Search Results

Try selecting units more carefully. If you grab a bunch of units and move them en masse, things like this are going to happen. Reconsider how you select and move units around the map. Minimize the travel time. Maximize the shooting time. The planes turning into trucks is just the tip of the inefficiency iceberg that will prevent you from winning games.

AA works like normal battle damage. It has a splash radius of a few kilometers. The blast radius of a nuke is much bigger. See my post on nuclear bombers.

Every heard of Google?

All rebasing requires overwatch. You don't land the whole air force, ever. It takes 1 hour to build an air factory. Just keep ignoring jets....

They are not worthless, but there's a point during the game where jets take over, and building prop fighters becomes a lost cause. At this point resources become more plentiful, you can afford to upgrade your secret factory, build jets, and construct air factories on the front line. There's no need to wait 4 hours for an airfield when an air factory builds in 1 hour. So no, interceptors don't suck, but ignore jets at your own peril. You can lose air superiority very quickly.

I love regular arty almost as much as Clint Eastwood up there, but there are other factors to consider. Regular arty has been nerfed, repeatedly. It's not as good as it used to be. We're still used to building it out of habit. But it is worth reconsidering. Allied foot units are unbearably slow. Pan Asian, sure. Allied, please no, I can't take it. Allied SP arty has additional bonuses that make it more attractive. SP arty uses oil which is dirt cheap in the mid to late game games. And it doesn't…

The problem is once new players learn to play the game by waving magic wands, that's all they know. They never figure out how to play in a way that relies in skill and operates on a level playing field. Want a unit? Spam it. Want better research? Hurry it. Want to move faster? Force March all day, and then heal. Want to beat 10 ships with 2 ships? Heal every 30 minutes, you can't lose. I'm not saying people who do this are evil or that games should not be monetized. I get it. Some gold use is un…

Speaking for myself, I think carriers are already OP. They can handle all kinds of planes that have no business operating from carriers. They can take a ton of damage while remaining operational. They can carry unlimited fuel and ammo, like air bases, which are also OP. And allowing foreign planes to operate from friendly carriers is a terrible idea. It would mean 1 player can build a carrier navy while the rest of the team can focus on airplane research. That would make air power even more OP t…

It used to be possible to scroll the player list, to see who's in a map. Useful when looking for friends, or players who are obnoxious, and to be avoided. Now there's an Operations section above the Player List. I suspect this change broke the list, so it's no longer scrollable. We can now only see the first 3, lowest ranked, least interesting players.

IMO that would be a good thing. It would mean that the winning player or coalition could finish the game more quickly, covering more front lines at the same time.

CoW gives points for constructing buildings. Those points improve your rank. It's possible to reach a high rank without playing very much. For people who are motivated by rank, this is an easy way to advance.

Axis subs are great, but that's a good thing. Without them, the 10 cruiser + 1 destroyer stack would be even more dominant. Axis subs make the game more interesting.

How about this. Decrease the manpower cost of higher level units. Sure, they cost more money and more resources because the manufacturing gets more expensive. But make higher level units more manpower efficient. This will provide more incentive to invest in research.

Imagine upgrading the US Air Force from the F18 Hornet to the F35. Now imagine going from a P51 Mustang to an F35. You really think there's no difference? Sherman to M1A2 Abrams, same as M1A1 to M1A2. Seriously?

The simple answer is you don't. Why would you want to have an air battle against superior planes? It's like trying to use medium tanks to defeat a stack of heavy tanks. Makes no sense. Find another way. Use artillery instead.

I sympathize with this post. It does seem unfair. And it's not just about replacing an old tank with a new tank. There is support equipment, training, ammunition. Different comms systems. Different tactics. The older the unit, the bigger the difference from the new unit, the more time and money it should take to do the upgrade.

The patrol system is OP in every respect. Patrols should be limited to interceptors defending an area from air attack. Bombers should no be able to patrol at all. Or there should be some kind of limit to the patrol duration. Another issue with patrols is they avoid all consequences from airfield loss. The patrol will simply rebase to the nearest friendly airfield. On the other hand, a returning attack flight will get stuck on the damaged airfield and then blasted into oblivion. Then you have the…

We'll just agree to disagree. Most of these carrier examples could be done equally well or better without carriers. Like sinking a large convoy that doesn't have any escorts. What does that prove? A stack of cruisers could do that without suffering any damage.

It's a fast way to build a swarm of units that become in invisible in rough terrain. Build at 1 and upgrade to 4 to make them scary good.

Depends on a lot of factors. Doctrine. Resources. Size of your empire. Position of your core relative to the front line. Enemy unit composition. Likely terrain where battles will be fought. As an example, imagine you're Kansas trying to take over the Homefront map. There are plains all around you and you're Allied. Your neighbors are building lots of armor. Time for SP arty.