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.

    • Great initiative, fully agreed. At this moment they are nothing more than an expensive and time consuming (and resource considering the lvl3 airbase) defense unit for the TBs and intel deeper into enemy territory. But then again naval bombers are better due to the fact that they are carrier based unlike sb of course. Rockets are way too overpowered anyways so a larger range for SB would very much benefit us a lot even if there's a little compromise on overall HP.
    • ChiefMauser wrote:

      Rockets are way too overpowered anyways so a larger range for SB would very much benefit us a lot even if there's a little compromise on overall HP.
      Indeed. The problem is, of course, that in-game rockets are so much fun for our less-historically inclined players that they love them too well. And dare I say it? Bytro likes the current over-powered rockets because they lend themselves to mass gold-spamming, which at times seems to be the primary motivation for some of the worst elements of game as it presently exists.
    • There is a fine balance though and lets face it, most players, especially the more inexperienced golden warriors do not know how to use them properly. Airforce is massively overpowered too (consider 4-5x main airstacks consisting all units from air tech branch combined well and nothing left on the ground once they arrived) and late game to counter it you need rockets, to counter rockets, you need more rockets and the fastest moving ground units but would love to see here another counter by increasing range for SB - here I agree that rocket is something people abuse more often than not but players league is a must in order to avoid gold players imo. Is there PL games on 100 player maps too I'm wondering?
    • No, there are no plans for 100 player map PL games.

      What I have heard said is there are not enough players to populate that map consistently and the duration of the game would be excessive.

      PL games, in the current format, are of 1 month duration. This reduces the tendency of a game to become a RL endurance struggle versus a game. Personally, I know which months I will be beyond the edge of the 'net and don't play those months. It hurts my series standing but is more fair to the other players.

      I would never be able to play a 100 player map. I simply don't have that much time. Last one I played, I came back from the dead twice. Essentially inactive for 10 to 12 days and then picking up the fragments to fight on. Was 1st before the first inactive and spend a lot of time in last place trying to rally the left over players into a viable force when I came back. Finished in third but very grueling to get there. Never again. Having one province and no land units is not a strong negotiating position. Two CVBGs helped but still...
    • Here's my opinion.

      1. Bomber range, and plane range in general, needs a buff. You had bombers and fighters flying from England to Berlin to bomb targets in WWII. No plane in this game does that, until the highest tier. And unless you own every single island, flying planes in the pacific is nonexistent.
      2. Naval bombers need higher attack values against land targets. The very fact that lower tier ones can't even scratch a tank but can blow up a submarine is sad.(But this is a bit unrelated to the main discussion here)
      3. Rocket ranges need shortening.
    • freezy wrote:

      If we do a balancing update in the future they are on the list for potential buffs.
      If you're remotely serious about improving strategic bomber units to the point where they are actually useful as something other than a damage sponge for tactical bombers, you might start by making their combat range twice that of the rockets, which it was in real life. Tactical bombers should also have a higher combat range relative to our in-game rockets, but not as great as strategic bombers.

      Q: Do you know how many times the Germans used V-2s to attack Allied air bases?

      A: 0.

      Q: Do you know how many Allied strategic bombers were destroyed by German V-2s?

      A: 0.

      Q: Do you know why?

      A: Because V-2s were lucky to hit the broad side of London or Antwerp, let alone aircraft parked on a remote airfield; the V-1 and V-2 targeting systems were primitive and completely useless for tactical purposes. Also, all Allied multi-engine bombers had greater combat ranges than the V-1 and V-2, so it was easy enough to base them outside the range of the German rockets.

      When I read someone defending these historical anomalies in the interests of "balancing" and "game play," I don't know whether to laugh derisively or cry in despair. Most of the balancing problems in Call of War are the result of someone deciding to introduce an unrealistic game element calculated to be popular with a certain segment of our players. Sadly, this is what has created the worst imbalances in the game -- and these are exactly the imbalances that Bytro refuses to address (because, oh, somebody likes it that way).
    • Since tactical bombers are one of the most used units in the game and in general considered to be rather OP, we would not buff those even if their range is not realistic compared to missiles. We also won't redesign the whole game so that everything reflects the real world. CoW would be a much different game then and while some few may like it, the masses would certainly not like us changing everything. Too much risk involved with changing a working formula, sorry. But Strats should definitely get a range increase, perhaps also an increase in other stats.
    • Clearly I forgot to add this, sorry: We also won't redesign the whole game so that nothing does reflect the real world.

      Or basically: We won't redesign the whole game. Because it is working very well and is enjoyed by many players.

      You can continue to make suggestions, I just wanted to give you a realistic answer that taking out the post war tech won't happen, so that you don't have false expectations.
    • freezy wrote:

      We also won't redesign the whole game so that nothing does reflect the real world.
      I was being sarcastic about adding the genetically engineered N-zi super dragon squadrons to the game, Freezy.

      And no-one was asking you (or more to the point, Bytro Labs) to "redesign the whole game so that nothing does reflect the real world." Quite the opposite, in fact. But I suspect you knew that already.

      If you do get a chance to do a little research reading in the Oxford English Dictionary, here are two more common English language expressions with which you may want to familiarize yourself: "red herring" and "straw man."

    • *mentions gold use in a neutral way*

      Please do not denounce the use of gold

      I have played this game for a while, and I have never touched strategic bombers. I think having some range would make them worth getting, and also encourage gold use for spamming AA guns or fighters.

      The real problem here is that japanese rockets need to cost 26 men, not 25.