Rework of AA and Air-land fights

This is my last post in this thread; it is kinda hard to convince someone with so little playing experience of the errors of their thinking. There's so many flaws in your reasoning and I just don't feel like correcting each one of them, if you're SO sure that you're right and keep moving the goal posts of this discussion. Lets just say, you get maybe 20-30 WaW games under your belt, and you come back to this thread when you're done. I'm actually pretty sure that my points have proven themselves to you on the battlefield by then.

BTW, I killed over 5,000 AA units in my carreer.

I can, have, and continue to produce 10 planes a day in many of my games.

The units that have actual attack ranges are units with weapons that have effective ranges measured in dozens of kilometers. Artillery systems as small as the 75-mm Pack howitzers lobbed shells at over 8 kilometers. Battleship guns fired several times over that.

Ground-to-air antiaircraft weapons were defensive in nature rather than offensive. Therefore, it makes sense that they primarily come into action when aircraft come to them.

With regards to other ground units having anti-air scores: The units in this game represent battalions and regiments, which have their own organic (if somewhat minor) tools to defend themselves from most threats. This includes aircraft. A U.S. Infantry Battalion in all revisions through the interwar and wartime years includes an increasing number of heavy machine guns, which could be (and were) used against aircraft. The 1943 foot battalion had 20 such guns, and in mid-1944 there were 26. Not the most effective anti-air spread, but that's already reflected by the statistics in game.

Other nations like Germany had many times more machine guns which, again, could and were used for defense against aircraft.

In any case, the idea that aircraft are made useless in this game by the existence of anti-aircraft scores on non-dedicated anti-air units is silly. Aircraft are lightyears stronger in this game than they were in reality, obliterating unit after unit down to a man with minimal damage taken in return. It's absurd. In the last three 100-man games I've played, I've had aircraft with up to 80 confirmed kills.

Since we are focused on realism this time, it would be nice to combine units as I have suggested in the past. Once these planes reach 1/4 health, they take over a week to become barely effective. If we combine weakened squadrons of planes into another unit, then they will be replenished and far more organized. And on the side of realism, most modern militaries have done this before.

Those units would be weaker and less useful than the even damaged parts, though. There would just be no benefit. And you do have your armies combined in a way. Real armies did this because they gained more effective forces, you don’t really do that here.

Commander Schleicher wrote:

Once these planes reach 1/4 health, they take over a week to become barely effective.

A ground unit getting into close combat with the enemy is going to suffer much greater attrition and have more downtime (or just get run into the ground) much faster with less cost-effectiveness.

At the end of the day, aircraft cover more of the battlespace with on-call firepower and suffer less damage taken in return for the damage they deal out. They also get the benefits of patrolling. They are some of the most cost-effective and practical units in the game.

To be completely honest? I think AA guns and AT guns should be buffed to keep pace with infantry so that they could be more usable in stacks. Then people could actually adequately defend themselves from aircraft without having to invest in their own aircraft.

13% of total health lost. Maybe we need a health calculator from @DxC lol

Actually it is 1/7th of MISSING health, or 14.29%.

25% health unit heals to ~36% on the first day

36% health unit heals to ~45% on the second day

45% health unit heals to ~53% on the third day

53% health unit heals to ~60% on the fourth day

60% health unit heals to ~66% on the fifth day

66% health unit heals to ~71% on the sixth day

71% health unit heals to ~75% on the seventh day

There's some rounding errors there, but the general idea is clear: the less damage they have left, the longer it takes to heal it.

Thank you. I did not know that.

I guess I'm not experienced enough, still think I shiuld be able to combine low health units to make them usable again. However, in the time I have played this game and other Bytro games, I have noticed that CoW troops do way more damage to planes than other games, and usually they are rendered useless after a campaign. They do work well after a few attacks, but if you don't constantly replace those planes every other day then the air force will degrade. If anyone remembers my playthrough of Germany from a while ago, my air force got absolutely obliterated at the end of the war and I came to the conclusion that the only effective and long term air force was with interceptors and rocket fighters. In the last day of having my air factory, the rocket fighters actually were pretty good but I had made the fleet all too late and I lost.

If you say you needed ints and RF, you had a completely different problem. Bombers only work when you have air superiority, and when you say you needed int/RF it appears that you didn't. Bombers aren't some magic trick to win; you need to fight for control of the sky first.

Yeah if you know what happened, I was fighting a gold user so by day 2 he had spammed about 5 squadrons of 10 units usually a mix of attack and tactical bombers. Me and my coalition were beating him until he made neutral countries turn on us. We did achieve air superiority for about a day by destroying his airbases but he rebuilt them and our air force was gone as well as our rockets.

@'K.Rokossovski, since we're talking about it, here's a map of the final days of the war between my coalition and our enemies. We held these positions firmly for 2-3 days until we were destroyed. The editor screwed up the picture but Prague is owned by Ukraine as a government in exile so their army and navy can continue to help us. I had major cities for airplanes in Cologne, Warsaw, and Munich which all either made rockets or airplanes. The Russians had set up an airstrip at Kursk, Minsk, and other locations along the way near the frontlines. I had the only viable army left at that point, and my air force was destroyed. Doesn't matter if you care or not about my rambling, but in the final days we held the Russians at bay with rocket fighters since they had little to no interceptors. Bombing their airfields also worked for a short period of time but they rebuilt them before I could make more rockets. Who would you argue is the better player based on what you know so far? I have more detailed info from a while ago here: Germany in Europe - Clash of Nations

I'm done with this thread until I get to level 200+, it seems that people don't want to listen until you come with an account with many games.

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

Ground-to-air antiaircraft weapons were defensive in nature rather than offensive. Therefore, it makes sense that they primarily come into action when aircraft come to them.

With regards to other ground units having anti-air scores: The units in this game represent battalions and regiments, which have their own organic (if somewhat minor) tools to defend themselves from most threats. This includes aircraft. A U.S. Infantry Battalion in all revisions through the interwar and wartime years includes an increasing number of heavy machine guns, which could be (and were) used against aircraft. The 1943 foot battalion had 20 such guns, and in mid-1944 there were 26. Not the most effective anti-air spread, but that's already reflected by the statistics in game.

Other nations like Germany had many times more machine guns which, again, could and were used for defense against aircraft.

There's a difference between "could use" and what was the primary thing used for a certain action. Against airplanes the PRIMARY thing used was anti-air and not infantry or tanks or artilery or anti-tank destroyer or militia.

Some anti-air in WW2 could attack up to 15 km away,

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

The units that have actual attack ranges are units with weapons that have effective ranges measured in dozens of kilometers. Artillery systems as small as the 75-mm Pack howitzers lobbed shells at over 8 kilometers. Battleship guns fired several times over that.

Ground-to-air antiaircraft weapons were defensive in nature rather than offensive. Therefore, it makes sense that they primarily come into action when aircraft come to them.

People are listening, they just don't agree with your suggestion. There are players here with a lot of experience who disagree with your characterization of the current air meta, too.

My biggest disagreement is that I don't actually care about historic realism if it gets in the way of game balancing.

Adding more complex mechanics to air vs land battles will just make air even stronger vs bad players and (probably) even easier to neutralize for good players, players that already produce AA without your proposed buffs.

And the range question isn't trivial. Something like 5km of range would be easy to avoid for active players, as you can quickly route around any ground stacks, which are confined to easily identifiable corridors for movement (also unrealistic, oh noooo). The only time you'd get within 5km would be to actually attack, and the current game mechanic already reflects the fact that AA should get shots off first.

Personally I do, as I joined this game and still sort of play it more for the “take over the world as a historical country” thing than the “fun game” thing. Basically I was looking for a simulation game but there aren’t too many on mobile… but this managed to do.

Quickmark wrote:

I'm done with this thread until I get to level 200+, it seems that people don't want to listen until you come with an account with many games.

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

Ground-to-air antiaircraft weapons were defensive in nature rather than offensive. Therefore, it makes sense that they primarily come into action when aircraft come to them.

With regards to other ground units having anti-air scores: The units in this game represent battalions and regiments, which have their own organic (if somewhat minor) tools to defend themselves from most threats. This includes aircraft. A U.S. Infantry Battalion in all revisions through the interwar and wartime years includes an increasing number of heavy machine guns, which could be (and were) used against aircraft. The 1943 foot battalion had 20 such guns, and in mid-1944 there were 26. Not the most effective anti-air spread, but that's already reflected by the statistics in game.

Other nations like Germany had many times more machine guns which, again, could and were used for defense against aircraft.

Some machine-guns doesnt mean that the infantry should have similar anti-air power than real anti-air. In this game inf has 9.1 while anti-air power while AA has 19.6. So 2 regiments of infantry have the similar anti-air power as a DEDICATED ANTI-AIR REGIMENT.