This is pretty long, but it regards an urgent issue for as many players to see, so please read through and support this important issue for Call of War.
I have played in over fifty matches. I have seen many players come and go. I have won matches and I have lost matches. I have observed many different tactics as employed from the most experienced players to the most inept of the truly unimaginative. I have faulted no one when their strategies fail. To each his own and that includes how you play this game. Be it for fun, social interaction, the thrill of the challenge, or simply to pass the time, I've seen so many players play in so many ways and it pleases me to see the creativity that many people employ.
But there is one way of playing that I can no longer tolerate. It is the methodology of the mediocre strategist who employs a virtual cheat with a failed design element -- an exploit that must be stopped. And that is the usage of the all-powerful tactical bomber. In small numbers, the tac bomber is a normal unit that aids your ground forces in assault of the opposition. That is what the unit is supposed to represent. That is the way it was used in real life.
However, in Call of War, there are some players...whom I have come to loath...that build nothing but endless tactical bombers accompanying only light tanks. This unrealistic and very basic strategy is designed to quickly conquer land that is unwarranted to have been captured at the speed in which it has been captured. The way the strategy works, is that the player, building a chain of airbases, and focusing almost exclusively on tactical bombers with maybe a few interceptors for their support, use massive fleets of these tac bombers to wipe out almost all opposition so that his few light tanks can sweep through and take all the good land...often bypassing the "useless" provinces that would serve only to drag down their food and goods resources.
In the process, many players quickly abandon their nation out of frustration before this onslaught. The AI, having taken over, is then kept "alive" by that other player who leaves several of those worthless provinces for the AI to keep rebuilding it's capital in the face of completely hopeless odds...a trick to garner very-unwarranted additional morale boosts. The effect of which can enable a player to keep his entire empire at maxed out morale levels by daily capturing only one or two AI capitals in an artificial and unjust exploit of a pitiably-designed system AI.
Furthermore, to facilitate the success of this oft-used strategy, those players that do commonly exploit it, will typically employ arrogance tactics against other players in the diplomacy and herald papers...with some even taking to baiting them like prey to be pounced upon. As much as I like Call of War, I find this particular behavior to be very reprehensible.
Interestingly, the only reason this tactic works -- and the only reason that most players have difficulty fighting back -- is because of the overly-powered strength levels of the tactical bomber. Unlike most other units in the game, the tactical bomber has been given far too much offensive power against ground units while the AA levels of most ground units are too under-powered. Even the AA and self-propelled AA -- at equivalent tech levels -- are severely underpowered against the tactical bomber. Now, I would claim that the nuclear bomber is underpowered against AA units and can frequently get shot down when it would not make sense to do so. But the tactical bomber, when used in large numbers, has a tendency to take out the enemy in numbers at nearly four to one against ground forces guarded even with large numbers of AA.
As an example, in one match recently, to quantify and test this strength imbalance, I sent out several large armies against an opponent that has been using this strategy throughout the match. Each army was very powerful, with good numbers each of tanks, mechanized infantry, and tank destroyers, all fully upgraded and in good condition and guarded from air attack by large numbers of self-propelled AA. In fact, I sent 5 large armies in a wide front and watched as each one was picked off by the tactical bomber screen. The casualties were at least three to one in his favor. Though the AA did do it's job of shooting down some tac bombers, the fact that everything in each group would be destroyed while the enemy only lost 2 to 3 bombers per battle was -- to say the least -- disappointing. It was a slaughter. I had a superior army, the enemy didn't even have an army nearby...just the bombers. In fact, I had built, just for this experiment, about 80 self-propelled AA's and yet the losses suffered by the other player amounted to about 20 bombers and less than 10 interceptors. I lost nearly 200 units.
The loss was, of course, devastating and I will lose this match because of this. However, were the tactical bomber not so overly-rated or else had the AA been sufficiently set to counter the bombers, then I would not only have won those battles but would likely be winning the match.
I am not saying that I want things to change so that I can have better results. I am just tired of seeing so many players (besides myself) have everything they have done...to employ all kinds of interesting and bad and good strategies...to have it all shot down by this one strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This tactic reminds me of something from the game "Starcraft". In that game, in multiplayer matches, there would be two kinds of players...those that followed the various strategies of which that game makes possible and those that would simply build nothing but a basic unit...the "zergling". Those that built only zerglings found them cheap and easy to build and thus would send endless numbers of them against a single enemy to overwhelm them with the death of a thousand cuts. Other players, who refused this strategy for it's unimaginative ways, often derided those players and despised them for "ruining" it for everyone else.
So too is it true of Call of War, when someone builds only one type of unit -- particularly the light tank or tactical bomber -- that they ruin the experience for everyone else. The worst part about it is the arrogant bragging that these players like to employ. They think they are masters at strategy because they have practiced and perfected one single strategy and reuse it throughout most of the matches that they play. They think that because they win lots of those matches by this method, that they are a superior player.
The truth is, I am a superior player. I can and do employ all kinds of strategy. I can think inside and outside of the box, so to speak, and I can easily out-think my enemies in this game. And I can use that zerg-like tac bomber strategy...and I have to great affect, but I loath it and despise those that do use it often. Surely, the tactic makes sense in some few circumstances as I have indeed seen. But to constantly rely on this tired old strategy because the developers at Bytro seemingly refuse to nerf the overpowered tactical bomber makes for a miserable gaming experience for the vast majority of us when facing those unimaginative users who refuse to use any creativity in their strategy.
So I make a call to the people of Bytro. Please, either reduce the power of the tactical bomber or else ramp up the power of the ground-based anti-aircraft units in Call of War. And, the opposite is true of the naval bomber. I won't go into it, here, but the naval bomber needs to be ramped up or else the AA capabilities of naval units needs to be nerfed.
Please bring better balance to this game. Please "like" to show your support for this.
It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.
The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.
R.I.P. Snickers <3
