Announcement Controlled Airspace

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

    • King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

      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
      ... Yeah, this response is way late, but whatever.

      He was saying spotter planes, purpose built for the task of spotting. Again, most Purpose built spotter planes did not have guns, and used the frames of fighter aircraft, which are by nature nimble, easy to handle, and are fast, but can be slow if they have to loiter around an area. I never said fighter aircraft were not used in the role of recon. But they do not use their weaponry when they do go scouting UNLESS an aircraft intercepts the fighter that is intent on shooting it down or poises a danger to the country that the fighter belongs to. Then and only then do they fire the machine guns while they were on a recon mission. Not on random ground targets. Nor did any aircraft. Not even tact/medium/light bombers, usually the ones designed for those kinds of bombing runs. The fact that patrol only accounts for combat is ignorant of the fact that most aircraft(some other aircraft were used, but they were usually modifications of bombers into heavy fighters), excluding interceptors and fighters, were never used in a combat patrol, because combat patrols are EXCLUSIVE to air superiority doctrine and air interdiction, not ground attack or the destruction of buildings. Tacts and strategic bombers are supposed to attack very specific targets, not attack an entire group of individual, regiment level targets across a wide area.

      ... Again, combat patrol is only really pertinent to the one and only aircraft that do that: FIGHTERS(interceptors IG). I don't see tacts going on combat patrol(as in IRL. No where anywhere during WWII were there tacts put into a combat patrol, ever, unless said tacts were CONVERTED into heavy fighters, which are a completely different class of aircraft), they either go to attack a specific target or are using that to recon the enemy. That's it. Anything other than that is just unrealistic without it being specifically stated to be so in the game, and nowhere in the game, manual, tutorial or otherwise, is it stated that the patrol function does damage explicitly, except with fighters, which again are pretty obvious(and even then, it should only do that against fighters... Combat air patrols are for the maintaining of air superiority and interdicting flying targets such as bombers)... Again, why I suggested the different functions for patrolling, because then we don't have something like currently where someone like me, who can't be bothered to micromanage the aircraft when I'm already micromanaging an entire army + navy + production + espionage spies + everything else, puts it into a patrol to scan an area, and then move it around to gain intel, while still having time for... You know, life.

      Now, that can't be done and it really hinders those who don't have the time to micromanage the aircraft being used to recon, which I don't. I don't even have the time to micromanage the army, and I rely on micromanaging that most times to maximize it's effectiveness. I'm also one of those who actually knew how military strategy worked IRL(WWII wise, anyway) to a fairly extensive degree when I started playing, and I used patrol for one thing only, because I knew it was the only thing it should do, and was surprised when it even came up with the frontier changes, because I didn't even know it could damage buildings in neutral countries. Or units, for that matter. (I knew you could in enemy countries, but I never do it as a policy of mine unless it's fighter aircraft or nav bombers, or tacts on recon. Again, it makes more sense to me to target specific units with the bombers than to target a wide area, and in the end the aircraft outputs more damage when it is set to attack a specific target than it is when set on a patrol.)

      I still don't believe in that statement, because literally nothing has happened previously when I did have aircraft patrolling overhead the enemy. No buildings damage, no units damaged, and no bomb markings on the ground near units/buildings, the most obvious evidence of the attacking on those things. NONE of that happened. And before the patch went live, I actually tried to test that. Over a period of several hours, a group of 4 level 3 tact bombers(and maybe some accompanying fighters?) did 0 damage(as in 0 HP of damage to all involved units in the circle) to a neutral country's units in a province(you know, the things it should have been damaging)... and negligible damage to a level 1 airfield. So insignificant I wrote it off as being the result of a neighbor attacking said country(just to give some perspective... It showed a health bar, but the health bar was still effectively at full, and could easily have been damaged by something other than myself, and the units should be damaged before the buildings on the tile, as they ARE tactical bombers.). It was that little. If it even did damage in the first place. So I still don't know why the change was put in, not seeing any results of it myself, in any way, fashion, or form, which makes it look pointless and overall degrading the game experience in many ways. Even if it did, couldn't they have just removed the code where they attack neutral countries...? That makes more sense to me than just throwing in a declaration of war in just because you have aircraft patrolling, and allowing the AI to do the same, meaning that the AI will literally not stop fighting you no matter how hard you try, should the AI have even one aircraft. Very unfair to new players, and invalidating literally all of the previous rules with AI with waiting a few days with an AI with your thing set to peace, for it to return to peace(may be wrong with that, but I remember seeing that a few pages back in this one...). The fact having an aircraft patrolling overhead declares war is just... Well, lazy and insensible.

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

    • NovaTopaz wrote:

      ... Again, combat patrol is only really pertinent to the one and only aircraft that do that: FIGHTERS(interceptors IG). I don't see tacts going on combat patrol(as in IRL. No where anywhere during WWII were there tacts put into a combat patrol, ever,
      In CoW they obviously combined the Air Interdiction, Combat Air Patrol/Air Superiority missions together in one assignment, doubtless for ease of gameplay.

      In both WW1 & WW2 aircraft were used to attack 'opportunity targets' well behind the lines. Aircraft used for interdiction missions included virtually all types, even strategic bombers (example would be Operation Cobra where the bombers were assigned to attack an area, not individual units, or targets).

      Just because a order says 'Patrol" does not mean that it is a CAP mission. In fact, in the CoW game that one order can easily be used for Recon/CAP/Superiority/Interdiction missions, and/or combinations of those missions.


      NovaTopaz wrote:

      Even if it did, couldn't they have just removed the code where they attack neutral countries...? That makes more sense to me than just throwing in a declaration of war in just because you have aircraft patrolling, and allowing the AI to do the same, meaning that the AI will literally not stop fighting you no matter how hard you try, should the AI have even one aircraft. Very unfair to new players,
      The AI is not exactly known for using the patrol command offensively. When it does patrol is always (as far as I have noticed) over its own territory.

      I am currently playing in 3 games and have completed 3 games since the change was implemented, and not in a single one of those games did a war start, anywhere or at anytime, because the AI Patrolled over a player country.

      In some cases the AI did/does have aircraft, but it has not tried to patrol over non-friendly territory, so this has not caused a problem.

      I think you are panicking over nothing. I another week you won't even notice the gameplay difference.
    • KingCongo wrote:

      I think you are panicking over nothing. I another week you won't even notice the gameplay difference.
      ... No, no I will. Even if I adapt to it, I will STILL notice it. And my adaptation to it will likely be me dropping fighters entirely until they can be used for air superiority later in the game. I'm not panicking over nothing. It's a big thing. Literally everything about the fighter screams reconisence, down to the tutorial and the description of the unit itself. And now that role has been cut from it with no regard to the previous descriptions or gameplay, confusing new players and causing grief for (most) players who actually used it in that role but had no time to micromanage the aircraft itself(COUGH COUGH Life COUGH COUGH), which is now necessary to even DO recon. You already gain such a huge boost from micromanaging the army, navy and airforce, among other things. We don't need more in the form of aircraft requiring it for recon. Again, it would have made more sense to remove the ability to attack a neutral country than to put in a declaration of war just because you are flying overhead, and that's if it even did damage to a country at peace in the first place, which I don't think it ever has(I've done patrols over land with tacts in the past, and other planes where needed, and not once has it damaged a neutral country's units or infra, so I have no idea where the damaging neutral countries came in...), nor should it ever have. Artillery doesn't strike neutral countries, and does no damage, so why would aircraft? The aircraft have done no damage when they are on patrol unless war is declared, and that has always been the case, so I don't know when something like that was implemented.
    • NovaTopaz wrote:

      ... No, no I will. Even if I adapt to it, I will STILL notice it. And my adaptation to it will likely be me dropping fighters entirely until they can be used for air superiority later in the game.
      Your mistake then. Fighters are still excellent and perform as intended. I am successfully using them as early as Day 4.


      Nova Topaz wrote:

      Literally everything about the fighter screams reconisence, down to the tutorial and the description of the unit itself. And now that role has been cut from it with no regard to the previous descriptions or gameplay, confusing new players and causing grief for (most) players who actually used it in that role but had no time to micromanage the aircraft itself(COUGH COUGH Life COUGH COUGH),
      It still performs well in the Recce role, I know, I still use it thusly in both war and peace, especially over water. Over land it functions no different if you are At War with the target, and if you are not at war it prevents you from cheesing an offline player by reconning him prior to an attack without him noticing. You are not making sense.

      Stop speaking for n00bs when they are not the ones complaining here. Just the vets who got their panties in a tangle because they lost ONE SINGLE function of the patrol command (ie to 'recce over neutral countries').


      NovaTopaz wrote:

      You already gain such a huge boost from micromanaging the army, navy and airforce, among other things.
      The change PROTECTS offline players. What are you complaining about?!?
    • KingCongo wrote:

      NovaTopaz wrote:

      ... No, no I will. Even if I adapt to it, I will STILL notice it. And my adaptation to it will likely be me dropping fighters entirely until they can be used for air superiority later in the game.
      Your mistake then. Fighters are still excellent and perform as intended. I am successfully using them as early as Day 4.
      And the people you find in most matches doesn't start deploying aircraft until like DAY 8+, if they even stick around long enough. Like I said, not a whole lot of use to having a fighter until mid game at the very least unless the opponent is doing tact spam. Then and only then would fighters be helpful.

      Nova Topaz wrote:

      Literally everything about the fighter screams reconisence, down to the tutorial and the description of the unit itself. And now that role has been cut from it with no regard to the previous descriptions or gameplay, confusing new players and causing grief for (most) players who actually used it in that role but had no time to micromanage the aircraft itself(COUGH COUGH Life COUGH COUGH),
      It still performs well in the Recce role, I know, I still use it thusly in both war and peace, especially over water. Over land it functions no different if you are At War with the target, and if you are not at war it prevents you from cheesing an offline player by reconning him prior to an attack without him noticing. You are not making sense.
      Stop speaking for n00bs when they are not the ones complaining here. Just the vets who got their panties in a tangle because they lost ONE SINGLE function of the patrol command (ie to 'recce over neutral countries').

      ... I use recon on everything. Active player, offline player, doesn't matter, I've gotten fighters over neutral countries for recon, and that is most of what they do. Now the patrol command isn't much use to me, because I only really use it for recon and CAP, and maybe for long range bombings when I get back into using later game bombers.

      NovaTopaz wrote:

      You already gain such a huge boost from micromanaging the army, navy and airforce, among other things.
      The change PROTECTS offline players. What are you complaining about?!?
      And for the last part... It doesn't protect offline players. All it does is make it more frustrating to properly recon them, which won't stop most people except those who like having as much information of the enemy as possible(example being me, and even then it won't really stop me). It also protects AI and active players, which shouldn't get any sort of protection against recon. This isn't about what side effects it has which may be semi-useful to the game, this is about the loss of functionality that is CAUSED by this change that shouldn't have been done to begin with, for there is no evidence that the problem they described ever existed, and if it did, it was a bug, not a feature. You don't remove a feature of the game to get rid of a bug/glitch. That's working BACKWARDS from the problem. It's like removing the delete button in a creative sandbox game because the delete button has a bug where the object doesn't immediately disappear and then you can multiply what you have(glitch). If your sensible, you fix the bug that leads to the glitch, not remove the delete button(Naval craft did the latter and made the game a pain. Sure, it's still playable, but it's not fully functional either. It's the same thing here, removing one of the vital functions of the patrol function to get rid of a bug of the game code. At least I have some confidence Bytro will fix it at some point. But still, need to give an opinion, or it might never come back.).
    • Dixie wrote:

      KingCongo wrote:

      The change PROTECTS offline players. What are you complaining about?!?
      I don't think inattentive players should be protected. Esp since the mobile version is up and running
      and people check COW every 2 hours...no, just no, COW is not a game that needs to be checked 24/7, not even with the mobile version
      This player may have been reactivated in October 27th 2017
    • KingCongo wrote:

      Just because a order says 'Patrol" does not mean that it is a CAP mission. In fact, in the CoW game that one order can easily be used for Recon/CAP/Superiority/Interdiction missions, and/or combinations of those missions.
      I am pretty sure this is incorrect. Fighters patrolling over an enemy ground target will not attack it unless given an attack order (unless this sometimes/inconsistently works - I have certainly observed it not working). It seems like you need to have TBs in your patrolling stack for it to attack ground targets (and NBs to attack sea targets?)

      I'd be happy to have this confirmed by others, as it's potentially costly to test.
    • CityOfAngels wrote:

      KingCongo wrote:

      Just because a order says 'Patrol" does not mean that it is a CAP mission. In fact, in the CoW game that one order can easily be used for Recon/CAP/Superiority/Interdiction missions, and/or combinations of those missions.
      I am pretty sure this is incorrect. Fighters patrolling over an enemy ground target will not attack it unless given an attack order (unless this sometimes/inconsistently works - I have certainly observed it not working). It seems like you need to have TBs in your patrolling stack for it to attack ground targets (and NBs to attack sea targets?)
      I'd be happy to have this confirmed by others, as it's potentially costly to test.
      If you are suggesting naked INT patrols won't damage ground or ships that is incorrect.
    • CityOfAngels wrote:

      KingCongo wrote:

      Just because a order says 'Patrol" does not mean that it is a CAP mission. In fact, in the CoW game that one order can easily be used for Recon/CAP/Superiority/Interdiction missions, and/or combinations of those missions.
      I am pretty sure this is incorrect. Fighters patrolling over an enemy ground target will not attack it unless given an attack order (unless this sometimes/inconsistently works - I have certainly observed it not working). It seems like you need to have TBs in your patrolling stack for it to attack ground targets (and NBs to attack sea targets?)
      I'd be happy to have this confirmed by others, as it's potentially costly to test.
      Air units assigned to patrol will attack everything they have an attack rating for.This means if you put 5 STR over a province then those units will attack the structures in that province, any and all ground units, any and all air units, and any surface ships that happen to be within the zone.

      If you put 5 FTR on patrol over an area they will attack all ground, air, and surface naval units that enter that area.

      5 NAV in a stack will attack everything a FTR attacks plus SUBs.

      This is confirmed. by me, easy for anyone else to confirm as well.

      EDIT: If you are not 'noticing' your FTR attacking ground units it is probably a combo of the fact they do crap damage (0.5 per) and you are probably not using them in large numbers. And to test this is easy peesy and not expensive at all; as you come across small AI Bots stacks in your games just assign a single-type air unit stack to patrol over them; record your current HP/Morale of both stacks, then go get something to eat or watch a movie.

      When you come back look at the differences. In the case of STR you will also notice some structure damage to the buildings in the province.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by KingCongo: Observation ().

    • NovaTopaz wrote:

      ... It's the same thing here, removing one of the vital functions of the patrol function to get rid of a bug of the game code. At least I have some confidence Bytro will fix it at some point. But still, need to give an opinion, or it might never come back.).
      Nothing vital has changed, my planes still kick much ass pretty much exactly as they did before. You are just on a whine & complain loop and refuse to consider that maybe your horrible fears are not, in fact. justified at all.
    • King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

      Dixie wrote:

      KingCongo wrote:

      The change PROTECTS offline players. What are you complaining about?!?
      I don't think inattentive players should be protected. Esp since the mobile version is up and running
      and people check COW every 2 hours...no, just no, COW is not a game that needs to be checked 24/7, not even with the mobile version
      You gotta be kidding. When you're involved in, for example, an intense air battle with a capable opponent, even taking a smoking break can cost you.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • KingCongo wrote:

      And to test this is easy peesy and not expensive at all; as you come across small AI Bots stacks in your games just assign a single-type air unit stack to patrol over them; record your current HP/Morale of both stacks, then go get something to eat or watch a movie.
      Clearly. I've left fighters circling over a tank and come back hours later with both still at 100%. But it could have been simple luck/crappy shooting. It's not hard to test, I just haven't made it a priority. (I don't want to forget and lose my fighter - I'm protective of my ratios) :P
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      You gotta be kidding. When you're involved in, for example, an intense air battle with a capable opponent, even taking a smoking break can cost you.
      >implying that you actually have intense air battles


      "a smoking break can cost you" you do realize that you can play while smoking?
      This player may have been reactivated in October 27th 2017
    • CityOfAngels wrote:

      King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:

      "a smoking break can cost you" you do realize that you can play while smoking?
      Not while micro-managing air combat against a competitive opponent, that's for sure
      as if you need some supernatural skills in order to micromanage planes that take up to 30 minutes to get into action
      This player may have been reactivated in October 27th 2017