Strategic bombers should have higher range than 800km / To beat missile range /Urgent-GameBalance

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Strategic bombers should have higher range than 800km / To beat missile range /Urgent-GameBalance

      Agree? 21
      1.  
        YES (17) 81%
      2.  
        NO (4) 19%
      Category : Game Balance critique

      I have had my Strategic bomber airforce nuked a number of times because they were heading back after bombarding a area, to refuel, and while refueling; they cant move. If the bombers had higher range, and stayed out of Missile range, they would not have been nuked, or hit by missiles. Strategic bombers should have a higher range, because the core design of a bomber is to have a large range, and bombard / carpet bomb cities far behind enemy lines.

      At one point, my bomber was attacking an airfield with missiles in them, conveniently, there was another airfield province, that had a nuclear reactor under construction. The other player logged in and used gold to instantly build the reactor and his Nuclear missile.
      I had 33 Strategic bombers Instantly incinerated and destroyed, within the range of a atomic missile.

      28 Strategic bombers Equally destroyed by rocket spam, etc.

      Seriously if there is any use to the strategic bomber, is its range, it needs a larger range to be able to strike deeper.
      1000 Km would be nice for fully leveled bomber, as long as it surpasses enemy missile range so they can be used to best nuclear missiles and V2 Missiles.

      In real life scenario these bombers *( The ME264 ) in the case of Call of War German tier has a range of
      • Range: 15,000 km (9,500 mi)
      Thats a max range of FIFTEEN THOUSAND kilometers!

      At the very least the strategic bombers in this game should have 1,000 KM.

      Each bomber costs 1000 Fuel, so 33 bombers is 33,000 FUEL instantly wasted by 1 nuke, built in 2 minutes.
      Comparing to a airforce built within 2 days spent, to a nuke build in 2 minutes...

      I think its right to say that it is a bit unfair.

      Please add a larger range to strategic bombers so they can be used for what they were meant to be used!!!

      Please vote If you agree or not, and if not, please add your comment as why not to.
      Thanks.


      P.S. - unrelated:
      This issue makes me think of Battleships and how they work in this game, they should be attacking automatically while moving but they don't. Why this is, its beyond my comprehension. Technically, i should be able to send my battleships on a tour around a enemy continent, to bombard the coast on its own. But you cant do that, and must babysit your troops every half an hour.

      The post was edited 9 times, last by Bionoman ().

    • @Bionoman
      I personally agree with this sentiment, with the strategic bomber ranges coming between 375 and 690 (with the nuclear variants coming to 500 to 900), it would be a convenient buff that would add a bit more functionality for the strategic bombers as a reusable strategic weapon.
      Kalantigos
      Master Chief Petty Officer.
      Game Moderator
      EN Community Support
      Bytro Labs | Call of War
    • Here's my suggestion: stop trying to make the game "balanced," "playable," or some online war game variant of "rock, paper, scissors." As I have said before, the actual history and specs of the real and widely used weapons systems of World War II provide the solution to most of these problems without worrying whether the game is balanced or playable . . . .

      The actual effective combat range of the V-2 rocket was 200 to 300 miles. The actual effective combat range of the B-17 heavy bomber varied depending on its bomb load, but it could fly 2,000 miles (to its target and back) with a typical bomb load of 6,000 pounds -- that means it had an effective combat range (i.e. distance to target) of 1,000 miles. If we quit making shit up and adjusting the various attributes of the weapons systems for "playability," most of these problems would take care of themselves.

      Frankly, the in-game V-2 rockets are a fantasy weapon anyway, and that's even before we add a nuclear warhead to create a tactical nuclear weapon that would not actually exist for another decade or so after the war ended. The V-2's actual amatol warhead weighed 2,200 pounds; the only two atomic bombs actually produced and used in combat during WW2 weighed 9,700 and 10,300 pounds -- 4 to 5 times the actual lift capacity of the real V-2 rocket. Put simply, the missile technology to deliver a contemporary nuclear warhead did not exist.

      The proper solution, which no doubt will be rejected because people think having rockets and nuclear missiles in the game is fun and makes it more "playable," would be to remove the nuclear missiles from the game completely because they never existed, and to greatly reduce the in-game V-2 rocket's offensive value against combat units, while preserving some ability to damage buildings. The real V-2 was wildly inaccurate, and the few attempted tactical uses of the weapon were complete failures (e.g., 11 misses in 11 tries against the Ludendorf bridge in Remagen). To my knowledge, the Germans never even attempted to use it against enemy combat units in the field, a purpose for which it was completely unsuited. The humorous part of all of this is that the in-game V-2 rocket has killed millions of virtual combat soldiers in the COW game, but its real-life counterpart never killed more than a handful of real soldiers who were caught in V-2 strikes on civilian areas. Unlike the in-game fantasy V-2, the real weapon was never accurate enough to be used against individual combat units in the field.
    • wildL SPQR wrote:

      Secondly, to answer your query, changing the range wouldn't make it different in your particular situation, your bombers would still have to go back to refuel which is your problem.
      Actually, his problem is that the in-game fantasy V-2s have a greater effective range than the in-game strategic bombers do, when in reality, exactly the opposite was true.

      As I described at length above, most of these in-game issues arise from the tweaking of the capabilities of their in-game fantasy counterparts, starting with the in-game fantasy nuclear missile, for perceived reasons of "balance" and "playability". Eliminate the fantasy nuclear missile and reduce the in-game V-2 so that it resembles its real-life counterpart and these sorts of in-game issues would not exist. And, yes, the in-game version of the strategic bomber really has no valid use.
    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      To be fair, most high level units the game never existed in WWII either. E.g. the lvl 6 American interceptor P-80 Shooting Star.
      True. But most were actually under active development and could have been fielded in 1946, if not sooner. The RAF already had a working jet fighter at the end of the war, but withheld it from dog-fighting the Me 262 for other service.

      There was no missile that could have carried a 5-ton warhead, conventional or nuclear, and there was no nuclear warhead that was small enough to put on any operational missile or any missile in active development.
    • wildL SPQR wrote:

      First of all please do not denounce the use of gold.

      Secondly, to answer your query, changing the range wouldn't make it different in your particular situation, your bombers would still have to go back to refuel which is your problem.

      Thirdly, use patrol instead or try and figure out your opponent's offline time.

      MontanaBB wrote:

      wildL SPQR wrote:

      Secondly, to answer your query, changing the range wouldn't make it different in your particular situation, your bombers would still have to go back to refuel which is your problem.
      Actually, his problem is that the in-game fantasy V-2s have a greater effective range than the in-game strategic bombers do, when in reality, exactly the opposite was true.
      As I described at length above, most of these in-game issues arise from the tweaking of the capabilities of their in-game fantasy counterparts, starting with the in-game fantasy nuclear missile, for perceived reasons of "balance" and "playability". Eliminate the fantasy nuclear missile and reduce the in-game V-2 so that it resembles its real-life counterpart and these sorts of in-game issues would not exist. And, yes, the in-game version of the strategic bomber really has no valid use.
      No, Nonononononon my problem is not refueling. I would not send a strategic bomber to attack a province if it was initially within range of a missile. Because i would not send bombers that close to a frontline / border with another country and would keep it out of reach of missiles. Timing is something i am pretty good at.

      My problem is not refueling, it is range. A strategic bomber has low range, making it vulnerable and useless, and not performing as it should.

      "use patrol or offline time"?
      Why not instead making developers tweak the strategic bomber range and give it the range it ought to have. X(
      Removing a unit is not logical, Rather, tweaking the bomber to have higher range, is logical.

      "Secondly, to answer your query, changing the range wouldn't make it different in your particular situation, your bombers would still have to go back to refuel which is your problem."

      Firstly, this is not a query, its a complaint. This is incorrect, because if bombers had a higher range than missiles of 800 km, then they would be out of missile range when they reach back at base to refuel, and would not be ( Within range of bombardment ) by enemy players, including those that spend gold on building missiles instantly.

      Yes i could send the bombers to a patrol order to - overtime damage units, but no, since the feature already exists to attack and patrol, i would rather do a instant attack that would send them back to refuel, and i would make sure that the bomber range is furthest from any enemy airfield for refueling.

      Wild SPQR's reply sounded dismissive for this particular issue, i would appreciate if you revised what im trying to argue.

      Tweaking the Strategic bomber unit to have larger range ( As it rightfully by Design should have larger range ), is, not a big request or a difficult request, in my opinion.

      I will leave it to the Polls to see how people agree or disagree with the idea. Because i am pretty sure people would agree.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Bionoman ().

    • Either way, im done with my match, it took me a 2 months to finish, but i finished first. ...
      my first, and probably last match i'll be playing for a while, until strategic bombers receive a larger range.
      This and many other gold use related issues and features have made me uninterested with some parts of the game.
      Glad the 100 player map is finally over.
    • Have you considered the fact that the kilometer ranges are way off compared to a real map?

      A level 3 Strategic bomber, according to Callofwar has 380km attack range, however it can reach way past Detroit from Washington on the callofwar World Map, a distance that is more than 700km. So at least we know that the distances are not at all accurate, in fact may only be half of what they actually are.

      Admittedly that range does not come close to that of the B24 or even the B17. The B17 could fly what? 2000 miles?

      That's almost coast-to-coast USA.



      The game may not be all that precise with regards to length and speed. You can drive a Light Tank from the north coast of Africa to Cape Town in South Africa in 1 day 9 hr according to Callofwar... How realistic is that?

      I think that the important thing is that the game units are balanced to eachother. Fighters must have shorter range than Tacs and Tacs must have shorter range than Strats. Armored cars must be a little faster than Tanks, etc. etc. Infantry must be slower than selfpropelled units and so on.

      Now with that in mind, yes, it might be a good idea to increase the range of Strats or greatly reduce the range of rockets for more realism.

      I tried to give you some ideas in my previous post to avoid having your planes wrecked in airbases, I was not trying to be dismissive. Patrol works excellent to destroy buildings over time. In fact on long range, using patrol will likely be more devastating than using direct attack, and the planes will be less vulnerable without the need to refuel.

      Now it would be nice if we could get a response or a statement from the developers on this matter.

      We can ask @Sasri if she would like to weigh in or if she can contact a dev.
      Sincerely, wildL
      EN Mod
      Report a problem

    • The intended time period within the game reaches from 1932 to 1954 (roughly), that's why also post war units and tech is included.

      And yes we won't scrap the whole balancing only in favour of realism, as that would change the whole game. Certainly many users who are liking the current game would not appreciate that.

      Thanks for the suggestion though :)