This is using Axis doctrine so numbers might be slightly different (although since hp% and damage% are increase by same amount so it shouldn't matter?
A lv 4 strategic bomber has 75 HP and 5.8 attack vs planes
A lv 3 interceptor has 29 HP and 11.5 attack.
75/11.5 = 6.5 (round up as it would require an extra attack)
29/5.8 = 5.
Interceptors have a bit better ratio on their defense, so it's possible that they'd win if they're just patrolling around each other, but the fact that this is even close is kinda crazy. Either strategic bombers have way too much hp and damage or interceptors way to little hp. Realistically this would not be a close battle between these 2 units irl (or at least I don't believe so), and in general feels bad for game balance.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
43 Replies
6 Jul 2023, 13:31
freezy wrote:
Only problem with this is the flood of tickets from confused users who see their provinces getting shredded without seeing any unit doing that Ranged stealth units are problematic because they are inflicting damage while being invisible. I guess some code changes would have to be made to reveal them at certain moments. But even then it could be easy to miss that moment.
Buildings which deal damage to units are also not supported in the code right now, would also be new feature implementation to allow that.
We can only have stationary units and could fake some buildings that way, e.g. producing a stationary anti aircraft gun unit, or a unit which can convert into a defense tower. The stationary unit could even receive the structure armor class so that only units good vs structure can fight it well.
i would suggest that instead of reducing hp, bombers need to direct attack a province instead of destroying buildings via patrol, that could mean if the bombers go deep into enemy territory they no longer destroy all enemy core once they cross far beyond interceptor range
"Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"
6 Jul 2023, 13:49
z00mz00m wrote:
The resource comparison is fair. But interceptors don't only defend against strategic bombers.
That's true. Interceptors have more flexibility in their function. Strats are somewhat more specialized in their function which can be seen as a relative disadvantage in terms of the investment payoff. One could argue that a unit that is more specialized should be relatively hard to counter.
6 Jul 2023, 15:39
freezy wrote:
Only problem with this is the flood of tickets from confused users who see their provinces getting shredded without seeing any unit doing that Ranged stealth units are problematic because they are inflicting damage while being invisible. I guess some code changes would have to be made to reveal them at certain moments. But even then it could be easy to miss that moment.
The same happens when a battleship or RRG fires from long range. The target blinks (at some zoom levels). That's the only way to tell it's being attacked. All 3 of these situations could use a better way to inform the targeted player.
freezy wrote:
Buildings which deal damage to units are also not supported in the code right now, would also be new feature implementation to allow that.
We can only have stationary units and could fake some buildings that way, e.g. producing a stationary anti aircraft gun unit, or a unit which can convert into a defense tower. The stationary unit could even receive the structure armor class so that only units good vs structure can fight it well.
Yes, a stationary unit makes sense, like a paratrooper right after it lands. You could even make AA guns transform back and forth between mobile and stationary. The stationary variant can have better scouting and accuracy against high altitude targets, while the mobile variant can move and have better accuracy against heavy armor.
Danieliyoverde123 wrote:
i would suggest that instead of reducing hp, bombers need to direct attack a province instead of destroying buildings via patrol, that could mean if the bombers go deep into enemy territory they no longer destroy all enemy core once they cross far beyond interceptor range
This makes sense to me. Air patrols are OP. They should only apply to interceptors, not bombers. The longer the range of the bomber, and the heavier the payload, the more OP patrols become. A bomber stack can stay airborne for days, demolishing entire continents. And in the rare event that someone manages to take an airfield, the bombers rebase for free. This kind of behavior unbalances the game.
6 Jul 2023, 23:24
how About a provider flashing red while it is being attacked by strats
Glory to the Union! Glory to the Red Army! Glory to the Revolution! Marshal of the Forum High Command
7 Jul 2023, 05:26 (edited)
Remember though, people were usually able to spot any plane in this era, either by radar or sight. It’s just that high flying ones couldn’t be shot down with weaker anti air guns. It would make more sense to keep them spot-able, but untouchable without higher level planes or better AA guns.
z00mz00m wrote:
i would suggest that instead of reducing hp, bombers need to direct attack a province instead of destroying buildings via patrol, that could mean if the bombers go deep into enemy territory they no longer destroy all enemy core once they cross far beyond interceptor range
This makes sense to me. Air patrols are OP. They should only apply to interceptors, not bombers. The longer the range of the bomber, and the heavier the payload, the more OP patrols become. A bomber stack can stay airborne for days, demolishing entire continents. And in the rare event that someone manages to take an airfield, the bombers rebase for free. This kind of behavior unbalances the game.
Well to be fair I think bomber patrols are supposed to represent constant bombing runs? Like how the allies constantly bombarded German cities from air, sending different squadrons to make it basically constant.
Plus as a person who abuses this ability to pummel entire worlds into dirt with hordes of planes it would make me sad to see it go
CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate
7 Jul 2023, 12:45
DxC wrote:
z00mz00m wrote:
The resource comparison is fair. But interceptors don't only defend against strategic bombers.
That's true. Interceptors have more flexibility in their function. Strats are somewhat more specialized in their function which can be seen as a relative disadvantage in terms of the investment payoff. One could argue that a unit that is more specialized should be relatively hard to counter.
yeah but interceptors are busy with many task, not leaving enought interceptors to deal with strategic bombers, strategic bombers right now are unbalanced.
Even if devs nerf them into oblivion in their stats they will become a waste of resources for you but still a pain in your ### for the enemy.
Nerfing their hp could lead to potentially made the interceptor able to stop them, but would make the strat bombers incapable to achive any succes, leave them how they are now and interceptor and antiair cant stop them at all for destroying all your cores.
Just eliminating the patrol for strat could lead them to achive some success but deny the total success, also if a strat bomber destroy a airbase they need to go back, refuel and the interceptors get a chance to survive, go to another base or rebuild the base keeping them as a effective counter.
"Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"
6 Aug 2023, 16:29
freezy wrote:
Only problem with this is the flood of tickets from confused users who see their provinces getting shredded without seeing any unit doing that Ranged stealth units are problematic because they are inflicting damage while being invisible. I guess some code changes would have to be made to reveal them at certain moments. But even then it could be easy to miss that moment.
Buildings which deal damage to units are also not supported in the code right now, would also be new feature implementation to allow that.
We can only have stationary units and could fake some buildings that way, e.g. producing a stationary anti aircraft gun unit, or a unit which can convert into a defense tower. The stationary unit could even receive the structure armor class so that only units good vs structure can fight it well.
how about double or even triple the hp of air bases, in that case only if the enemy got a massive amount of bombers they are not able to shut down a air base in just one strike, strats would not be that annoying to deal with
"Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"
6 Aug 2023, 19:43
That would create more problems than it solves.
7 Aug 2023, 01:01
Air bases with more health than bunkers is a strange concept..
CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate
7 Aug 2023, 02:19
Watch out comrade! Here comes a Stuka! Dive for the bunker!
No thank you comrade, this airfield will last longer as it is better protected. Glory to the Union!
Glory to the Union! Glory to the Red Army! Glory to the Revolution! Marshal of the Forum High Command
7 Aug 2023, 05:08
Who need stupid bunker when you have strong airbase to protect self with? No one!
Instead you use power of great airbase to protect comrades and self! Glory to the Union!
CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate
7 Aug 2023, 05:23
Didn't you guys know? The long runways used to launch aircraft, that's actually their secondary usage. Under the runaways, there are huge caverns that magically produce guns and rations for the soldiers. Why bother hanging out in in the uncool bunkers, when there's free chocolate at the airbase?
7 Aug 2023, 09:29
Carking the 6th wrote:
Who need stupid bunker when you have strong airbase to protect self with? No one!
Instead you use power of great airbase to protect comrades and self! Glory to the Union!
_Pyth0n_ wrote:
Didn't you guys know? The long runways used to launch aircraft, that's actually their secondary usage. Under the runaways, there are huge caverns that magically produce guns and rations for the soldiers. Why bother hanging out in in the uncool bunkers, when there's free chocolate at the airbase?
Your humorous comments are causing uncontrollable mirth unseemly in a Marshal of the Soviet Union. Long live the communist dream.
Glory to the Union! Glory to the Red Army! Glory to the Revolution! Marshal of the Forum High Command
7 Aug 2023, 09:38
Glory to the Soviet Armed Forces!
Glory to the Soviet Union!
Glory to the Workers!
Glory to the People!
Glory to the Communist Dream!
CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate
7 Aug 2023, 12:09
z00mz00m wrote:
That would create more problems than it solves.
what problems exactly? I cant imagine any problem related to hp.
Oh sure i suppose airfield protect units from enemy damage and deal damage, except no, it will not affect ground combat at all, distribution of damage will be the exact same, units could take the province without any change, the most important change will be related to rockets and strategic bombers, rocket doesnt matter because they are kinda bad anyway.
"Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"
7 Aug 2023, 15:09
Strategic bombers were meant to take hits from anti aircraft guns. Their HP is fine
8 Aug 2023, 23:35
That polish guy wrote:
Strategic bombers were meant to take hits from anti aircraft guns. Their HP is fine
Rather than saying “meant to take hits from”, did you want to say “within expectations”?
9 Aug 2023, 00:15
pod_than wrote:
That polish guy wrote:
Strategic bombers were meant to take hits from anti aircraft guns. Their HP is fine
Rather than saying “meant to take hits from”, did you want to say “within expectations”?
It means that they were heavily armored and build to survive anti air weaponry. Just like how tanks were built to take hits from artillery.
I guess they weren’t meant for it, but they were built with surviving AA in mind.
CarKing the 6th of the Abrahamic Caliphate
9 Aug 2023, 00:25
Take the B-17 for example. Some planes came back with dozens of flak-18 holes in them
17 May 2024, 01:07
Carking the 6th wrote:
Glory to the Soviet Armed Forces!
Glory to the Soviet Union!
Glory to the Workers!
Glory to the People!
Glory to the Communist Dream!
This is what happens when a group of extremists lives inside their own protected bubble so long they forgot they are extremists and start assuming anyone not exactly like them is some other form.
Ranged stealth units are problematic because they are inflicting damage while being invisible. I guess some code changes would have to be made to reveal them at certain moments. But even then it could be easy to miss that moment.
Ranged stealth units are problematic because they are inflicting damage while being invisible. I guess some code changes would have to be made to reveal them at certain moments. But even then it could be easy to miss that moment.
