Air Units: Ineffective against knowledgeable players

Undaunted wrote:

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.

are you crying now for noone agree your rubbish ideas ????noone answer your useless ideas

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

I

faunt7 wrote:

Undaunted wrote:

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.

are you crying now for noone agree your rubbish ideas ????noone answer your useless ideasshow your useless account to your mamma she proud with you even you have bad math

This is the maddest lad I’ve ever seen. Crazy mad. You offer nothing except strange, nonsensical insults in broken English. And it seems like you do this all over the forum. I wonder why they haven’t banned you yet.

faunt7 wrote:

Undaunted wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

Jotero 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.

are you crying now for noone agree your rubbish ideas ????noone answer your useless ideasshow your useless account to your mamma she proud with you even you have bad math

This is the maddest lad I’ve ever seen. Crazy mad. You offer nothing except strange, nonsensical insults in broken English. And it seems like you do this all over the forum. I wonder why they haven’t banned you yet.

why you keep crying here while noone answering your useless ideas

people totally ignored you

but you can still show your account to your mama she still proud with you

faunt7 wrote:

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.

I simply disagree with your arguments about air units and how they are useless and 100% negatable. To me this argument does not revolve solely around air units vs. big stacks.

Btw. when we balance the game we have to balance it for all player levels and not just for the top veterans. So even if what you said were true, as long as it's not true for all other skill levels (or maybe even reversed for lower skill levels) then there are still arguments for keeping it like this. The game has to remain enjoyable for the majority of players.

I encourage you to present your arguments on the official CoW discord, there are lot's of more veterans active nowadays and I am pretty sure some would agree with some of your points but also disagree with some of your points. As I said myself, I too can see situations where air units are too weak and you have a good point here and there, but I also see situations where they are likely too strong, and situations where they are just right balance-wise. For me this is not a black-and-white thing, and a lot more angles have to be taken into account. In the end I never subscribe to blanket statements that claim that a certain unit is unusable or unplayable, that's just hyperbole in my eyes that I can't take seriously.

freezy wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

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.

Oh I know that perfectly well, I myself have been pushing for more mechanics to properly penalize big stacks.I simply disagree with your arguments about air units and how they are useless and 100% negatable. To me this argument does not revolve solely around air units vs. big stacks.

Btw. when we balance the game we have to balance it for all player levels and not just for the top veterans. So even if what you said were true, as long as it's not true for all other skill levels (or maybe even reversed for lower skill levels) then there are still arguments for keeping it like this. The game has to remain enjoyable for the majority of players.

I encourage you to present your arguments on the official CoW discord, there are lot's of more veterans active nowadays and I am pretty sure some would agree with some of your points but also disagree with some of your points. As I said myself, I too can see situations where air units are too weak and you have a good point here and there, but I also see situations where they are likely too strong, and situations where they are just right balance-wise. For me this is not a black-and-white thing, and a lot more angles have to be taken into account. In the end I never subscribe to blanket statements that claim that a certain unit is unusable or unplayable, that's just hyperbole in my eyes that I can't take seriously.

The overall issue is that specialty units like artillery and AA can be shielded in large stacks too easily.

@freezy what are your thoughts on the views I expressed regarding strategic bombers?

faunt7 wrote:

I think through my own analysis here the root core issue is the efficiency mechanic and how large stacks are handled by the game. It can make planes pretty useless in a direct combat role which I don’t think is a good thing necessarily. You could do something similar with planes and just stack them like crazy. The problem is that it’s expensive and they also don’t have comparable survivability. I think planes are just the best example of the root core problem because of their fragility.

The overall issue is that specialty units like artillery and AA can be shielded in large stacks too easily.

Count Bistrita wrote:

@freezy what are your thoughts on the views I expressed regarding strategic bombers?

Ranged AA probably won't have much of an impact against strats. They have too much HP and their range makes it very difficult to defend the area strats are able to reach.

The only thing that would help is to remove the patrol mechanic. Strats that behave like nukes will spend more time flying and less time bombing. That's the simplest counter to their range. Messing with A/D values will not be enough.

After playing several important matches, I realized that the @faunt7@ was right, and I was absolutely wrong.

Indeed, aviation has become weak and economically unviable.

Here’s an example from recent games: 10 infantry units of level 3, without any anti-air support, can easily handle level 4 tactical bombers. Even if the aircraft wins, its HP remains critically low.

What’s even more unreasonable is that infantry, without any anti-aircraft support, can deal significant damage to strategic bombers, even high-level ones. That’s nonsense! In reality, not all anti-aircraft systems of that time could even reach a B-32, let alone a B-29.

I believe that anti-aircraft units should remain powerful and have a proper range, but all other ground forces should have greatly reduced damage against aircraft. Infantry, tanks, and other land units should not be effective against aviation. If you want to protect your troops, build AA units. If you don’t, you’ll take damage from enemy aircraft.

freezy wrote:

faunt7 wrote:

I think through my own analysis here the root core issue is the efficiency mechanic and how large stacks are handled by the game. It can make planes pretty useless in a direct combat role which I don’t think is a good thing necessarily. You could do something similar with planes and just stack them like crazy. The problem is that it’s expensive and they also don’t have comparable survivability. I think planes are just the best example of the root core problem because of their fragility.

The overall issue is that specialty units like artillery and AA can be shielded in large stacks too easily.

I think in terms of big stacks not being penalized properly we are in agreement, independent from the aircraft topic.

Count Bistrita wrote:

@freezy what are your thoughts on the views I expressed regarding strategic bombers?

I'm leaning towards agreeing that they are a bit too strong in certain situations. So if we rebalance them at some point, we would probably nerf them a little. Right now we have to see tho if the introduction of ranged Anti air changes anything in that regard already.

Jotero wrote:

After playing several important matches, I realized that the @faunt7@ was right, and I was absolutely wrong.

Indeed, aviation has become weak and economically unviable.

Here’s an example from recent games: 10 infantry units of level 3, without any anti-air support, can easily handle level 4 tactical bombers. Even if the aircraft wins, its HP remains critically low.

What’s even more unreasonable is that infantry, without any anti-aircraft support, can deal significant damage to strategic bombers, even high-level ones. That’s nonsense! In reality, not all anti-aircraft systems of that time could even reach a B-32, let alone a B-29.

I believe that anti-aircraft units should remain powerful and have a proper range, but all other ground forces should have greatly reduced damage against aircraft. Infantry, tanks, and other land units should not be effective against aviation. If you want to protect your troops, build AA units. If you don’t, you’ll take damage from enemy aircraft.

it seems that you need to play more games, if you test this in the simulator, the allied bomber fleet will lose 13.5% hit points only on the plains and all axis infantry will die

in the jungle, all infantry die for 16.5% hit points of aeroplanes

in the city, all infantry die for 20.9% hit points of aircraft

even if the infantry is axis and in areas where they have an advantage, in all cases the aircraft did not suffer any losses and the enemy lost 4 times more manpower

of course, without aeroplanes, you can aim to win solo on maps of 10 or 22 people with only sp units, because the enemy has a very small number of areas to attack and the area you need to dominate is extremely small

However, when you play on a map of 100 people, there is a lot of territory to dominate and protect, and if you are not in the game for 16 hours a day or if you do not have reliable skilled friends, it will be extremely difficult to play and dominate without bombers. There are too many places where the enemy can attack and you have to leave unprotected. Capturing Europe on a map of 10 people and holding and advancing in Asia on the world map are very different situations, and someone who produces aircraft on the map is faster than someone who does not produce aircraft.you can produce 1 plane in 45 minutes and use 10 planes in 2 hour and attack 4 countries in the surrounding area. How logical is it to be left without aircraft just because the guy on the other side of the world is going to produce anti-aircraft guns? I repeat, gameplay is very different depending on the map size.

As for strategic bombers, it is ridiculous to think that you can defend them with infantry, which is not necessary to attack infantry with these planes, you use planes if you are at a distance that can reach 5 cities of the enemy, while you produce 12 thousand from a city, how much can the enemy produce with 0 morale? He can continue to roam around with as much artillery or tanks as he wants, or he can send them all to the sea and leave the game in anger.

Undaunted wrote:

Jotero wrote:

After playing several important matches, I realized that the @faunt7@ was right, and I was absolutely wrong.

Indeed, aviation has become weak and economically unviable.

Here’s an example from recent games: 10 infantry units of level 3, without any anti-air support, can easily handle level 4 tactical bombers. Even if the aircraft wins, its HP remains critically low.

What’s even more unreasonable is that infantry, without any anti-aircraft support, can deal significant damage to strategic bombers, even high-level ones. That’s nonsense! In reality, not all anti-aircraft systems of that time could even reach a B-32, let alone a B-29.

I believe that anti-aircraft units should remain powerful and have a proper range, but all other ground forces should have greatly reduced damage against aircraft. Infantry, tanks, and other land units should not be effective against aviation. If you want to protect your troops, build AA units. If you don’t, you’ll take damage from enemy aircraft.

Do you really think that 10 infantry of level 3 can handle 10 bombers of level 4 and cause great damage?it seems that you need to play more games, if you test this in the simulator, the allied bomber fleet will lose 13.5% hit points only on the plains and all axis infantry will die

in the jungle, all infantry die for 16.5% hit points of aeroplanes

in the city, all infantry die for 20.9% hit points of aircraft

even if the infantry is axis and in areas where they have an advantage, in all cases the aircraft did not suffer any losses and the enemy lost 4 times more manpower

of course, without aeroplanes, you can aim to win solo on maps of 10 or 22 people with only sp units, because the enemy has a very small number of areas to attack and the area you need to dominate is extremely small

However, when you play on a map of 100 people, there is a lot of territory to dominate and protect, and if you are not in the game for 16 hours a day or if you do not have reliable skilled friends, it will be extremely difficult to play and dominate without bombers. There are too many places where the enemy can attack and you have to leave unprotected. Capturing Europe on a map of 10 people and holding and advancing in Asia on the world map are very different situations, and someone who produces aircraft on the map is faster than someone who does not produce aircraft.you can produce 1 plane in 45 minutes and use 10 planes in 2 hour and attack 4 countries in the surrounding area. How logical is it to be left without aircraft just because the guy on the other side of the world is going to produce anti-aircraft guns? I repeat, gameplay is very different depending on the map size.

As for strategic bombers, it is ridiculous to think that you can defend them with infantry, which is not necessary to attack infantry with these planes, you use planes if you are at a distance that can reach 5 cities of the enemy, while you produce 12 thousand from a city, how much can the enemy produce with 0 morale? He can continue to roam around with as much artillery or tanks as he wants, or he can send them all to the sea and leave the game in anger.

Planes have never been the right way to handle large, powerful stacks in CoW.

Why would you try to bomb 10 high level infantry defending a city?

Use ranged units.

But even if you have to kill them from the air for some reason, tactical bombers win.

And since the advent of war bonds, you can now heal your bombers after a mission.

Whatever damage you sustain, you can heal, and move on.

The enemy infantry remains dead.

So even in this example of inefficient bomber usage, they still win.

Planes are good early game. Middle game in the earliest. After that it's a waste.

Jotero wrote:

After playing several important matches, I realized that the @faunt7@ was right, and I was absolutely wrong.

Indeed, aviation has become weak and economically unviable.

Here’s an example from recent games: 10 infantry units of level 3, without any anti-air support, can easily handle level 4 tactical bombers. Even if the aircraft wins, its HP remains critically low.

What’s even more unreasonable is that infantry, without any anti-aircraft support, can deal significant damage to strategic bombers, even high-level ones. That’s nonsense! In reality, not all anti-aircraft systems of that time could even reach a B-32, let alone a B-29.

I believe that anti-aircraft units should remain powerful and have a proper range, but all other ground forces should have greatly reduced damage against aircraft. Infantry, tanks, and other land units should not be effective against aviation. If you want to protect your troops, build AA units. If you don’t, you’ll take damage from enemy aircraft.

I think that air units are still very useful. They force an opponent to both build AA, and keep their units together. This allows me tactical flexibility and denies it to my opponents. I can now much more easily pillage his interior with light tanks, while killing any splinters with my bombers.

Idk. I’m not a high level vet, but it seems to me that each game is different. I’ve been in games where I loaded up on AA and no one built any serious air. I’ve been in games with the opposite condition. I try to scout and spy early and build a balanced army and when I pick out who I think is the main( strongest) opponent then add the necessary units to beat him.

Works sometimes but yes I admit I’ve lost more than I’ve won. Very small CC rating