Balancing Artillery and Aircraft

I think this is a very good idea. After all artillery and air were "only" support weapons, and wiping out entire units just couldn't be done; completely destroying ground units always required melee combat (even if that was greatly more effective with air/arty support). This is a great way to ensure that mechanism (even though I wouldn't make exceptions for attack bombers and/or interceptors for ease of play and understandability reasons).

It shouldn't be implemented for naval bombing; in fact bombing damaged ships would be easier and more effective than undamaged ships.

yes I think bytro should encourage people to use more tanks as it was the main unit back then

This really is a good idea! Bombers, naval bombardment and land based artillery thrive in target rich environments. Once the majority of their targets have already been hit, there should be an element of diminishing effectiveness. As there are few targets to hit, it becomes harder to hit those that remain. Pretty simple logic.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

I think this is a very good idea. After all artillery and air were "only" support weapons, and wiping out entire units just couldn't be done; completely destroying ground units always required melee combat (even if that was greatly more effective with air/arty support). This is a great way to ensure that mechanism (even though I wouldn't make exceptions for attack bombers and/or interceptors for ease of play and understandability reasons).

It shouldn't be implemented for naval bombing; in fact bombing damaged ships would be easier and more effective than undamaged ships.

Plus the slow health recovery rate for units compounds this imbalance. A unit can bombard all day and only take damage if the unit they are bombarding is firing back. Whereas a melee unit can only do damage when engaged in melee. Once damaged, melee units are sidelined if they are too damaged.

Another option would be to make units that bombard even more effective if they are bombarding into a melee. This would represent the greater role forward observers would have and their ability to provide more accurate direction for artillery fire.

I see Artillery as a Siege weapon and many battles have been won by a siege. Attack the stack or retreat out of range.

I would like to see attacking units that engage in Melee to be able to disengage the action. defending units may not always pursue the attacker. Defending units may not disengage the attack unless they attack

Yes, artys and tacs definitely need to be nerfed. Tacs killing everything from 4 countries away and an arty stack wiping out whole armies without taking a single point of damage with shoot n scoot gets old really fast.

The exception to atks makes its foundation a little shaky tho. Why atks specifically are exempted? Ints and sea planes, I think you can argue for to be exempted on grounds that they aren't geared for ground warfare unlike akts with regards to tacs and strats. Obviously, that can't be said for atks themselves.

If I have to guess why you hold this position, is it because of atks being not as strong as tacs and so this nerf would just make them even more unpopular? If so, I think buffing them to be on the same plane as tacs then subjecting them to this nerf would be more preferable than just exempting them outright.

Also, cruisers and ac's should be nerfed too.

Z. Sakki wrote:

Yes, artys and tacs definitely need to be nerfed. Tacs killing everything from 4 countries away and an arty stack wiping out whole armies without taking a single point of damage with shoot n scoot gets old really fast.

The exception to atks makes its foundation a little shaky tho. Why atks specifically are exempted? Ints and sea planes, I think you can argue for to be exempted on grounds that they aren't geared for ground warfare unlike akts with regards to tacs and strats. Obviously, that can't be said for atks themselves.

If I have to guess why you hold this position, is it because of atks being not as strong as tacs and so this nerf would just make them even more unpopular? If so, I think buffing them to be on the same plane as tacs then subjecting them to this nerf would be more preferable than just exempting them outright.

Also, cruisers and ac's should be nerfed too.

Chet Zwe Han wrote:

I would like to suggest about the long-ranged units of arty and aircraft units how much they are devastating in the cow game itself. Most of the battles are being decided mainly with those units and moreover the battles are pretty much being defeated decisively as obliterating the enemy with very less casualties which is not very realistic, well it happened in some cases of ww2 but very rare.

So, I only want to request the change in mechanic of their damage efficiency to reduce as the health of opposing enemy reduced, which means if the artillery can inflict damage hitpoints of 10 then it will inflict 100% damage on the 100%full health units for 1st round of shell and for 2nd time, by reducing some efficiency, will inflict only 80% or 90% damage on 90% health(hitpoints) enemy and so on. Even they continue to bombard the enemy until wiping out, the damage efficiency should be close to 0% to kill the dying unit with 10%health(hitpoint) preventing the elimination of the unit. This should be the same for Tactical and Strats bombers but not Attack bombers and Fighters as they should have better precision on targeting the enemy. And if the damage efficiency keep reducing it will be taking longer and longer and harder and harder for range units to kill the enemy. (Just like the mechanic of lowering damage of deceasing-health units but that will be the opposite one of this mechanic)

Then, at least artillery and aircraft which are supposed to battlefield supporting units won't be become the main element of the main deciding factor for the outcome of the battle and this setting will also see the increase in more use of infantry and tanks which is supposed to the main frontlines unit or breakthrough units.

(I am sorry if this idea is already suggested)

And you want to say that they cannot completely destroy units?

Suna232 wrote:

And you want to say that they cannot completely destroy units?

The Soviets in particular went even above brigade level; they formed artillery divisions and even corpses in the second half of the war. They were used at the start of major offensives, amassing amazing concentrations of firepower, up to one gun or Katyusha for every twenty meters of front in key sectors iirc. These would barrage the German positions for hours before the actual assault began.

Yet when the guns kept quiet and infantry and armor began to advance, there were always Germans firing at them. Weakened and disorganized, yes, but not destroyed.

The reason is quite simple. Lets say, there are 1,000 troops in a square kilometer and you start pounding into them. You will hit a certain percentage in a certain time interval, lets say 10% in an hour. Now there are 900 left. In the next hour, you again hit 10%. However, now that 10% is only 90 enemy troops, leaving 810. The third hour you will hit only 81. And so on.

Of course real combat isn't as simple as this mathematical exercise, but the key principle stands: artillery is most effective against a concentrated enemy. When that concentration dissipates, the guns get less and less effective, and melee troops have to go in to clear the battle zone.

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Suna232 wrote:

And you want to say that they cannot completely destroy units?

Indeed.

The Soviets in particular went even above brigade level; they formed artillery divisions and even corpses in the second half of the war. They were used at the start of major offensives, amassing amazing concentrations of firepower, up to one gun or Katyusha for every twenty meters of front in key sectors iirc. These would barrage the German positions for hours before the actual assault began.

Yet when the guns kept quiet and infantry and armor began to advance, there were always Germans firing at them. Weakened and disorganized, yes, but not destroyed.

The reason is quite simple. Lets say, there are 1,000 troops in a square kilometer and you start pounding into them. You will hit a certain percentage in a certain time interval, lets say 10% in an hour. Now there are 900 left. In the next hour, you again hit 10%. However, now that 10% is only 90 enemy troops, leaving 810. The third hour you will hit only 81. And so on.

Of course real combat isn't as simple as this mathematical exercise, but the key principle stands: artillery is most effective against a concentrated enemy. When that concentration dissipates, the guns get less and less effective, and melee troops have to go in to clear the battle zone.

And if players were to use artillery and anti air defence correctly, I believe there would not be such issues.

Artillery (with aa) behind frontline close range units from both sides, I do not see an issue in that.

People need to understand that airforce (all except strategic and naval bombers), anti air units and artillery units are necessary units, main units to use. The one, if facing decent opponent, cannot win if not using those units.

Players rush infantry and light tanks on day 1/2/3 and get obliterated by someones well organized airforce then come here saying it is unbalanced.

This game works that way and even if they make that units with less then 8% of health or something similar become hidden from range units (battleships, cruisers, artillery, airforce)

It still would not change much even though I have many counter arguments why even that idea doesn't deserve to be implemented.

Suna232 wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Suna232 wrote:

And you want to say that they cannot completely destroy units?

Indeed.The Soviets in particular went even above brigade level; they formed artillery divisions and even corpses in the second half of the war. They were used at the start of major offensives, amassing amazing concentrations of firepower, up to one gun or Katyusha for every twenty meters of front in key sectors iirc. These would barrage the German positions for hours before the actual assault began.

Yet when the guns kept quiet and infantry and armor began to advance, there were always Germans firing at them. Weakened and disorganized, yes, but not destroyed.

The reason is quite simple. Lets say, there are 1,000 troops in a square kilometer and you start pounding into them. You will hit a certain percentage in a certain time interval, lets say 10% in an hour. Now there are 900 left. In the next hour, you again hit 10%. However, now that 10% is only 90 enemy troops, leaving 810. The third hour you will hit only 81. And so on.

Of course real combat isn't as simple as this mathematical exercise, but the key principle stands: artillery is most effective against a concentrated enemy. When that concentration dissipates, the guns get less and less effective, and melee troops have to go in to clear the battle zone.

It would be too complicating to implement artillery like that.And if players were to use artillery and anti air defence correctly, I believe there would not be such issues.

Artillery (with aa) behind frontline close range units from both sides, I do not see an issue in that.

People need to understand that airforce (all except strategic and naval bombers), anti air units and artillery units are necessary units, main units to use. The one, if facing decent opponent, cannot win if not using those units.

Players rush infantry and light tanks on day 1/2/3 and get obliterated by someones well organized airforce then come here saying it is unbalanced.

This game works that way and even if they make that units with less then 8% of health or something similar become hidden from range units (battleships, cruisers, artillery, airforce)

It still would not change much even though I have many counter arguments why even that idea doesn't deserve to be implemented.

In our other game S1914 it is actually already the case that the lower numbers and HP a unit has, the higher chances it has to survive combat ticks. There it is called "last stand" mechanic by the community. But that is only an unintended side effect due to an old combat system we use in that game. Players actually hate this and often report it as a bug, so we will fix and change it soon there. So I am very much against deliberately implementing this in CoW.

If you want a mechanics change for artillery or bombers, I would rather give them the "friendly fire" feature, cos after all you wouldnt fire artillery into an area where your own units are fighting. But it would also be a rather drastic change to the current gameplay.

So maybe after all just doing some regular balancing changes is the way to go. We actually have already some small tweaks lined up for the update early August, which make ranged weapons and tac/strat bomber a bit more expensive because they are harder to kill. Good that this thread confirms the direction.

ye that’s good

freezy wrote:

If you want a mechanics change for artillery or bombers, I would rather give them the "friendly fire" feature, cos after all you wouldnt fire artillery into an area where your own units are fighting. But it would also be a rather drastic change to the current gameplay.

Suna232 wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Suna232 wrote:

It would be too complicating to implement artillery like that.And if players were to use artillery and anti air defence correctly, I believe there would not be such issues.

Artillery (with aa) behind frontline close range units from both sides, I do not see an issue in that.

People need to understand that airforce (all except strategic and naval bombers), anti air units and artillery units are necessary units, main units to use. The one, if facing decent opponent, cannot win if not using those units.

Players rush infantry and light tanks on day 1/2/3 and get obliterated by someones well organized airforce then come here saying it is unbalanced.

This game works that way and even if they make that units with less then 8% of health or something similar become hidden from range units (battleships, cruisers, artillery, airforce)

It still would not change much even though I have many counter arguments why even that idea doesn't deserve to be implemented.

Tbh players are supposed to be using infantry and tanks as well but the thing is to a better player in cow, players need to use more planes and artillery. Have you ever not seen players using arty or planes destroying countries while inflicting over ten thousands or even hundred thousands casualties which in return lost only hundred or even none. This goes the same in the rest of the game the one who has greater firepower of ranged units ended up winning the almost every battles. Thats why sticking to the current gameplay will always be encouraging to use ranged units much more than melee ones.

Chet Zwe Han wrote:

Have you ever not seen players using arty or planes destroying countries while inflicting over ten thousands or even hundred thousands casualties which in return lost only hundred or even none.

After few airstrikes you will reach almost a 1000 casualties for yourself without enemy having to attack you.

If enemy is attacking with artillery with some buffer units in front you should do next:

*if no aa protection use airstrikes

*if in reach of naval units, attack from sea

*if no other option is left,engage in melee combat with buffer units, provide artillery and air support and expect from enemy to do the same. If you paid enough attention on terrain and doctrine bonuses aswell as units difference between you and your enemy you will be able to win conflict.

War is nothing more then a very tricky mind game, you and your enemy trying to overthink one another.

If you do not have aa/air support/artillery on your side and you get overpowered by someone who does. It doesn't mean that those unita are OP,it just means they are necessity and you made a mistake by avoiding use of them.

freezy wrote:

If you want a mechanics change for artillery or bombers, I would rather give them the "friendly fire" feature, cos after all you wouldnt fire artillery into an area where your own units are fighting. But it would also be a rather drastic change to the current gameplay.

So maybe after all just doing some regular balancing changes is the way to go. We actually have already some small tweaks lined up for the update early August, which make ranged weapons and tac/strat bomber a bit more expensive because they are harder to kill. Good that this thread confirms the direction.

Correct way (and the most realistic one) is artillery acting as a support for long lasting semi close range battles and head to head collision are resemblance of that kind of combat.

I believe people need to improve and change their play style and not to see everything as an issue. However I low key agree that artillery(navy, airforce) shouldn't be able to finish of units without close combat.

I have two suggestions :

1.

When capturing empty enemy's province to always reduce small % of health from unit(s) that captured it (this will resemble resistance of any remaining soliders and gorila warfare)

2.

When unit (or if more units then whole stacks health) is let's say less then a 5% of health it becomes invisible for ranged units because of smaller target

Just to make it clear, it would be perfectly okay for it to stay the way it is now.

freezy wrote:

In our other game S1914 it is actually already the case that the lower numbers and HP a unit has, the higher chances it has to survive combat ticks. There it is called "last stand" mechanic by the community. But that is only an unintended side effect due to an old combat system we use in that game. Players actually hate this and often report it as a bug, so we will fix and change it soon there. So I am very much against deliberately implementing this in CoW.

If you want a mechanics change for artillery or bombers, I would rather give them the "friendly fire" feature, cos after all you wouldnt fire artillery into an area where your own units are fighting. But it would also be a rather drastic change to the current gameplay.

So maybe after all just doing some regular balancing changes is the way to go. We actually have already some small tweaks lined up for the update early August, which make ranged weapons and tac/strat bomber a bit more expensive because they are harder to kill. Good that this thread confirms the direction.

Anyway Thanks for your consideration.

Suna232 wrote:

Chet Zwe Han wrote:

Have you ever not seen players using arty or planes destroying countries while inflicting over ten thousands or even hundred thousands casualties which in return lost only hundred or even none.

No, I actually never witnessed a real Player vs Player war that finished like that. That is possible only if Player is not active at all or against island AI while using navy.After few airstrikes you will reach almost a 1000 casualties for yourself without enemy having to attack you.

If enemy is attacking with artillery with some buffer units in front you should do next:

*if no aa protection use airstrikes

*if in reach of naval units, attack from sea

*if no other option is left,engage in melee combat with buffer units, provide artillery and air support and expect from enemy to do the same. If you paid enough attention on terrain and doctrine bonuses aswell as units difference between you and your enemy you will be able to win conflict.

War is nothing more then a very tricky mind game, you and your enemy trying to overthink one another.

If you do not have aa/air support/artillery on your side and you get overpowered by someone who does. It doesn't mean that those unita are OP,it just means they are necessity and you made a mistake by avoiding use of them.

For less casaulties, players will use ranged as offensive units while melee unit will be defending units for the ranged units, there is no OP nor useless but here i wanted to point out the purpose of the arty is getting wrong compare to reality. The game is flawless in its own way.