Change back the dog fight mechanics

With all due respect, Regid is not a native English speaker. I can only wish to be able to speak his mother language with the same proficiency as he does with mine.

Yeah, part of the problem is attacking everything within the patrol radius and getting defended by everything. It is entirely unrealistic that a patrol can attack every single target in the patrol radius. There is only so much ammunition you can carry.

You're talking about directing attack patrolling planes will result in 100% damage taken for the attacker and 25% damage for the patrolling right?

If yes, then I agree that they might as well fix this with the overlapping stacks. It kinda defy logic when a grouped up fighters lose out to a loosely-packed-out-of-formation-fighters

so, in short clanpred are u suggesting that on defense, a patrolling plane defend with 25 percent its defense value (in a nutshell), and nothing else change? both groups still do 100 percent of its regular damage (25%) when on its attack tick?

Here's a bright idea which could be worked into the solution.

Aircraft payloads are a tradeoff with aircraft capacity and distance to target. Perhaps a mechanic could be built in whereas aircraft in direct attack will do less damage the further they are from a certain distance from their base.

So perhaps all targets within 60% range are hit with 100% direct attack. Targets between 60% and 100% of the range of the aircraft are then hit with progressively less power maybe falling down to 50%? This is a realistic aspect of warfare and could add a useful nuance to the use of air power?

I know it's not related to patrols but if the devs are gonna look at doing some work at this particular area of code it might be worth looking at simultaneously?

Stormbringer50 wrote:

so, in short clanpred are u suggesting that on defense, a patrolling plane defend with 25 percent its defense value (in a nutshell), and nothing else change?

i dont know about the randomization, but you might have solved the problem. this could definitely be more liveable. at least planes would be on equal ground. we woulldnt lose planes attacking on patrol. hmmm. interesting to see what the rest of the community thinks, but you are onto something possibly.

*whistle*, that is some tough coding right there. I don't like that idea, since planes would still be operating in their best operational range. I think we currently have that now. Adding the damage offset according to range would see the plane's range grow far beyond their operational range. Like they do full damage at the maximum range they have now, and when they go past that range, the damage decreases.

That to me is like a serious buff to planes, and if you wish to keep the current range then it would be a serious nerf to planes. Either way I don't think we should do that

I like your random timer Clan, but the problem that 1 stack receives fire from 5 stacks still persists. We can go even further by randomizing the stack that your stack will attack. Every X minutes(X is random), your stack will choose one stack randomly and attack it and receive fire from that one stack back only. So no more 1 vs 5 situation

your other idea about lessening attack strength based on distance i dont like. just another nerf to airpower. this is a statement of gameplay, not history. just like artillery fire once an hour regardless of range, etc. The X factor is already there to get a more realistic value to attacks for everything. its supposed to be a variable based on a lot of different things, like weather, bad luck, range to target, etc etc etc.

but you are on to something with the post on defenders on patrol doing 25% of their def damage. good show, there. thst makes the exploit go away, and seems programmable.

I thought I'd throw that range idea into the discussion but like Regid says, we can just assume that planes are now operating at the max efficiency with regards to payload/range. I can live with that, we don't need ultra realism either.

But I'd love long range fuel tanks on my ints and tacs

As for the other idea, it might work and of course confirms that we need time to kick ideas around before deciding. I never really understood the exploit until I got badly beaten up in a situation where I thought I'd be safe, then I really paid attention.

Regid wrote:

like your random timer Clan, but the problem that 1 stack receives fire from 5 stacks still persists. We can go even further by randomizing the stack that your stack will attack. Every X minutes(X is random), your stack will choose one stack randomly and attack it and receive fire from that one stack back only. So no more 1 vs 5 situation

Yup, definitely easy, since you're only working with integers in loops. The only hard part is the randomization of it. I mean we could use the mainframe's clock to mix up the sequence of random numbers, but I don't know if it works for a project this big.

If they are using the E option as the immediate fix, i'd like to see the randomization as the ultimate fix.

What is meant by "Tick"

Cheers

Funnelroo wrote:

What is meant by "Tick"

Finally got around to talk on this again.

Honestly, while E is not ideal(I even said as much), it is a good short-term option, as it is easier to code and it also equalizes the playing field and eliminates the exploit entirely(it requires the aircraft to be able to attack, and if they can't attack other patrolling planes while patrolling, the exploit is null). And it also makes it easier for everyone to use plane recon, as the planes can no longer attack while on patrol. Does take away the fun of skirting a fighter along the water(or land border) watching for enemy activity, though... Eh.

Aircraft mechanics in general are just wonky, to be frank. Besides direct attack and move, which are straight forward, most of the other options on planes are just weird or not well explained. Patrol, namely. It allows you to attack ground targets(which I didn't even know WAS a thing until several months ago. Well, I kinda did before that, but never attacking neutral buildings and units, that much is certain... Unless it was referring to aircraft attacking stuff on the ground when war was declared on a neutral country, and the country not recognizing the response as an actual attack, which was never clarified, to my knowledge. But what's past is past.) and aircraft flying in to attack stuff on the ground(or units in the air), but it doesn't hit aircraft that are flying through the patrol zone to hit a target on the other side. The patrol isn't a lot like a patrol, put simply.

The biggest issue with aircraft in CoW is the fact that it is still using the mechanics from S1914(could say that for a LOT of stuff in this game, but aircraft especially suffer from it). Which, let's remember, is a WWI game, where combat aircraft were either of fighters(and variations thereof, this includes float planes for naval ships and recon planes for artillery spotting), or bombers(and variations thereof). There was little to no variation in armament, except the up-gunning of armament as lighter and bigger machine guns became available for aircraft(at the start of the war, the only thing pilots had were pistols, and by the end aircraft started getting .50 in machine guns.), but not major enough to warrant a tech progression in S1914. In comparison to WWII, where any big fighter could also doubled as a bomber, and visa versa. Obviously, a dedicated interceptor is never going to have the bombing capability of a tactical bomber, or a NAVAL bomber for that matter, so not really going to question that. But what about the stuff in between those roles, like the fighter-bomber and naval dive bomber?

Not advocating for realism if it breaks the game balance, but it does bring up to point that aircraft in the game are especially tied down by their roots in a lot of ways, and are inherently unrealistic(excluding the move and direct attack functions, as mentioned). If your going to use this thread for anything else, it may as well be to discuss what could be viable for balance in the future(keeping realism in mind, at least. Obviously not going to be hyper realistic, but keeping some bearing to IRL would be ideal for a functioning game, as it makes it easier for history buffs(and game addicts, of course) to pick up the game without too much difficulty), not dwelling on the decisions of the devs and their choices right now. Obviously there is a lot of things that could be done if time was unrestricted, but it is not, so make it viable for maybe a few months down the road(for a major patch, obviously), and not years or for some eventual utopia. Admittedly, I have high ideals for games(especially ones based on historical dates), but I am willing to settle for less as long as it is fair to everyone, new, veteran, or elite, base quirks of this game excluded(IE micromanaging while online is king, high command(put in here because it does give an advantage), gold use, etc).

And storm, remember, hardly anyone checks the forums anyway, and the only people who care enough to be active on it are pretty much this small group here. Your not going to get a much larger sample size without literally putting a poll in the news section. It just isn't going to happen, so don't use it as an excuse to get stuff pointed in the direction of option D. It's unlikely to happen. I know I'm beating the dead horse at this point, but I think that should be made clear so we don't dwell on it for the rest of this discussion, which let's remember, has been rather productive excluding the D/E argument(and even that could be considered productive, but I rest my case).

im not even on option D anymore. Do you read as much as you write? i never said option D was great. i said it beat nerfing planes. i was always for removing the exploit, and there have been points made that i thought were better.

thanks for trying to single me out, though. LOL.

Stormbringer50 wrote:

im not even on option D anymore. Do you read as much as you write? i never said option D was great. i said it beat nerfing planes. i was always for removing the exploit, and there have been points made that i thought were better.

thanks for trying to single me out, though. LOL.

Also, who else would I single out? You were the only one who suggested the entire thing get re-polled(as in literally the only one who explicitly asked for it, in that way, because you didn't like the results of the poll, or otherwise didn't like how few people voted or spoke out). I think you singled yourself out there, not the other way around. And as I said, unless you got Bytro to put a poll up(or something similar) on the News page(you know, the screen everyone has to look at when they open up the game?), you aren't going to achieve a sample size much larger than there is currently from this thread. And this wouldn't be a productive thread anymore if we kept arguing on which method is better for the temporary fix, now would it? So, how about we try and figure out what may work for balancing aircraft in the future that the devs could work with as possible input, instead of lingering on the temporary decision? And maybe also expanding a little on the selection of aircraft as an extension of that, if aircraft mechanic rebalancing is part of the next major patch.

Or whatever. I'm not going to push it any further, because doing so would be an inherently bad idea(basically nullifying the point of these 2 comments I've made, by causing it to happen from it being considered an extension of that debate. I may want the thread to remain peaceful, but I'm not dumb. I'd prefer they end it rather than cascade it out of control and cause the thread to get closed inadvertently.). So you can continue the other discussion. Just thought that needed to be addressed, and also good as a conversation redirection of sorts(the 'original', temporary part is now dead, for all intents and purposes).

consider me properly chastised. forgive me for the unjust perpetration of sinful abuse which i have so flagrantly thrust upon thee.

Storm changed his mind like 2 pages ago Nova. You're flogging a dead horse now really.

... It's probably a good thing I understand what a joke is when I see one now... May not get the humor too much, but I do see it. Soooo yeah. Let's continue then, shall we?

First, 2 cents on the stuff currently being thrown about from the last page or 2:

Randomization wouldn't work. It doesn't fix the underlying issue, namely attacking aircraft getting gunned down by defending aircraft. It would just makes it harder to execute. Assuming the randomization only put the intervals to reasonable times, you could feasibly micro manage your aircraft to avoid it still. By reasonable, I mean only a few minutes between the patrol ticks(IE 3 minutes at minimum. Obviously, 1 second intervals would be ludicrous when you are talking having to wait 59 minutes and 56 seconds for the next batch to go...). In fact, it would encourage you micromanage your aircraft even harder, and then even fewer players would be able to use the patrol function. Well intended, but without other things mixed in, it would probably worsen the problem, not make it better.

As for the defender getting only 25% to correspond with the 25% of the attacker's attack... Sounds good. May not fix the core issue by itself, but it would help with the overall problem. However, as a counter to this, maybe we could have a different function if the patrol has not been engaged in combat? Like, if the aircraft has not been engaged for 2 or 3 ticks(30 to 45 minutes), the patrol aircraft have their overall flow sinergized such that the majority of the aircraft can take off and destroy the target that passes through the patrol area(so instead of doing the 100% it does now, it would do like 150% or something. Or it could just be 100%.). This is to deal with flying by aircraft not getting hit, mostly(also means you can have a second screening line of fighters in the rear to deal with stuff heading inwards to your provinces). Or if a air target goes for a direct attack on a land target, it should give 100% defense(because those aircraft are not on patrol). It would complicated it, but would make it less likely the patrol would get a massive nerf to it's overall capability. I'm in favor of aircraft no longer declaring war on a neutral country, but that's just me(and like I said, still do not understand why it was decided to be a problem, as the issue was never clarified. Well, the reason they gave for why it was made to declare war was not clarified, to be more specific.).

Though, what Montana said is also very good. A defending patrol should not be able to defend an infinite number of times in a set period(at least against patrolling aircraft). Basically, all aircraft fire once, period, per 15 minutes, not what is currently happening, which is a single patrol attacks all 5, and then it gets counter attacked by all 5, and then it repeats for the other 4 attacking patrol squadrons, within the 15 minute time limit. And actually, nobody addressed this directly, but that effect compounds rather quickly and means that whole fleets of aircraft can be decimated in a matter of hours, instead of days, were it to be occurring nominally. But I guess everyone already realizes this. Montana's would work, but it also brings up the point of how this would effect other things. Patrols are essential to protecting units on the ground, and making it only one per 15 minutes would leave units on the ground vulnerable to air attack, though that may not necessarily be bad.

As for a suggestion from me... Well, I don't have much, to be honest, besides adding a couple new units to represent in-between units(I mean, to me, it makes no sense that a fighter(interceptor, but same thing) can do basically nothing to a armored car brigade... It has bombs... And rockets... And it's a group of fighters as well.) that can operate as 2 types at once(either int tacts or nav tacts. Thinking about it now, there could also be naval scouts. Very good view range(the armored car of planes), fairly long range(just above interceptor, below tacts), can fit on cruisers, can spot submarines, and have the best anti-sub of any of the planes, only marginally better than the naval bomber(so 7 or 8 compared to 4 for level 6), but also have by far the lowest health(cheap-ish, though. Wouldn't require a lot of fuel.) and lowest speed of any of the aircraft, making their use limited to sub hunting and naval recon only(and even a pack of submarines can shoot down one or 2 naval scouts, which is about all you can fit on a cruiser at any level). Basically like anti-tank guns in that regard, except it flys and it hits subs hard instead of tanks. This would basically be for people who don't want to have to maintain a carrier task force and instead run a couple cruisers and many hunter killer packs of destroyers. Just throwing ideas out there.), or to add some functions for aircraft, barring that. Aircraft should be varied instead of having to use all the same functions, for me personally. Probably would be better to have a context sensitive menu(fire control, in other words), where some options are available out of the gate and all the other options are barred behind high command. But yeah, everything shouldn't use the patrol function, as I personally think that is highly misleading when referring to strats and tacts. Those ones shouldn't have to patrol, ever. It should also be stated somewhere that all aircraft and artillery attacks have a small amount of AoE to them, as they do have some AoE to them(saw that with some guys throwing tacts at one of my stacks with a re-inforcement coming in, and the re-inforcement got damaged before it could reach the sector...).

Regid, just wanted to make sure(and like I said, was a bit late to it, but I thought I'd add it anyway). Besides that, I also used it to redirect any further discussion on the thread, should they read this far or still be here for discussion(3 parts versus the 1 and three quarters I dedicated to the "issue"). Focus the discussion so there will be no more of the other part, rather than talking exclusively about the 'other part'. May not work, but at least it exists. Also, I was reading page 9, and there was still discussion on that dead horse... Maybe not the specific part of the dead horse I was addressing, but Storm was still arguing against the change in the last posts in that page(which would have been earlier this afternoon, when I wasn't paying any attention to the discussion because I was elsewhere.). Better what I did then have to deal with it later.

horse still has life, bro. believe me when i tell ya.