Change back the dog fight mechanics

NovaTopaz wrote:

One dimensional, IE the border itself is a line. And yes, you can be assigned a sector, but usually, said sector is still a short space of the border... It's not broad, and it only has one goal, which the border usually does well enough without the people there... The only reason there are guards at all, is because humanity is crafty and generally will take flight over staying and obeying the law... If it weren't, people would just put walls as boundaries between themselves and forgot that everyone else exists... You know what I mean.

Your definition of a border seems to be a fence. Your definition of transgessors of the border seems to be individuals (illegal immigrants or criminals) Both of which are part of a problem but not the only ones.

Have a look at the old USSR Border Troops as an example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Border_Troops

The lesson here is not to talk in absolutes.

Regid wrote:

DA vs P:

P vs P:

Further scenarios:

FP vs AP:

FP vs PP:

What this rework does are:

[/spoiler]

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Regid wrote:

K.Rokossovski wrote:

Regid wrote:

The problem is because player tried to avoid the patrol tick by moving the planes, by moving the planes if they are attacked they will use their defensive stats, which for tacs is higher than their offensive stats. That is the key problem, the offset in tacs offensive and defensive stats was the prime reason for players to exploit.

Try again... clearly you don't understand the problem. The clear description is on page one, second post from the bottom. If you really don't want to actually read it, please don't participate in this discussion... it is about defending with multiple stacks, leading to HUGE damage differences, and has nothing to do with the slight difference between off and def values of tacs.

The problem with stacking is easily solved with that new mechanics. The offset in defensive stats and offensive stats also contribute to the micro managing of planes. That was why I targeted them both, but more on the latter since patrolling should be more of a defense mechanism so when planes attack or being attacked when patrolling by other planes, they should only be using their defensive stats

NovaTopaz wrote:

Regid wrote:

... A Patrol with aircraft is not the same as guards patrolling a border. Just saying... They are completely different.

They are the same. That's why there's such a thing called "No Fly Zone". It's where planes will patrol and attack everything that gets into that zone.

... Well then. Bit longer than I expected to type it out. TL;DR: Those two are not the same. And no fly zone's are not patrols. I rest my case.

... It's a no fly zone, not a patrol zone. Your not allowed to fly there, not because there is necessarily aircraft there, but because it is a designated no-fly zone where civilians are not allowed to fly. And if you do fly into it, a squadron of fighters(or something else, like a radio transmission telling you to turn around, or otherwise you will be shot out of the sky by SAM batteries.) will be sent up to enforce it, and, if need be, shoot you down. Usually just redirect you out of the zone, though. It's not a patrol zone. A patrol zone can be in any arbitrary place(it can literally be the area of a single house, if your using helos). No Fly Zones are put around specific, MAJOR military installations and other important places you shouldn't have a peep into, covering an area that no aircraft, or squadron of aircraft, is capable of fully patrolling without assistance from ground based facilities. This includes the Pentagon, airfields, and many other places I can not be bothered to name. It is a GEOPOLITICAL BORDER set up by politicians. It does not necessarily have aircraft scanning the skies overhead 24/7/365. It would be a waste of fuel, and everyone's time. A patrol is also organizational, in the military, and basically means a group of units were sent out to do an individual task(a no fly zone isn't a task until someone violates it.). For example, CAP(Combat Air Patrol).

Combat air patrol description, taken from wikipedia(with points highlighted in between myself). Obviously, Wikipedia isn't the most trustworthy source, but it's fairly good, and is correct in most of the military based stuff.

"A combat air patrol is an aircraft patrol provided over an objective area, over the force protected, over the critical area of a combat zone, or over an air defense area, for the purpose of intercepting and destroying hostile aircraft before they reach their target(in other words, they were assigned a task to accomplish). Combat air patrols apply to both overland and overwater operations, protecting other aircraft, fixed and mobile sites on land, or ships at sea."

Like I said, COMPLETELY different from patrolling a border. A border is 1 dimensional(It follows a line. Simple enough), and you aren't assigned to an entire area, you are assigned to a gateway or guard tower. They are different fundamentally, operationally, and linguistically(for lack of any other word to use, lol).

Take a No Fly Zone for example, it is put up and planes will PATROL that area, they will defend that area and they will shoot if something comes in and doesn't get out, hence the 15 minutes tick-it is basically a simplification of a "response, turn back or I will fire" situation in real life patrolling.

What you are nitpicking here is "what they are patrolling" when I was clearing talking about the very essence of PATROLLING.

from the way option E is written, it means that planes on patrol will no longer atack ships or ground units, basically making planes useless. if u have naval bombers on patrol and ships approach, they will not attack them. if u have tacs over tanks invading you, they will just let them roll in. If you have strats over a city, they will do no damage. a player will have to always be alert and use planes on direct attack, taking the refueling time and the time to fly between the base and the target. it will mean that the fastest units in the game will be the only units not allowed an attack per hour. this also means that players that did not strategize to defend against planes will be given all the time in the world to build a defense AFTER they are attacked.

This option is no option at all. It just penalizes planes to the point of ruining them.

Stormbringer50 wrote:

from the way option E is written, it means that planes on patrol will no longer atack ships or ground units, basically making planes useless.

Stormbringer50 wrote:

it will mean that the fastest units in the game will be the only units not allowed an attack per hour. this also means that players that did not strategize to defend against planes will be given all the time in the world to build a defense AFTER they are attacked.

Why should they attack per hour? Bombers in WW2 attacked once per day. Fly to Stuttgart, drop bombs, fly back to Essex, refuel, rearm, sleep and repeat the next day.

The real strategist would have built up enough air force to be able to maintain a high tempo of offensive air action, i.e a stack will go out and another stack will follow a few hours later. Like the Allies used to bomb during day and night in Europe.

If you are attacked by air, you will need a few days to build up a worthy AA defence over your area. In the meantime a good strategic air user will have pounded you into the Stone Age.

No way does option E ruin air power. It merely requires more strategic thought rather than tactical (micro management) employment.

disagree with you clanpred. mine is not an argument of history, but one of gameplay. no other unit has to wait to rearm.refuel to make an attack once per hour.

also, if i have friendly units, say destroyers, already in number to protect my coast, i dont really need naval bombers too.

stop trying to discredit my viable discussions with your personal vendetta. this is about what is best for the game, and the community

Clanpred wrote:

recconaisance function can be still part of patrol function if there is a random attack at 4 attackesph (even in the beginning) as I suggested if we add the Fire Control button to the plane menu. So you set it on patrol but because it is a recce you hold fire.

NovaTopaz wrote:

No Fly Zones are put around specific, MAJOR military installations and other important places you shouldn't have a peep into, covering an area that no aircraft, or squadron of aircraft, is capable of fully patrolling without assistance from ground based facilities.

So if you guys mean that option E means that planes on patrol not longer attack enemy planes, ships or ground units it must be rename to RECON.

But in this way it's for all new players clear what he can do with this order.

Note: to all players that always says that planes will be out of use, if we do it in this way. I must say, I never had played against a good & active player, that used only navel and ground units to win a game. Maybe the airforce is expensiv to build up. But you know why you do it if a enemy attacks you on the other side of you nation. Bombers help you there in a few hours where no other help is.

Please think about it.

Diabolical wrote:

I don't think the concept of a no-fly zone even existed until after the first Gulf War.

The Belgrano was sunk as a result, the first overt kill by a nuclear sub. Brits then scored first heli anti tank kill in Gulf War I. The squadron commander of the squadron that made that kill was my one time boss, Bob Eustace.

E is the closet to a good fix for the time being. The devs will look into this problem more as time passes. Though it might be quite unfavorable and more of a nerf to the planes. I mean, we would have to use direct attack to attack now, that means refueling every turn and it an enemy has an air base close enough, he/she can lay waste to your planes when they come back to refuel.

However, it makes players play more tactically than just trying to see who can stay online longer; when to attack with planes, when to patrol, when to pull back.

It is not the best solution, but it is the one we need most now. Let's go with E then

Xarus wrote:

So if you guys mean that option E means that planes on patrol not longer attack enemy planes, ships or ground units it must be rename to RECON.

A recon option could be given by adding a hold fire instruction to patrolling aircraft. This should be a modified fire control instruction and available to all not just HC.

Xarus wrote:

I made now a poll about the options. If you make your vote please remember that we need a solution for all players from CoW. We need a clear and easy dog fight for the community.

My first quote deals only with fixing the original problem that was brought up by @miech without affect the timer or which units can do what, etc., though it does affect battle calculations. My second quote deals with the timer and nature of patrols and an innovative way to fix how combat is resolved such that the original problem that @miech points out is no longer even possible.

Diabolical wrote:

Because the destructive power dealt by a patrolling force gets divided proportionately as a percentage across all units in the patrol zone, maybe it would make sense....and to be fair....to make the opposition's destructive power be applied under that same proportionality. So, instead of limiting the number of engagements in the patrol zone, maybe instead you could proportionately limit the power of each engagement [in a patrol zone]. In other words, if your patrol attacks multiple stacks in it's zone, and opponent stack "X" gets 35% of the damage inflicted because it represents 35% of the cumulated total target value, then the responsive attack value in that single volley from "X" against the patrol would only be 35% of it's own potential destructive power.

Likewise, [because of the new battle mechanics described above] if your patrol deals with many many opponents, not only would you only do a tiny amount of damage against each, but because of the [consequently inherent] SBDE limitations of crowded skies, you would only receive a tiny amount of damage from each....though cumulatively, that would still add up to a reasonably higher amount. Since this would simulate the SBDE effect of combining the enemy into one stack....without actually doing so....then my other idea of actually forcing them to fight with a single combined SBDE value would not be needed.

The point of this idea is that you make your air patrols fight with a logical proportionality. It's unreasonable to think that a flight of ten aircraft would take on a flight of 500. They'd, at best, only take on 20 or 30 before getting shot down...and they'd most likely lose by the 30th enemy unit (depending on individual strength ratings, of course). But, you can't say that all 500 planes would aim at the 10 planes because they'd get in the way of each other and friendly fire would be highly consequential. But making it proportional serves to level the realism per round of fire wherein the patrol timer is considered. This is both a fair proposal and an easy battle calculation in which to add to the base code.

TL;DR

Make all patrols fight targets proportionately according to sub-divided strengths of all targets in range. Also, those targets fire back proportionately in like manner. This deals with both @miechs exploit and the SBDE exploit.

Diabolical wrote:

what if the patrol were treated differently entirely?

Alright. [After reading more posts and seeing what @freezy has listed,] this is how I think it should be treated. All patrols are no-longer "tick" based. Instead, you send aircraft on patrol and it patrols its area [seemingly, like normal]. When an opponent target is discovered, your air unit attacks it...and only one target at a time. Both aircraft remain in field until either the invading unit passes through the patrol space or one of them is destroyed. [In this case, the "tick" timer is reintroduced for this one battle only. So ticks aren't always being counted, just when an actual battle has begun.] Once the patrol no longer has that one target available, it must go back and refuel. Then it returns to the same patrol area.

If there is more than one target in the patrol area, then your patrolling unit goes after the nearest one first. Once it's destroyed, the unit goes back to refuel, returns and takes on the next-closest target. Once all targets have been eliminated, the plane returns from refuelling one more time and then waits in the air until new targets present themselves. This would be indefinite [without the "tick" timer] until the patrol is cancelled. Also, if you change your patrol to another area, so long as you are in the green pie-slice, you don't have to refuel to move to the new area. But, when you patrol, the attack always begins immediately, not after 15 minutes. That would eliminate the other exploit that started this whole thread.

Basically, you are eliminating the regular "tick" timer of the patrols in favor of a "battle tick" timer. In other words, you must have an actual target to fight in order for the timer to be used. Secondly, you only attack one invading target at a time while on patrol....and you always attack the nearest target to the patrol area's centerpoint, first. Thirdly, your patrolling units must refuel after every victory when an automatically-targeted unit stack is destroyed and the "tick" timer is turned off during the refuelling action. Finally, you don't wait for the "tick" timer to count down before a volley of fire is exchanged but, instead, the volley happens at the beginning of the "tick" timer and then the 15 minutes is treated like a cool-down, so you fire at the beginning of every tick instead of afterwards.

Interestingly, this would require a little bit of some smart coding that I know is easy enough for the dev team to handle....mainly in the cartesian locating of the nearest target when multiple ones are found in a patrol....and also for handling the new version of the "tick" timer which starts when a unit is engaged in combat with another unit. Since this would operate similar to the common "tick" timer of all other battles (land and sea, and air "attack" which always attack at the beginning of the hourly timer), the existing code is already available.

One thing to note, is that if your patrolling unit is already in combat with another unit and more units later come into range, they shouldn't be targeted based on their order of entry into the patrol zone. Rather, when one battle finishes (either when the current target leaves the patrol zone or it is destroyed), the next currently closest target should be the one that is automatically targeted. While it would be nice to be able to select the order of multiple targets, that is probably an unnecessarily complex additional feature that wouldn't do much for the game.

Additionally, this option would both remove the SBDE exploit as well as eliminate the exploit that @miech created this thread for.

TL;DR

All patrols attack only one target at a time: the closest one to the center of the patrol. The "tick" timer only functions while a battle is underway (not when there are no targets and not when refueling). Units fire at the beginning of the timer's countdown instead of the end. Units must refuel after each battle before engaging another target (next closest one) in its patrol zone.

Clanpred wrote:

Diabolical wrote:

I don't think the concept of a no-fly zone even existed until after the first Gulf War.

Brits declared a Total Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands in 1982. Included ships and air.

The Belgrano was sunk as a result, the first overt kill by a nuclear sub. Brits then scored first heli anti tank kill in Gulf War I. The squadron commander of the squadron that made that kill was my one time boss, Bob Eustace.

It is an interesting anecdote that you bring up about your boss. He was probably the first and last British sailor to sink an American vessel since the War of 1812.

Quoted from Wikipedia:

"The warship was built as USS Phoenix, the sixth of the Brooklyn-class light cruiser class, in Camden, New Jersey by the New York Shipbuilding Corporation starting in 1935, and launched in March 1938. She survived the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 undamaged, and went on to earn nine battle stars for World War II service. At the end of the war, she was placed in reserve at Philadelphia on 28 February 1946, decommissioned on 3rd July that year and remained laid up at Philadelphia.^[2]

Phoenix was sold to Argentina in October 1951 and renamed 17 de Octubre after the "People's Loyalty day", an important symbol for the political party of the then-president Juan Perón. Sold with her was another of her class, the (USS Boise, renamed ARA Nueve de Julio), which was scrapped in 1978.^[3]

17 de Octubre was one of the main naval units that joined the 1955 coup in which Perón was overthrown, and was renamed General Belgrano after General Manuel Belgrano, who founded the Escuela de Náutica (School of Navigation) in 1799 and had fought for Argentine independence from 1811 to 1819. The Belgrano accidentally rammed her sister ship Nueve de Julio on exercises in 1956, which resulted in damage to both.^[3] Belgrano was outfitted with the Sea Cat anti-aircraft missile system between 1967 and 1968.^[4]"

Stormbringer50 wrote:

disagree with you clanpred. mine is not an argument of history, but one of gameplay. no other unit has to wait to rearm.refuel to make an attack once per hour.

It is ludricous to have a stack of strategic bombers flying from the east of S America and hitting targets in West Africa. Bridging an entire ocean and somehow magically regenerating bombs and fuel and of course no rest for the crew.

Stormbringer50 wrote:

also, if i have friendly units, say destroyers, already in number to protect my coast, i dont really need naval bombers too.

Stormbringer50 wrote:

stop trying to discredit my viable discussions with your personal vendetta. this is about what is best for the game, and the community

Personal vendetta? SO I've been contributing to this thread long before you and have maintained the same viewpoint. DO you believe I am here just to argue against you? There is no personal vendetta here, with all due respect, get over yourself, you are not important in the grand scheme of things. if you feel differently then I suggest you reciprocate using private message. Rules are for all.

What I am saying is for the best of game and community. As a player who has invested in this game and nearly in the top three hundred ranking I too only want what is best for the game and community. Disagreeing with you is not harming the community when you are setting off down the wrong path.

Diabolical wrote:

Ah, but isn't this basically similar to a demilitarized zone

My boss was a anti tank helicopter pilot not the Commander of HMS Conqueror. One of my other bosses Admiral Wilcox saved USS MIssouri from a silkworm missile fired during GW1 by sailing his destroyer, HMS Gloucester inbetween and shooting it down. Another military first, the first shooting of a missile by another missile by any navy.

not going to be drawn into a flame war with you clanpred

@Diabolical: The five options we have are given from the devs. We can't discuss other option - because we have to choose between the given once.

If we no find a option with the most votes, they say they will leave it in the way it is now. I think that this option D is the worse case for a lot of players.

We have in CoW three kinds of players:

1. The "canon fodder" a new rookie player with interest in the game but not experienced about game mechanics in CoW. They know that a tank is good against infantry and ships swim on the sea...

   This is a big group of players we need to give our hands to help them to find the right way.

2. The "blue collar" player, player that play now CoW for a longer time. They know and understood most of the game mechanics. This is the main part of players in CoW. Most of them came two or three times a day in they games and see what happens.
3. And we have the "hogs of war", hi active veterans that knows who to win in impossible situations, but only a small part of disciple from the god of war.

please, take a step back and have a look on this game with a "child" eyes.

Tanks

true xarus. and from moderating chat for hours and hours per day, i can tell u that slow gameplay with nothing to do is the #1 complaint of new players. the 22 player maps inactivity rate is also testament to this. players want some action. nerfing one of the few fast paced parts of the game will contribute to new players loss rates.

Thats why the only good option of the ones given to choose from is D.

Maybe putting up the poll was a little early. If we can discuss this further, we can maybe come up with an option that is more liveable for all players in the community, thats the devs can implement without rewriting the entire game code.

Group 1, are not the players that go inactive. This group of players that only have a look into the game is no present. Did you have looked into the presentation of CoW at steam? If you see the video and think, okay maybe I have a look into this game I be sure that 90% of the people will leave the tutorial after a few moments. yeah no action...

You choose option D for you, because you have the time to control you air force most time a day. That gives you the chance to win a game without complications in most random games. Because only >5% or less of the players knows how to stop a active player with superior air force.

If option D is become normal, only active players can use planes in future, all "normal" players loose them, maybe stronger air force in short times against you, without a chance. That not pay to win- that's click to win!

option d is already normal, and is not OP. u r suggesting that an active player must be penalized. LOL.

and most certainly player group 1 are the ones that go inactive. i see it everyday. its even MORE apparent since the steam launch.

with no other options to choose from, option d is the only fair choice. again, we jumped the gun opening the poll. if this could have been discussed more completely, we might have come up with a solution that defeated the exploit without nerfing planes.

Stormbringer50 wrote:

option d is already normal, and is not OP. u r suggesting that an active player must be penalized. LOL.

You remember our game in the "arms race" event, we both and one other guy against more than twenty player coalition against us? Okay some of our enemies are gone inactive, but we won only by using our heavy air force.

When I look into the PL games or other games with a lot of veteran players, all of this guys use the most of they resources for the air force. If the time is come they all start the research for interceptors and bombers if the new level is available.

So I think it will be good to reduce the influence of active air control is better for this game. Active player can already control better all other units, react faster if some try to land on your coast. Control the production or start to build new units then the normal players. Why more?