Use Resources To Heal Existing Units

This is the most stereotypically CoW discussion I have ever had

It’s over! I have the army!

If units being healed with free resources were subject to a state with a weak armor class, as per my original suggestion, gold/card healing would still be the preferable option.

Yes, still giving you the option to be a cheater and give them money, but at least things are more fair now.

Lady Aragosta wrote:

You'll join the revolution then?

Bread, not Gold! We are nothing like those pigs!

Both. Both is good.

Interesting choice of insult.

What? You act like this some kind of… animal farm.

seriously though the privilege of air and ranged units in comparison to "melee" units absolutely has to be balanced out by SOMETHING.

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

seriously though the privilege of air and ranged units in comparison to "melee" units absolutely has to be balanced out by SOMETHING.

If you want to go for the internet tough-guy "realism" argument, it's also not realistic that ground forces are incapable of disengaging once engaged. It's also not realistic for them to be annihilated from top-down by indirect fire.

You really shouldn't try to talk about how war was fought in the period if you don't actually have much knowledge on the subject.

The upshot, of course, is that none of that matters. This is a game. Even simulations have abstractions and exceptions.

Daniel_Phelps wrote:

If you want to go for the internet tough-guy "realism" argument, it's also not realistic that ground forces are incapable of disengaging once engaged. It's also not realistic for them to be annihilated from top-down by indirect fire.

You really shouldn't try to talk about how war was fought in the period if you don't actually have much knowledge on the subject.

The upshot, of course, is that none of that matters. This is a game. Even simulations have abstractions and exceptions.

So, I agree w/ u, 'It's not realistic for them to be annihilated from top-down by indirect fire.' I've personally seen that it's not effective by itself. However, the game is what the game is. Instead of crying about it, adapt, improvise, overcome.

As someone who DOES know a bit, this game is NOT realistic in that sense lol. WW2 was far more mobile, artillery was important but could be rushed and forced back or crushed without good support from tanks and infantry. Tanks and infantry, (the medium and standard versions I mean) were much more potent and used than they really are in the game as well. The Air War is a bit less important than it maybe should be. AA, while a good counter did not exactly make armies immune to air attack. Tactical bombers and attack bombers being specifically used to target certain armor classes didn’t really happen either. The sea battle is probably the worst issue though. In real life, battleships were already on the way out and not nearly as powerful as they are in the game. Already, Carriers were the new king of the sea that the strongest navies used. Battles were often dictated by who could send their planes to crush another fleet faster. Ship engagements were somewhat rarer than in the past. The game doesn’t portray most things realistically.

I too know a lot about the WW2 era. I've been a war gamer for over 40 years and have read many books, equipment manuals and histories of battles and tactics from the generals of that period.

This game suffers many points of non-realism.

But this is just a game and trying to get realism in would seriously undermine the concept of "game"

Total realism would mean separating each units statistics according to the county origin of production. And some countries would not have the same equipment..ie: Germany did not have carriers.