air group will win battle at your bad math example which at first page

your mamma doesnt teach you some math ?

Quit the yaps Undaunted

Tex_Mex2 wrote:

Quit the yaps Undaunted

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero wrote:

Freezy wrote:

Please don't listen to him. Yes, he writes beautifully, but the bottom line is that he had one strategy - to create a huge number of planes and destroy enemy armies overnight. The new update has become more fair, and it infuriates him that his old tactics are not working. Please do not improve aviation, everything is working as it should now.

Are there enough eye roll emojis for this?

Maybe your reading comprehension is really poor or are you just deliberately obtuse? I don’t use air units and win 100% of my games. I’d like a reason to use them.

noone answer your useless ideas

show your useless account to your mamma she proud with you even you have bad math