Change back the dog fight mechanics

Peter Mat wrote:

So if only one stack could defend, how would the program decide which one is defending?

Your comment about returning to base if you move within an enemy patrol range has two problems. First of all this is a major change in plane behavior and I would imagine a lot of players would find this annoying as hell. Second, it doesn't entirely solve the problem because you could still use the "pre patrol defense" method of moving your planes through the patrol radius on the enemy tic, but never actually stopping within patrol tic range.

One other possible solution: Give planes different offensive and defensive factors versus planes. If you want to go in and park your patrol for the opponents offensive tic, (ie. let him come out of the sun on your 6) your air combat factor is halved (defensive fire). Then you run away so he is not in your patrol radius when you tic at full strength. This would also solve the moving through during the tic you described while I was typing this.

Since the exploit is essentially saying I am not going to shoot until you fire at me, and then I am not going to shoot at you when it is my turn, make the air combat factors reflective of the strategy.

Since the exploit deals with the timing of the tics, why not set all aircraft tics to the server clock? They tic at the top of the hour, 1/4 past, 1/2 past and 1/4 of the hour. Regardless of the time they arrive on station, let them tic based on the server.

@Peter Mat: I that will be to hard for the server to calculate all dogfights for all maps at the same time.

@DxC: I think you suggestion is good, this will be help too with a other problem in dogfights, the "hidden fighters". Stacks of planes outside the spotting area of the opponent planes.

Bug bow (flyer bow)

Good evening,

I found a bug in the COW league, which I found in the forum and which has already been discussed.

I can not understand how this mistake can be accepted as a game

mechanic, as it can be a war decree, if you lose your own plane again

and again, even if you are a thug against a player, we can not do it but

not sein.Ich find this unacceptable to accept such a bug dan we need

not play any more COW league. Tytro solte this and take it over again as

there are any too many used this bug and then they lose their

Spieler.Ich would be one of those, although the game makes me super fun

but not so.

what? @NoWhy

Xarus wrote:

@Peter Mat: I that will be to hard for the server to calculate all dogfights for all maps at the same time.

@DxC: I think you suggestion is good, this will be help too with a other problem in dogfights, the "hidden fighters". Stacks of planes outside the spotting area of the opponent planes.

I do not understand why no one does what against the plane bug what tud, that's unfair for all players. In the German league he is certainly used and I'm tired of the game, because it just does not matter that this game has a flaw How can you make such a serious mistake in a game more terrerrieren.There are patches.

@NoWhy: I understand your frustration, but after looking to the facts of our last game, we think you are not victim of the "swarm of bees" bug. It gives a other failure in the dogfight with "hidden" stacks of planes outside you line of sight.

I will try to make some pictures for the forum to teach other players about this "feature", stay tuned...

Ok thx Xarus

miech wrote:

Hello all,

Since recently, without being communicated, the air battle mechanics have changed.

Now, the old version wasnt perfect, as you had certain ways to do massive amount of damage without recieving any, or very little.

Yet, the new version is even worse. Now you are rewarded to nót engage enemy aircraft during patrol runs. The player who stays online long enough to avoid the 15 minute tick, is the one that is rewarded with obscenely positive battle results.

So all in all, the change was made that its a good idea to do damage by...not attacking?

TL;DR

Please revert back to the old dog fight mechanics, they arent perfect, but the new version is even worse.

A) If a plane did not do an attack tick in the last 15min, the next patrol tick will happen at the beginning of the patrol timer.

Fine with me, then I will just keep my planes flying forever. LOL

B) When a plane started to patrol, any new command given to it will result in the plane flying back to refuel before executing the new command.

Just stupid. Or wait. I will just keep my planes flying forever. LOL

C) After each patrol tick in which a plane attacks offensively, it has to fly to base to refuel, before flying back to the patrol destination and resuming the patrol. Patrol damage is increased from 25% to 100% to make up for it.

Fine with me, then I will just keep my planes flying forever. LOL

D) we keep everything as it is and declare it as a feature that everyone can use or avoid.

Sounds good.

E) planes do not deal damage during patrol anymore, unless other planes attack them directly or a friendly target within their patrol radius is attacked.

Booooring. But OK, it could work. It would just be a nerfed game.

PS your suggestions just crashed and burned.

@DxCyour suggestion about making it so that only a limited no. of stacks can do patrol damage to me sounds silly. How on earth are you going to put that into code.

How will you determine which stack gets to attack and which are not going to work. Why would I build planes if I know only, say 20% of them will work.

If you say it's within just one area, then I will just place them slightly apart.

Or, finally, as with Freezys suggestions:

I will just keep them flying.

DxC wrote:

Xarus wrote:

So, why is option E for some of the players here in this thread so negative?

Because it is like nuking a prov with a single militia in it and no buildings. It is a seriously overkill way to deal with the issue. [...]

But solving our dog fight problem was not the only purpose of my proposal to remove patroling for bombers. I also think it would render air combat much more interesting. Removing bomber-patrols would have the following consequences:

• You would no longer be able to run air-to-ground attacks in an area that's within the reach of your opponents' interceptors. At least not when planning to leave the screen in the meantime. I think that would be OK and certainly realistic - you need to obtain air superiority first.
• Bombers would become a bit less useful (because of then having a major tactical option less) compared to ground units. Personally I think that would be fine, because now they're a bit too almighty. They would still be powerful and playing completely without bombers would still be no option, cause then you wouldn't force your enemy to drag air defenses around with him.
• The way bombers are used would be much more realistic. They fly to their target, drop their load of bombs in short time, go back to air base. They don't circle above the enemy for ages without ever having to refuel or reload ammunition.
• We would see direct air-to-air attacks (of course precondition is that planes on direct attack have same chances as defending - but that bug should be solved anyways). Always beautiful to watch and a lot of action. Your fighters plucking your enemies planes out of the air. The one who's able to build more fighters would obtain air supremacy. Just like in real life.
• Direct attack is intuitive and easy to understand also for new players. That - as things are now - you should practically always attack by patroling, is something you have to learn from experience. It's something artificial and strange gameplay. Takes you a dozen games to learn all the twists of the patroling system.

I completely don't understand, why many players are so keen on attacking ground units by "patroling" over them. What would be so bad about giving direct attack order instead?

It should be done in any case, a change in the plane, in the German league it was exploited and the first 3 places have occupied the unfair with the plane bugs and tricks have exploited, that is not alright absolutely not, we do not need dan League to play more.