Announcement Controlled Airspace

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

    • Restrisiko wrote:

      When I returned to the map on Tuesday evening, some hours after the update, I suddenly had wars with 3 elite AI countries.
      I didn't know that there would be a change because there was no reference from Bytro.

      It happens on a 25p world map with elite AI. I think I don't have to explain what that means - the map is in the ass now, and almost 3 months of play time ...

      The unnecessary reason for it is, that Bytro is, once again, not capable to announce a fundamental change of the rules at least a few days before, so that the players / customers can adjust to it.
      @Sasri & @freezy: Is there any way you can make this right for Restrisiko? Is there anyway you can fix his game, resetting all of the elite AIs in his game to "peace?" If not, is there any way you can restore his lost 90 days of playing time to him? Do you understand the importance of announcing these changes in advance?

      Verstehst du das meine Freunde?
    • Not A Communist wrote:

      Glad you are back Quasi.
      Haven't read most responses but this is honestly a terrible update. Whoever came up with this must not play the game or something lmao.
      I recommend to you then reading this post: Controlled Airspace

      Not A Communist wrote:

      Yeah but this update completely removes the ability to decide whether or not to go to war with a country for patrolling their lands. With this update, not even you will be able to send a 30 minute warning. Not sure who thought it'd be a good idea to remove more ingame powers from the players.
      As mentioned in the post I just linked, you are still able to fly over neutral countries, you just have to do it differently than before (point 4 in that post).

      MontanaBB wrote:

      Is there any way you can make this right for Restrisiko? Is there anyway you can fix his game, resetting all of the elite AIs in his game to "peace?" If not, is there any way you can restore his lost 90 days of playing time to him? Do you understand the importance of announcing these changes in advance?
      Verstehst du das meine Freunde?
      Sorry to hear Restrisikos decision. As already said in my post, everyone who feels that the update had a very unfair negative impact on his games can submit a support ticket to get individual help. We won't give individual support in these news threads though, as this is not the right place for that.
    • freezy wrote:

      As mentioned in the post I just linked, you are still able to fly over neutral countries, you just have to do it differently than before (point 4 in that post).
      Doesn't really matter, still an unnecessary change from before. I read the entirety of the post, it still takes the power from the player regardless.

      freezy wrote:

      I recommend to you then reading this post: Controlled Airspace
      I read the entire post.

      Freezy will always defend Bytro of course, but all I'm saying is that Bytro has terrible communication with it's playerbase. It's crazy.
    • I also am not sure about this change.I think it has not been thought out properly.Aircraft fly over all the time in war and peace.Why would they be assumed hostile? Of course if they started straffing runs or dropping bombs then they are hostile.But what if the shortest route was over a country that you where at peace with.Here you are just making a hop to over a province and the locals start shooting at you.And lets face it aircraft are used to spy all the time.What about a special unit to detect them.Or even if Anti-Air placed in that province can detect them flying over or patrolling .Like a Navel bomber detects subs but no war is declared unless the bombers attack the sub..
    • WayneBo wrote:

      The only "Player Base" that Bystro cares about are the new users with a bit of cash.
      Driving contributing players like Restriskos and myself out of the the game is an added bonus.
      Very reverse business model: Loyalty to the brand counts against you!
      We don't want to drive you out. :/ Sadly not everyone agrees on all changes, it's actually never possible to only make changes where no one disagrees. So hopefully in the next updates we have more stuff that you specifically will like :).

      s Connolly wrote:

      Of course if they started straffing runs or dropping bombs then they are hostile.But what if the shortest route was over a country that you where at peace with.
      Exactly. Patroling means strafing runs and dropping bombs in our game, so when you do it, you are regarded as hostile. But what is still possible is flying over neutral countries. So if your shortest route goes over that country, just give the command, no war will be triggered :) You can also still give patrol commands in neutral countries without triggering war, you just need to redirect the planes before the patrol timer reaches 0 (then they deal damage). I guess the whole thing should have been described in more detail in the news to avoid that confusion, sorry.
    • I was asked by Montana to give my opinion, so here it is. I am writing it before I read the rest, so I might just be 'agreeing with the first guy'



      Hmm, its a toughie. I think there is some merit to it, but I think the triggering should activate if the planes do damage to something (read: you declared, other guy still at peace, free no-loss air battles).

      So what should happen is that 'peaceful patrolling/flying' is possible, but 'one-sided war patrolling' should trigger war on both sides.

      This is both historically correct (see 1940 battle of the Low Countries) as good for the playability.


      Edit: Ok, a lot makes sense now that I read through Sasri's and Freezys comments. Though I would prefer the more logical option (fix bug that does damage during peace in the game code), I guess a bit of flexibility is needed from the players and nothing réally changes.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by miech: edit: now that I actually read the rest..... ().

    • Some guy not 100% sure of his name , John some thing or other once said,

      “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

      There will always be unhappy parties that don't agree or dislike some thing that Bytro does when new updates (I use to call them downdates on another game) arrive especially when the new update can cause "Problems" due to the very nature of them and maybe Bytro did drop the ball on this by not informing players about this one . Hindsight is a wonderful thing though and I have no doubts Bytro intended no impact on any of us .

      For people to say it's ruined there game and they are considering leaving then I suggest they take a few days to mull things over as we have ALL had games messed up at some point and we have ALL spat our dummies out .

      I am a great advocate for sovereignty of air space but in all honesty the update in my opinion creates more issues than it has solved . Hostile countries while not being at war have shot down intruding aircraft (all sides knew the risks involved entering non friendly airspace) and they accepted the price without it starting wars . Ariel reconnaissance is risky losses happen but at least allow the players to decide when to push the war button :)

      Right I have gone on long enough well done to those who made it this far your reward is SATURDAYS LOTTO NUMBERS---7,,12,,13,,25,,36,,41 .

      Nick

      EDIT---- Maybe have a pop up box saying flying over non controlled territory allows that country to destroy your aircraft without it triggering war ONLY while in there airspace . What do you think ?
      "Warning may contain a nut"

      The post was edited 1 time, last by NICKYD: Trying to find alternative options . ().

    • This is a good change, except for the In-Game Chat removal (which only affects RP games).

      #1: All the arguments about the aircraft triggering wars being unrealistic fall flat because the game is inherently 100% unrealistic at every level. So all those arguments are absurd to apply in this game. Even if you allowed those arguments to apply, then planes flying in other country's airspace should be allowed to be shot down; which did, does, and will happen when you send spy planes in another nation's airspace. As there is no mechanic that allows you to attack units in this game without declaring war, then this makes sense.

      So if the players have an issue with it being unrealistic then they can just assume the DoW that results is caused by a nation issuing political threats/saber-rattling, putting pilots of shot down planes on trial, etc etc. When the target player gets online then the offending player can explain that he was 'just looking' and 'not touching' and they can work out a peace. Which is pretty much how it works 'IRL' as well.

      #2: Players that are off-line need additional protection, and this change helps in that area. Now you can be certain that while you were offline no one was sending fighters and TAC over your cities scouting you out. Well, ones that are not next to the sea, anyway.

      #3: Cry babies that are upset they are now restricted in spying on AI Bots cause me to :eyeroll: - they should just change their Diplomatic Stance to RoW with all inactive players and bots and after a couple of days will be able to not only send planes on spying missions without a DoW but can also move troops into those countries as well. So, no sympathy from me here.

      #4: For those players to whom it matters (those blessed few), this rule fixes the problem of "who-provoked-who-into-declaring-war'. Before, if you used a spy plane on another player, even when they publicly said it would be considered an act of war, nothing triggered until that player "declared war" manually through attacking or changing their diplomatic stance. Which, in the news, made it look like they were the aggressors, even though any reasonable observer would agree that they were merely defending their privacy.

      So, good job to Bytro. Now we just need 'National Waters" included, and the scumming tactic of parking 10 subs or 50 troopships outside every port belonging to a neutral player can be addressed.
    • KingCongo wrote:

      #2: Players that are off-line need additional protection, and this change helps in that area. Now you can be certain that while you were offline no one was sending fighters and TAC over your cities scouting you out. Well, ones that are not next to the sea, anyway.

      #3: Cry babies that are upset they are now restricted in spying on AI Bots cause me to :eyeroll: - they should just change their Diplomatic Stance to RoW with all inactive players and bots and after a couple of days will be able to not only send planes on spying missions without a DoW but can also move troops into those countries as well. So, no sympathy from me here.

      #4: For those players to whom it matters (those blessed few), this rule fixes the problem of "who-provoked-who-into-declaring-war'. Before, if you used a spy plane on another player, even when they publicly said it would be considered an act of war, nothing triggered until that player "declared war" manually through attacking or changing their diplomatic stance. Which, in the news, made it look like they were the aggressors, even though any reasonable observer would agree that they were merely defending their privacy.


      Why do they need additional protection ? If your offline and people know then your to predictable and easily read leaving you wide open EVEN if online . Randomize you playing times keep people guessing .

      It isn't used against AI bots the over flight is used against active players . Bytro needs to implement a change where foreign aircraft in your airspace can be shot down without war being declared .

      Why concern yourself with being seen as the aggressor in the WH ? Maybe you should join the PL and see what it is like to play on a map full of active players .

      Before I go are you suggesting the inclusion of territorial waters and any incursion into them instantly triggers war ? The scumming tactic as you call it is a legitimately and well used form of blockade . If you can't patrol your own borders and coast effectively then maybe try and learn to instead of crying unfair when your bottled in port .
      You see people sticking that many units outside neutral players ports then snigger , laugh , praise there stupidity as any conflict with such people will be swift and devastating .

      Right I am getting tired and my train of thought is muddled , I knew what I wanted to say not sure its come across though .

      EDIT--- In game chat is dead even in the majority of RP games as most use the paper for RP statements .

      EDIT 2--- Also maybe Bytro should stop the AI and inactives from having RoW . KingCongo do you like gaining RoW with AI and sending troops off through there ports to conduct a sneaky sneaky attack on active people ?

      EDIT---3 Concerning #4 . Any reasonable player won't be concerned about being typecast as aggressive in the paper or who started this or who started that disagreement . Its a paper does anyone read a paper that is 100% accurate ?

      Intel gathering is a perfectly fair tactic . If you logged on to see war with someone and a mail from that person saying sorry just looking not touching any REASONABLE person wouldn't discuss peace they would conclude they are a potential target and peace talks would be as much use as a chocolate fireguard as if you made peace you would only log in at some future point to find they have invaded you .
      You can still fly over peoples territory and gather intel without causing war as long as you don't patrol .
      "Warning may contain a nut"

      The post was edited 4 times, last by NICKYD: Because ().

    • NICKYD wrote:

      Why do they need additional protection ? If your offline and people know then your to predictable and easily read leaving you wide open EVEN if online . Randomize you playing times keep people guessing .
      Don't be an elitist; not all players can randomize their play times over a complete 24 hour cycle, for multiple reasons. This fix, while not addressing the far more annoying matter of someone launching a surprise rocket attack (nuclear or otherwise) with your own arsenal being unable to auto-fire in response, does help fix the matter of someone attempting an in-depth reconnaissance of your territory (though not completely since a workaround was pointed out) which you would want to be aware of.

      Prior to the change someone with a small airforce could scout you out pretty well in under an hour, counting two-way flight times. Even if 1000 planes flew over 100 of your units you would not be made aware upon logging back on. That is kinda lame.

      Secondly, prior to launching an attack, a player could prep his attack by deploying his planes on patrol over your units further back before actually declaring war, so that when his frontline units actually began attacking defenders his patrolling aircraft would already be making attacks deeper behind your lines.

      This helps with those issues.


      NICKYD wrote:

      It isn't used against AI bots the over flight is used against active players . Bytro needs to implement a change where foreign aircraft in your airspace can be shot down without war being declared .
      Then explain this complaint earlier in the thread....

      TesloTorpedo wrote:



      THIS IS TERRIBLE!
      I had aircraft patrolling over AI countries that were powerful, and now I cannot make our relation back to peace. REMOVE THIS FEATURE PLEASE! Or make it so a country has to activate it, but only player countries.
      I also use aircraft to scout AI Bots prior to the change - why not? It might be a good idea to know where the AI Bot parked his 8 stack of TAC (which the AI inherited from an inactive player) before I start sending in my troops.



      NICKYD wrote:




      Why concern yourself with being seen as the aggressor in the WH ? Maybe you should join the PL and see what it is like to play on a map full of active players .
      I never said I did; however I know some players that do when they are on a RP map. Get over yourself; just because something seems insignificant to you does not mean that it is insignificant to someone else. RP players will appreciate this change.


      NICKYD wrote:

      Before I go are you suggesting the inclusion of territorial waters and any incursion into them instantly triggers war ? The scumming tactic as you call it is a legitimately and well used form of blockade . If you can't patrol your own borders and coast effectively then maybe try and learn to instead of crying unfair when your bottled in port .
      You see people sticking that many units outside neutral players ports then snigger , laugh , praise there stupidity as any conflict with such people will be swift and devastating .

      A blockade is an act of war; at least according the International Law.

      But that is real-life; in this game I think the immediate coastal regions around a province should be considered part of that province, thus restricting the movements of units that are neither friendly nor immediately hostile (obviously legal boundaries of any sort do not apply once shooting starts).

      I used this tactic to absolutely wreck a South American player by timing a simultaneous invasion all along his southern coast with over 100 units. Took me about 7 hours to completely overwhelm his defenses and take the bottom part of his country. All because I could stick my units, which were not fired upon by defensive artillery or his cruisers, right off his coast until everything was just right.

      That is silly. I do it, but it is silly.

      Parking a stack of subs literally right outside the dockyards of a neutral player right after sailing past a bunch of his subs/destroyers that are guarding his coast one dot away, so you can ambush his carrier/battleship he is constructing as your opening move in a surprise attack is equally silly.

      Why? Because in both cases had you already been at war those situations would not have occurred. The subs would have been tarpitted before reaching the carrier spawn point and the troopships would have been raped by coastal batteries and cruiser bombardment.

      Again, I use these tactics all the time. But they are scummy, and they are unfair.

      NICKYD wrote:



      EDIT--- In game chat is dead even in the majority of RP games as most use the paper for RP statements .
      This is simply your experience, and it is presumptuous of you to think that just because you have not seen it used it isn't important to some RP players. I will agree that I almost never use it; but I also know some players that have used it, and preferred it to spamming the newspaper with random arguments/debates.


      NICKYD wrote:




      EDIT 2--- Also maybe Bytro should stop the AI and inactives from having RoW . KingCongo do you like gaining RoW with AI and sending troops off through there ports to conduct a sneaky sneaky attack on active people ?
      Sure, I just polished of the UK in less than 8 hours using this scummy tactic. I also always gain RoW as soon as possible so it can facilitate attacking both AI Bots and other players. It is another scummy tactic, but not part of the conversation involving Controlled Airspace.


      NICKYD wrote:

      EDIT---3 Concerning #4 . Any reasonable player won't be concerned about being typecast as aggressive in the paper or who started this or who started that disagreement . Its a paper does anyone read a paper that is 100% accurate ?
      I already answered this; some players care in RP games. In an RP game every reasonable player at least pretends to have a justifiable reason for war. Obviously, in 99% of the games, this doesn't matter. Unless it matters to my allies it never bothers me, personally.

      However, just because this does not, and evidently never will, bother you does not mean that it does not matter to someone else, and I resent the fact that you seem to think that all you have to do is say something is unimportant and it becomes so, thereby implying that anyone that does care about this obscure issue is somehow less than you.

      That is very elitist and annoying. Whether you consciously intended to sound like that I have no idea.
    • I would engage in a battle of wits with you KingCobra but sadly your unarmed and it wouldn't be fair . This thread could go on forever if I reply to every single statement . Like this , YOU brought up blockade and YOU brought up the scummy tactic so YOU brought it into the conversation .


      Maybe if you read the thread from page 1 you will of seen I have suggested the option to attack patrolling aircraft without causing war already before I again mentioned it earlier . I have no need to explain myself to you . You keep saying I am elitist in my comments , no myself like 90+% of players do not take much stock in the paper the 10% who do should be more worried about sticks and stones and not be worried about being seen as aggressive on a war game .

      YOU are presumptuous to assume I have never seen ingame chat used in a RP game .

      If national waters was to be implemented then the Suez/Panama Canals , English channel to name 3 would render ALL naval movements obsolete . It would remove the ability to conduct surprise amphibious landings on targets and render the stealth of subs mute .

      Finally you are correct on one thing you do have very little if any idea of most things but I am sure you will respond to this reply in your obviously well experienced opinion . Now YOU please keep things related to thread topic instead of going off on a tangent and complaining about everything .

      I am no astronomer but I am pretty sure the world doesn't revolve around you .

      The floor is yours I will give you your soapbox back and no longer comment on any of your posts UNLESS it is about the original thread topic .

      EDIT---Activity with the mobile app and smart phones makes access even more easy . Just because some can't log on regular that doesn't mean the offline people should be protected . That's there problem for not being active enough simples .
      "Warning may contain a nut"

      The post was edited 1 time, last by NICKYD ().

    • @freezy: Have the Bytro programmers continued to tinker with the software related to this issue?

      In a standard patrol overflight of a human player's newly conquered province with a single L6 tactical bomber squadron, I just unintentionally initiated a state of war. The recon "patrol" lasted no longer than 2.5 minutes -- I am using my digital cell phone alarm to remind me to move aircraft units on recon overflight patrols. No damage was inflicted on the units or buildings on the ground, nor was any damage suffered by the recon TB squadron, nevertheless an accidental state of war now exists.

      Once again, this is not what was advertised, and it is inconsistent with the experiments conducted by King Draza three days ago, and it contradicts your supposedly definitive explanation from two days ago.

      What's going on, chief?

      We need certainty regarding the rules, not ever-changing game dynamics with no prior notice. My frustration is growing.

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

    • ... Honestly, this change isn't good. It makes all aircraft nigh useless unless you've either already declared war or are using naval bombers defensively to scout for submarines. Besides that, there is literally no use for aircraft, besides getting tacts for striking AI opponents. And why do you have patrol doing 2 things at once? A patrol, when I think of a aircraft patrolling overhead, it usually either means A. a RECON patrol, the one that I think of most often, which many aircraft are either intended to be used in or are used in a pinch for, excluding strategic bombers, is when the aircraft are patrolling the area, scouting for targets and other useful locational information, and then there is B. a COMBAT patrol, which generally only FIGHTERS ever use, as a CAP(combat air patrol) is specifically intended to search, hunt down and destroy enemy aircraft, gaining air superiority(the main and ultimate goal of CAP), and never to find ground targets(and even then, it's usually to SPOT the targets for tact bombers which come in after. They never engage in a combat air patrol, EVER, as it is unique to air superiority doctrine with fighter aircraft). Basically, you should have just removed the ability to cause attacks to happen on neutral countries, which would be the sensible thing to do, not make patrols declare war, because that is just silly.... I mean, really, I've never ONCE put a aircraft on a patrol to harm the enemy, it has ALWAYS been to gain intel on enemy positions, because it is always more useful to know where the units are than to destroy the actual units, because then you can target the weak units and eliminate them quickly. I mean, seriously, raise your hand if you've used aircraft to ATTACK a neutral country, before you knew of the existence of this glitch. Nobody? Thought so.


      darksoul111 wrote:


      PS. This thread obviously inspires me for a new unit : the spotter plane! Flying high-alt, unarmed with cameras at 7k meters like in the good old days :D


      - Special performance : flies undetected over your territory. Just like submarines in the water, but over people's lands. Can only be spotted when planes arrive in a 50km radius.
      - Speed : 700km/h (Cold war U-2s flew at 800km/h)
      - Range : 1000km (for your information, elite strategic bombers have a range of 1210km. Cold War U-2s had over 5000km of range. It is therefore not absurd)
      - Combat stats : Attacking planes, 0.1. Defending from planes, 0.1.
      - Requirements to produce : researched (obviously). Level 3 air base, level 5 industrial center (rare alloys and specialised equipment needed).
      - Costs to produce : 1000 rare materials, 7500$, 1500 oil, 500 iron, 1500 goods.


      @MontanaBB @Dixie
      Most spotter planes were fighter aircraft without guns, in the WWII era... Just saying.

      Also, literally nothing in the game currently needs a level 5 industrial center, as the level 1 industrial center usually implies already having the advanced materials and just not being fast at producing equipment. A nuclear carrier can be produced with a mere level 1 industrial center, but it will take forever to build the carrier.

      While I agree this could be useful, as a late game unit, it is not practical for most of the game. The way patrols work needs to be restructured, rather than making a brand new unit for something the units could already do.

      There should be 4 types of patrols:

      RECON: Reconnaissance patrol, intended purely to gain intel on enemy positions. Ints, Tacts, and Navs can use the reconnaissance patrol, along with the rocket int, though it will have a significantly smaller recon patrol radius. However, it takes some time for aircraft to gain intel over an area(well, minus small groups of units, like if you only find a lone unit or smtg), and during that time, the recon patrols will be logged in the espionage tab(unless the aforementioned spotter plane is implemented, and then no recon patrols would be logged in the espionage tab, and can be acted upon for declaring war, but the AI can not directly declare war from it. Something along those lines would be pretty good. AI countries should default to this, as it means they can not fight whatsoever in that way and cause war to be declared over and over again.

      The next 2 are intended to separate the current patrol function.

      CAP: Combat air patrol, intended for air superiority and EXCLUSIVE to interceptors and rocket interceptors ONLY, and will not target ground units. Basically like the current patrol function, except it excludes the ability for fighter aircraft to attack ground targets. This will not declare war on a country if it is overhead.

      GROUND POUND: Intended for tacts, nav's, and strategic bombers, this one is the one that will be used for a group of aircraft that is being sent on patrol over a region to attack any and all surface targets while ignoring air groups. If a neutral country's units are underneath, it will not immediately declare war, however, if it is over neutral territory, with buildings and the like, it WILL declare war and do damage. The ints can be in a group with them, but it will be purely to protect the aircraft it is accompanying. IDK, seems like a good idea, anyway. They don't have that much damage against ground targets.d

      and the last one

      Combined Arms: Basically like what the patrol is now.

      It would fix a lot of problems, namely the ones that caused this patch to become a thing in the first place, and give more reasons to have interceptors early game, because TBH, without recon, level 1 interceptors are basically useless, and by the time you actually need them to intercept other aircraft, it will be at level 2 already.
    • NICKYD wrote:

      I would engage in a battle of wits with you KingCobra but sadly your unarmed and it wouldn't be fair . This thread could go on forever if I reply to every single statement . Like this , YOU brought up blockade and YOU brought up the scummy tactic so YOU brought it into the conversation .
      Yes, I mentioned them and described what I thought about them. So you saying I brought something up somehow means... what?

      NICKYD wrote:

      Maybe if you read the thread from page 1 you will of seen I have suggested the option to attack patrolling aircraft without causing war already before I again mentioned it earlier . I have no need to explain myself to you . You keep saying I am elitist in my comments , no myself like 90+% of players do not take much stock in the paper the 10% who do should be more worried about sticks and stones and not be worried about being seen as aggressive on a war game .
      This solution is probably incapable of being implemented and if it was it would probably be loaded with bugs and exploits.

      As for me saying you sound like an elitist; its because you do. The fact you choose to casually speak for 90% of the player base while casually criticizing another 10% kinda proves that.


      NICKYD wrote:

      YOU are presumptuous to assume I have never seen ingame chat used in a RP game .



      And you either cannot read, chose not read, or failed to understand what I wrote, because I never said that.

      NICKYD wrote:

      If national waters was to be implemented then the Suez/Panama Canals , English channel to name 3 would render ALL naval movements obsolete . It would remove the ability to conduct surprise amphibious landings on targets and render the stealth of subs mute .

      Finally you are correct on one thing you do have very little if any idea of most things but I am sure you will respond to this reply in your obviously well experienced opinion . Now YOU please keep things related to thread topic instead of going off on a tangent and complaining about everything .
      Solving any issues with international waters would be easier to implement than writing new code to allow units to inflict damage on patrolling aircraft - all it would take is a new map, which Bytro is making anyway.

      As for staying on topic, I was as a matter of fact. I was giving my 2 cents worth on what I thought about the new changes, citing a few other scummy tactics that I am aware of as other things that it would be nice to fix. I didn't even mention 'National Waters' until the end of my post as something that was on my personal wish list.

      You are the one that exploded over the idea and made it a conversation highlight.

      NICKYD wrote:

      I am no astronomer but I am pretty sure the world doesn't revolve around you .
      You must of heard that comeback from a movie and not read it in a book, because we already established your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. If you had read it in a book I imagine you would misconstrue it as a compliment to the recipient.

      NICKYD wrote:

      The floor is yours I will give you your soapbox back and no longer comment on any of your posts UNLESS it is about the original thread topic
      Ha!

      NICKYD wrote:

      EDIT---Activity with the mobile app and smart phones makes access even more easy . Just because some can't log on regular that doesn't mean the offline people should be protected . That's there problem for not being active enough simples .
      So you write the above statement about soapboxes and how you want the conversation to ONLY be about Controlled Airspace, and then right after that you edit in your opinion regarding a completely different topic

      Pretty lame, brah. Pretty lame.
    • NovaTopaz wrote:

      Most spotter planes were fighter aircraft without guns, in the WWII era... Just saying.


      tion.
      sir, if you actually paid attention, you're sending ARMED aircraft to scout, and you can still scout without declaring war...


      Aircraft has also the strongest damage in the game, and tactical bombers alone can defeat an unprepared enemy

      and yes, aircraft DOES do combat patrol only, if it wasn't freaking obvious enough
      This player may have been reactivated in October 27th 2017
    • I agree with the sentiment that recon should not trigger war automatically, and that it's silly for recon planes to do damage while at peace, so that is the problem that should have been fixed.

      Meanwhile I have a probably-related bug report in process - About the time of this change I had some tac bombers staging from an airfield belonging to an allied player (Right of Way) who had recently archived but was not AI yet. I attacked from the archived ally's airfield against some enemy tanks who were passing through his territory (they also had RoW), and the game declared war on my ally for me. (Savaging my kill ratio when the poor bombers returned to the now-hostile airfield!)
      :(
    • So Bytro you have taken a lot of flack over this change. I can't say as this one ruffles my feathers a lot, especially now that we understand it better.

      With ranging units like artillery I enjoy the fire control options that are available as a high command member. Is there a way to fiddle with the programming and utilize that same fire control code in the planes patrol mode? Then perhaps they could be set to "hold fire" and not inflict damage to ground on patrol, or return fire would simply attack what attacked them, etc.

      I understand that there are limitations of the programming, but I think this idea is worth at least a couple minutes discussion.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Main Administrator
      EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
    • VorlonFCW wrote:

      With ranging units like artillery I enjoy the fire control options that are available as a high command member. Is there a way to fiddle with the programming and utilize that same fire control code in the planes patrol mode? Then perhaps they could be set to "hold fire" and not inflict damage to ground on patrol, or return fire would simply attack what attacked them, etc.
      as if HC doesn't have enough privileges...
      This player may have been reactivated in October 27th 2017