As we all know, there exist thousands of games with better graphics, higher complexity, sound, no pay-to-win... with just more features than CoW has. So what keeps us playing CoW?
It's the board game character (thanks Restrisiko for the term) and realism. It's close to being a WW2 simulation. But then, unfortunately there are a few things keeping us from really feeling like the leader of a nation during WW2. And the biggest one is this: There's no front. It's not clouds we were missing when trying to feel like a general - it's the chance to distribute our divisions over the map like a WW2 general would have done it.
In CoW you're forced to concentrate your ground forces to just a couple of spots, while leaving most of your provinces empty, even at the border to a hostile neighbour - otherwise the enemy airforce will have a fun time annihilating your small divisions.
The last balancing update has created a nice equilibrium between air and ground. Looking at production and research capacities free for war at/over land (i.e. those you don't want to invest into buildings or navy
Until day 32, you should put 20 to 50 percent of them into development of an airforce and the rest into your ground units (depending on the situation and your personal playing style). That's fine and a great improvement compared to the time before the last balancing update. But it changed nothing about the nuisance of having to stack together ground troops to giant armies like in Napoleon's times.
So this would improve things:
* Currently 5 air units of same type can go together in one stack with 100% SBDE. Reduce this number to 3. And in return:
* Increase tactical bomber HP from 20 to 25 (also because a tactical bomber should have more HP than a fighter and not less than a naval bomber).
* Increase strategical bomber HP from 30 to 35 and damage against air by 20%, so they remain as useful as a tactical bomber.
* Decrease anti air damage of ships and submarines by 15% and increase range of naval bombers to the range of fighters, so naval bombers remain being useful.
* Decrease oil consumption of all planes from 130 to 110 per day.
* Increase manpower production costs for a AA gun from 500 to 750.
Afterwards ground stacks need only about two thirds of their current size to be safe from air attacks. So players would use smaller stacks on the ground and shape a front like in reality.
Please log in to post a reply.
This is a really good post, right now a 5/5/5/5 stack and planes in general are too strong. Your proposal brings more balance to the game.
Although in general I clearly agree that planes need balancing, I cannot avoid commenting on this. Your estimation on the amount of planes in production, compared to ground units, is WAY OFF. If you have a look both in the forum and in the chat, you will notice that most of the (good) players dedicate about 80-90% of their production, after day around 12, to planes and rockets only.Hans A. Pils wrote:
The last balancing update has created a nice equilibrium between air and ground. Looking at production and research capacities free for war at/over land (i.e. those you don't want to invest into buildings or navy
This of course means that this "nice equilibrium" doesnt exist.
I higly disagree with the 'have to use 20%-50% of production on planes' in this post. Ever since the last balancing update I have never had more than 5 tactical bombers at any given time. Figters will depend on the amount and use of planes of my enemy but if I need them only for scouting and accompanying my tactical bombers I have around 10 fighters. That is 15 planes in total on any given army size. Reason for this is because I want to use the slots that usually went into plane research I for something 'unexpected'. Works really well for me I must say. Does however mean that a larger portion of my army ends up being AA or SP AA. But still, I make it work, it gives my ground forces an advantage and me as a player a LOT of money and oil to spend on other things then building planes.
Point is, you can choose to have a lot of planes or not. You are somewhat right about having to knit together your troops in somewhat large divisions though. If you do not you simply have to invest to heavily in AA and SP AA to keep all your divisions safe.
Now one of you answered planes were being used much more, while the other one answered he was using them much less and also has success with that. Which I think proves me right with my "20 to 50 percent of resources put into production of land and air units before day 32 go into the airforce" 
. Also if you look at the stats of random experienced players, you have it black on white.
Anyhow I'm still convinced the relation air vs. ground is quite alright in terms of power - almost as in reality (also the evolution of air becoming more and more important during the decades). Still we all experience two ugly things:
* Players cannot arrange their ground units in a front line, but have to leave them in approximately 2 to 4 big stacks to have them safe from air. To reduce this problem, I made my proposal above.
* After day 32 or 40, your beautiful ground units are just litter. Provided your opponent isn't stupid and didn't forget to build air AND conventional rockets AND nuclear rockets, they don't have a chance any more to even get close to your enemy's positions. So the capability of both conventional rockets and nuclear rockets to damage units should be reduced. Ground units face three threats in late game, which is too much. But it's not the realistic one (air) that should be weakened, it's the two unrealistic ones: conventional and nuclear rockets. And yes, I also call nuclear rockets unrealistic - the unit itself is modelled just as in real life, but using such a dreadful and inhuman weapon without a really good justification leads to serious diplomatic consequences in real life (which unfortunately the game cannot easily simulate), so them playing such a major role in CoW isn't nice.
The game cannot simulate the bad consequences of nuclear launches? Nothing easier in fact.
For each nuclear bomb/rocket you drop outside your cores, -10 morale to all provinces and trade embargo by all AI for 5 days. Then nuclear weapons become a last defensive weapon, and everything comes back to normal.
It has already been announced that conventional rockets will be looked at in the next balancing update.
Ehm? I said that I don't put 20% to 50% into building planes before day 32.Hans A. Pils wrote:
Now one of you answered planes were being used much more, while the other one answered he was using them much less and also has success with that. Which I think proves me right with my "20 to 50 percent of resources put into production of land and air units befor4e day 32 go into the airforce"
And atreas1 makes mention of 80% to 90% of resources being put into planes.atreas1 wrote:
If you have a look both in the forum and in the chat, you will notice that most of the (good) players dedicate about 80-90% of their production, after day around 12, to planes and rockets only.This of course means that this "nice equilibrium" doesnt exist.
So if you take the average then I guess you are right. But, like atreas1 said, the equilibrium with the percentage of 20% - 50% does not exist. How does that prove you right exactly?
OK, point taken, with a bit of implementation effort, also CoW could simulate the popular outrage caused by the usage of a nuke as an offensive weapon.atreas1 wrote:
For each nuclear bomb/rocket you drop outside your cores, -10 morale to all provinces and trade embargo by all AI for 5 days. Then nuclear weapons become a last defensive weapon, and everything comes back to normal.
But in the late stages of the game (when nukes are available), there usually isn't much AI left to trade with... at least trading with them isn't important any more. So trade embargo by AI would hardly be a punishment.
How about: You drop a nuke on a province that's not your own => All AI countries declare war on you?
So if somebody intrudes one of your provinces and you defend with a nuke, you can still do so without a malus.
Even better would be: You started war with a country and drop a nuke on one of it's provinces => All AI countries declare war on you.
But that certainly is more difficult to implement.
Of course there exist extreme strategies (hardly any planes / hardly any ground units). And there's nothing wrong about these - if one of them matches your playing style (mainly guys being online all the time should favor planes, whereas those who log in only seldomly should avoid them), that's perfectly fine. What matters to me is the average. And that's quite close to realism; also well balanced from gameplay perspective. I'd like to add that until day 32, I meet that average of 20-50% air and 50-80% ground all the time (just my personal experience). So we shouldn't just make bombers stronger or weaker or AA stronger or weaker. That's all I wanted to say with the estimated percentages.Edepedable wrote:
So if you take the average then I guess you are right. But, like atreas1 said, the equilibrium with the percentage of 20% - 50% does not exist.
Let's stop hiding ourselves behind our fingers: since we are talking about a game, we should focus on whether there is an issue in gameplay. In a strategic game, there should be a counter to everything, otherwise there is one strategy that is winning: then all players do the same thing every time, there is no diversity, and the game becomes dull. That is the reason why (for me) nuclear weapons have exactly no place in the game, and also strategic rockets need serious rework.
On planes now, there is one very important problem and people just turn a blind eye on it:
in all other types of units you can exploit numerical superiority to attack. For example, if you have 7 LT and the opponent has 6 LT, you basically win. There is a direct attack method, a fight, and that's it.
With planes this is NOT SO. Once you have your first two 5/5 stacks ready they cannot practically been attacked, unless the opponent obtains a HUGE numerical superiority (I will not explain again why this happens). This is wrong, flatly, because effectively planes continue to accumulate till the end, unless somebody decides to sacrifice them needlessly.
I personally happen to believe that planes are just OP against newer players, but simply a tie against good players. But the issue is that there is (for me) a gameplay problem. That's all.
Think I get what you are saying now.Hans A. Pils wrote:
So we shouldn't just make bombers stronger or weaker or AA stronger or weaker. That's all I wanted to say with the estimated percentages.
You say there are 3 main late game threats:Hans A. Pils wrote:
So the capability of both conventional rockets and nuclear rockets to damage units should be reduced. Ground units face three threats in late game, which is too much. But it's not the realistic one (air) that should be weakened, it's the two unrealistic ones: conventional and nuclear rockets.
- planes
- rockets
- nuke rockets
And your solution to keep the end game alive is.
- nerf rockets
- nerf nuke rockets
Except that you also suggested returning some of the former glory to airplanes.
Sorry for the extensive summary, I got a little confused along the way. Wanted to make sure I got you right as you did seem to make some good points.
I think you are absolutely right about that the late game needs fixing. The rockets, planes and nukes you mention are the exact reasons I avoid late game play. And yes, on a world map, the only map that really has late game play. Being able to form a decent front is much needed and now impossible because of 3 reasons.
1) troops are safer from planes in big numbers.
2) big numbers of troops get nuked or rocketed
3) not having a front means you have weird back and forths between yourself and serious opponents.
Hoping I have summarised you correctly, I still do not see any reason to make planes stronger again? Though I wholeheartedly agree with your two other conclusions.
- nerf rockets
- nerf nukes
As for the problem of players not forming fronts. I think there is little that can be done about that. More units in 1 place means less units lost in total. Since they keep each other safe from both enemy airplanes and land units. It makes it so they do better damage on the defense and as a whole on the attack. Also they have lower chances of running into situations where they are outnumbered. Changing this aspect of the game would need a major overhaul of the game.
Like divisions not being able of having more than (40?) total units in them or something? Needing commanders or what not to manage large divisions? If being in a province that does not connect to your core (lack of supply lines) give damage or hp penalties? As long as having a lot of units together in one place gives advantages instead of disadvantages players will keep doing it that way.
I think you guys need to look beyond air force and rockets. Yes, they are powerful, but especially in world maps they are not necessary. It is almost impossible to build a huge air force and transfer it across a continent in anything less than two days, and because of SBDE, a smart player can counter. In addition, rockets are powerful but not too powerful, nukes are very expensive, and you all seem to view a certain type of Cold War situation emerging late game.
In short, people need to start getting new tactics. I am hesitant to share ones I have picked up for fear they will be immediately taken and used against me in future matches. Using these tactics, I was in the 40s of a world map with two major, very powerful coalitions clashing, and the smarter team won using mainly anti air, light tanks, subs, and guerilla tactics, despite having disadvantage in terrain and multiple barely active teammates.
I am not trying to belittle anyone, I'm just saying that even in the real world there was a cold war, but that wasn't the only thing. In fact, think of what actually happened. I believe diplomacy is very important and underlooked in this game. I have won many games not based on skill, tactics or time devotable to the game but the way I get good allies, negotiate things and work everyone else to my advantage. Basically, thinking outside the box is very crucial.
Edepedable and atreas1: Yees, now the three of us are on the same page!
Except for this one, here you got me wrong, Edepedable: I didn't propose to strengthen air again!! Please read the proposal in my first post in this thread again. It contains several smaller buffs for planes and one big nerf for planes (reducing 100% SBDE from 5 to 3 planes of same type in one stack). According to my calculation, these will quite precisely countervail each other, so the good balance between ground and air is kept up. Only result would be that players will start shaping a front. Because the only reason they don't is the threat from the air. If your enemy has only small stacks of planes (which will be the case after my proposal), you would never leave entire areas of your border to a hostile country empty (like you now have to do). It's true that clustering also helps in ground battle (which shouldn't be changed), but you can still pull together your defenses from nearby provinces in one spot if you see an enemy ground force approaching there. That you cannot do against air attacks.
At atreas1:
That's right and that also isn't a good thing, but a different topic. To remove this issue, I wrote this thread: -->> link <<--atreas1 wrote:
in all other types of units you can exploit numerical superiority to attack. For example, if you have 7 LT and the opponent has 6 LT, you basically win. There is a direct attack method, a fight, and that's it.With planes this is NOT SO.
On a 100 player map a huge airforce is indispensable, every victory i saw or i had involved a huge air force. You can take down Europe, Africa and Asia without crossing seas. On top of it if someone invades the planes can deal quickly with it. If you don't have air dominance on a 100 player map then you are screwed.ITSAEROMF wrote:
I think you guys need to look beyond air force and rockets. Yes, they are powerful, but especially in world maps they are not necessary. It is almost impossible to build a huge air force and transfer it across a continent in anything less than two days, and because of SBDE
The tactic is always the same: don't lose troops. To do so you need to avoid contact, read: tactical bombers and artillery. When you don't lose troops then you don't need to waste resources or manpower to replace the lost troops. This means your army can expand instead and you have more resources left to build up your economy.ITSAEROMF wrote:
In short, people need to start getting new tactics.
Hans A. Pils wrote:
safe from air.
Build more anti air.
I have print screens on some file of me snashing big time coiners, all i did was build massive amounts of anti air units, about 600-800. Overwhelm the enemy, to be accused of being the worst coiner, but they still won. Lucky I was drinking busy at the time. I nearly did win. So if your busy having a zest, just build anti air in big numbers, they are good in cities with forts... right..
I think I did get you right the first time. I just honestly don't think that your proposal on switching the number for SBDE for planes will change anything. Especially when combined with more HP and less oil consumption. Your changes make no difference in the total number of aircraft a player can/will have.Hans A. Pils wrote:
Except for this one, here you got me wrong, Edepedable: I didn't propose to strengthen air again!! Please read the proposal in my first post in this thread again. It contains several smaller buffs for planes and one big nerf for planes (reducing 100% SBDE from 5 to 3 planes of same type in one stack). According to my calculation, these will quite precisely countervail each other, so the good balance between ground and air is kept up. Only result would be that players will start shaping a front. Because the only reason they don't is the threat from the air.
Say a player now has 60 aircraft, 30 interceptors and 30 tacs. He would have them in 6 groups of 10 with 5 tacs and ints per group. With every group having 10 × 20 = 200 HP per group. 6 × 200 = 1200 HP total for the 60 aircraft.
Costing 60 × 130 = 7800 oil per day.
With your proposal, players with 60 aircraft will put them into 10 groups of 6 airplanes with 3 tacs and ints per group. Every group would have 3 × 20 = 60 and 3 × 25 = 75 = 75 + 60 = 135 per group. Puting the total HP at 1350.
Costing 60 × 110 = 6600 oil per day.
So not only are the tacs harder to kill, they also cost the enemy less oil in the long run. The plane with lesser hp, the interceptor will need more replacing to keep the SBDE value up. But since the interceptor is the cheaper airplane, players are better of in total. On top of this you propose to increase air damage in strategical bombers and also give them more HP. What a great thing for gold users that like to repair their aircraft. Put all type of planes in 1 group and repair!
I did get you right the first time. My opionion on your suggestion is just that it is not a good idea. It will not take aways from planes their strength and it will not make players shape a front. Your proposal does exactly nothing about the total planes a player can have, or their power. In fact, it makes having planes easier due to lower oil consumption and makes the planes stronger with more HP.
According to me you are thinking in exactly the wrong direction if you want players to build a front.
I honestly do not see how you can do good in a map as large as a world map without aircraft. If it takes planes 2 days to get somewhwre it will take land based troops two weeks. Which of course could mean a major problem.ITSAEROMF wrote:
I think you guys need to look beyond air force and rockets. Yes, they are powerful, but especially in world maps they are not necessary. It is almost impossible to build a huge air force and transfer it across a continent in anything less than two days,In short, people need to start getting new tactics. I am hesitant to share ones I have picked up for fear they will be immediately taken and used against me in future matches. Using these tactics, I was in the 40s of a world map with two major, very powerful coalitions clashing, and the smarter team won using mainly anti air, light tanks, subs, and guerilla tactics, despite having disadvantage in terrain and multiple barely active teammates.
I believe diplomacy is very important and underlooked in this game.
Basically, thinking outside the box is very crucial.
I do not know of your world map experience. My guess is that it is different than what players in this thread say they fear. Players in this thread asume a worst case scenario. If you encountered a more active than your own enemy coalition that you could defeat by using mainly anti-air and light tanks, I am sorry to say but you encountered nowhere near a maximally efficient enemy force.
In a worst case scenario the power output and logistic advantages of planes are unbeatable. Especially on a world map. Keeping units in larger groups is the best counter to this, but then there are nukes. That can desolve large groups of your army without any trouble fast. Smaller groups are no match for a large airforce. So it results in a check mate type situation. Small groups are killed by planes, large groups are safe from planes and killed by nukes.
Diplomacy is hardly an answer in a worst case scenario. Asuming that both parties are equally capable and active. Diplomacy is only an answer if either or both of those conditions are not the case.
I think you guys are just not thinking out of the box enough. I have seen strategies that actually are designed to lose many units, and are successful. Air is actually easy to counter if you have SP AA, which you can easily get, make and move later in game like when the air forces are a problem. There are many more clever solutions beyond balancing that people should figure out, I'm just not going to say the ones I know as I don;t want them used against me.
This asks for some analysis
The box we are thinking inside of is the worst case scenario. Meaning, a capable enemy that is active and just as big as we ourselves are. When using this type of scenario you can see what units in game are better than others. On a world map you need planes, simply due to the size of the map and the speed of planes. The strategies you have seen work, will not work in a worst case scenario. Strategies designed to lose a lot of units are only succesful IF your economy is a lot bigger than your enemy's. At which point it really no longer matters what strategy you use.ITSAEROMF wrote:
I think you guys are just not thinking out of the box enough. I have seen strategies that actually are designed to lose many units, and are successful.
For players to accomplish an optimum in spendings and damage output, you need planes. Especially since anti-air costs 750 manpower and a plane costs 400.
True, SP AA is a great unit to counter air units. They have major drawbacks when used in big numbers however.ITSAEROMF wrote:
Air is actually easy to counter if you have SP AA, which you can easily get, make and move later in game like when the air forces are a problem.
1) Their metal cost is quite high, since apart from defending against planes, they have no serious combat value on the ground.
2) available from day 16. At this time your enemy can already have a decent airforce and you need to protect your units with normal AA. Costs a lot of manpower in purchase and upkeep.
3) oil cost and upkeep
4) do not do a good job in cities, cities are usually your main production areas.
5) not as fast as planes. Meaning that their lower then plane oil consumption is ofset by needing to have a lot more SP AA then your enemy has air units. Because your enemy can use planes to attack diferent places and your SP AA is not fast enough to keep up and defend everywhere. Unless you put all your units in fewer divisions you will need a LOT. Leading to before mentioned problems of nukes.
So yes 1 on 1 SP AA is a great counter to airplanes. In the meta of the game however, not so much anymore. Besides, even as it is, SP AA has halve the HP of airplanes. And airplanes are easier replaced since they fly faster than any land unit goes by land.
Don't want to be the one that says this, but here on the forum someone likely will sooner or later. Also I mean no offence by saying the following, but still. Judging from your stats I think there is little chance you know many clever ways to do whatever that most on the forum do not already know. All your victories are coalition victories, so yes it is indeed quite true that you seem to need diplomacy for your victories. Which is fine, but when having a strong coalition there is no need to optimalize your units. According to your stats 30% of your total lost units are infantry, 17% are light tanks, 10% are medium tanks while your TOTAL airplane loss of TAC and INT combined account for about 7%. Perhaps more importantly 5% is lost in AA and 1% is lost in SP AA.ITSAEROMF wrote:
There are many more clever solutions beyond balancing that people should figure out, I'm just not going to say the ones I know as I don;t want them used against me.
So you might not really understand what we are trying to say.
But yes, of course it will. It forces players to use smaller air stacks, which allows their opponents to use smaller ground stacks as well. As simple as that.Edepedable wrote:
I just honestly don't think that your proposal on switching the number for SBDE for planes will change anything.
So you'll have a higher number of ground stacks, which you'll automatically align along your border. In other words, there will be a front.
As an example: To defend successfully (by which I mean losing less than the attacker) against the now common 5fighters+5tacs stack, on day 8 you need about 9 AA and a few other units in each of your ground stacks (later in the game you'll need even more). Or 6 AA and a lot of other units.
If my proposal was put into practice, 3fighters+3tacs stacks would become the rule. To defend successfully against these, you'll need only 6 AA and a few other units. Or 4 AA and a lot of other units.
Exactly. That's precisely my intention. My proposal would merely force players to use their planes in smaller groups. Which would cure the game a lot.Edepedable wrote:
Your proposal does exactly nothing about the total planes a player can have, or their power.
And this description of the current situation is one of the reasons why my proposal should be realized.Edepedable wrote:
[...] it results in a check mate type situation. Small groups are killed by planes, large groups are safe from planes and killed by nukes.
I hope you get what I am trying to say by explaining some more.
So how is it better for the troops on the ground exactly?Hans A. Pils wrote:
But yes, of course it will. It forces players to use smaller air stacks, which allows their opponents to use smaller ground stacks as well.Edepedable wrote:
I just honestly don't think that your proposal on switching the number for SBDE for planes will change anything.
In the situation now, defending against 60 aircraft consisting of 30 tacs and 30 interceptors means they defend against 6 groups. Each group has 5 tacs and 5 interceptors, 10 planes each, 60 planes total.
Troops on the ground defend against 6 groups of 10 airplanes. Total 60 airplanes.
With your proposal, troops on the ground defend against 10 groups of 6 airplanes. Having 3 tacs and 3 interceptor each.
Troops on the ground defend against 10 groups of 6 airplanes. Total 60 airplanes.
But, with your changes, the 60 planes have more HP.
Defending against 60 planes is defending against 60 planes. Whether you put them in SBDE groups of maximum 3 or 5 planes does not matter.
But it does not? Players that now use 60 aircraft in 6 groups of 10 will use 60 airplanes in 10 groups of 6 if your suggested SBDE change is made.Hans A. Pils wrote:
Exactly. That's precisely my intention. My proposal would merely force players to use their planes in smaller groups. Which would cure the game a lot.Edepedable wrote:
Your proposal does exactly nothing about the total planes a player can have, or their power.
That does not help.
It just means that the logistics of keeping your airforce strength at a certain level becomes more annoying.
It does not matter if players use 6 groups of planes or 10, nothing changes. Your suggested SBDE change does nothing.
In fact, an SBDE total for airplanes does not even make sense. As long as they can patrol and the patrol circles can overlap. It does not matter if the SBDE total is 1 or 100 technically, their damage output should be the same. You can have as many groups as you like patrol the same area anyway. Meaning, you can have as many airplanes as you like in the same place, without SBDE ever becoming an issue.
The damage OUTPUT will be the same, but the damage INPUT will be dramatically different. By forcing the planes to split into more stacks, they receive far more damage (since the AA value of the land units is used only when they are attacked.
But this difference is more due to the restriction on the number of planes in each stack. Currently it is a classical optimization problem (to optimize output damage or to minimize received damage) - the proposed scheme just maximizes received damage and in return it gives back a few HP. It needs extensive testing and statistical data from the game in order to see if such a change is either desirable or effective.
Please log in to post a reply.
