Change back the dog fight mechanics

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

    • So if only one stack could defend, how would the program decide which one is defending? I do like the idea, btw. I have been playing this for almost a year (anniversary in about 2 weeks), have read all the "how to use planes threads" and every time I think I have it figured out, something goes wrong.

      Patrol is needed, it makes sense, that is what air interdiction of road nets and gaining air superiority is all about. The micromanaging to exploit the code is the problem. (OK F-16's get out of the MIg's patrol zone so you do not fire at them in 15 seconds. OK, go back in and let them shoot at you). Kind of ridiculous.

      How about: if there is no patrol overlap, the planes can change their patrol within their cone without having to return to base. If they change their patrol location while within an enemy air patrol radius, they must return to base to refuel and rearm. This forces a decision, stay and fight, or leave. If you leave, then the opponent has an opportunity to hit you while refueling if he has anything in range. If you stay and fight, you both take your lumps, whatever they may be.
      "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

      "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

    • Peter Mat wrote:

      So if only one stack could defend, how would the program decide which one is defending?
      First of all, just to make sure we are talking about the same thing, when referring to an air stack "defending" I am talking about air stacks that can be "attacked" by an enemy air stacks patrol tic. As far as which one(s) to use as the target/defender I think random or semi random would be fine. Basically, whichever one(s) are picked up first in the iteration. You could of course pick the closest, strongest or weakest etc, but I'd say semi-random is fine and somewhat desirable.

      Your comment about returning to base if you move within an enemy patrol range has two problems. First of all this is a major change in plane behavior and I would imagine a lot of players would find this annoying as hell. Second, it doesn't entirely solve the problem because you could still use the "pre patrol defense" method of moving your planes through the patrol radius on the enemy tic, but never actually stopping within patrol tic range.

    • One other possible solution: Give planes different offensive and defensive factors versus planes. If you want to go in and park your patrol for the opponents offensive tic, (ie. let him come out of the sun on your 6) your air combat factor is halved (defensive fire). Then you run away so he is not in your patrol radius when you tic at full strength. This would also solve the moving through during the tic you described while I was typing this.

      Since the exploit is essentially saying I am not going to shoot until you fire at me, and then I am not going to shoot at you when it is my turn, make the air combat factors reflective of the strategy.
      "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

      "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

    • Since the exploit deals with the timing of the tics, why not set all aircraft tics to the server clock? They tic at the top of the hour, 1/4 past, 1/2 past and 1/4 of the hour. Regardless of the time they arrive on station, let them tic based on the server.
      "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

      "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

    • @Peter Mat: I that will be to hard for the server to calculate all dogfights for all maps at the same time.

      @DxC: I think you suggestion is good, this will be help too with a other problem in dogfights, the "hidden fighters". Stacks of planes outside the spotting area of the opponent planes.

      Would you like to play with your friends in a game where gold is banned?


      Watch for the next season starts in September!

    • Bug bow (flyer bow)

      Good evening,


      I found a bug in the COW league, which I found in the forum and which has already been discussed.
      I can not understand how this mistake can be accepted as a game
      mechanic, as it can be a war decree, if you lose your own plane again
      and again, even if you are a thug against a player, we can not do it but
      not sein.Ich find this unacceptable to accept such a bug dan we need
      not play any more COW league. Tytro solte this and take it over again as
      there are any too many used this bug and then they lose their
      Spieler.Ich would be one of those, although the game makes me super fun
      but not so.

    • Xarus wrote:

      @Peter Mat: I that will be to hard for the server to calculate all dogfights for all maps at the same time.

      @DxC: I think you suggestion is good, this will be help too with a other problem in dogfights, the "hidden fighters". Stacks of planes outside the spotting area of the opponent planes.
      It should not be hard to calculate at all. The server has a clock. Set 4 times 15 minutes apart and that becomes your tic times. If you think about it, each game would have 4 tic times, period. This is much easier to keep track of than 100 players with 4 air groups each, each having its own tic time (400 calculations). 400 subroutines versus 1 sub routine. Think how much faster the server would run.
      "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

      "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

    • I do not understand why no one does what against the plane bug what tud, that's unfair for all players. In the German league he is certainly used and I'm tired of the game, because it just does not matter that this game has a flaw How can you make such a serious mistake in a game more terrerrieren.There are patches.

    • @NoWhy: I understand your frustration, but after looking to the facts of our last game, we think you are not victim of the "swarm of bees" bug. It gives a other failure in the dogfight with "hidden" stacks of planes outside you line of sight.

      I will try to make some pictures for the forum to teach other players about this "feature", stay tuned...

      Would you like to play with your friends in a game where gold is banned?


      Watch for the next season starts in September!

    • miech wrote:

      Hello all,

      Since recently, without being communicated, the air battle mechanics have changed.

      Now, the old version wasnt perfect, as you had certain ways to do massive amount of damage without recieving any, or very little.

      Yet, the new version is even worse. Now you are rewarded to nót engage enemy aircraft during patrol runs. The player who stays online long enough to avoid the 15 minute tick, is the one that is rewarded with obscenely positive battle results.

      So all in all, the change was made that its a good idea to do damage by...not attacking?

      TL;DR

      Please revert back to the old dog fight mechanics, they arent perfect, but the new version is even worse.
      Still the best request in here.

    • A) If a plane did not do an attack tick in the last 15min, the next patrol tick will happen at the beginning of the patrol timer.

      Fine with me, then I will just keep my planes flying forever. LOL

      B) When a plane started to patrol, any new command given to it will result in the plane flying back to refuel before executing the new command.

      Just stupid. Or wait. I will just keep my planes flying forever. LOL

      C) After each patrol tick in which a plane attacks offensively, it has to fly to base to refuel, before flying back to the patrol destination and resuming the patrol. Patrol damage is increased from 25% to 100% to make up for it.

      Fine with me, then I will just keep my planes flying forever. LOL

      D) we keep everything as it is and declare it as a feature that everyone can use or avoid.

      Sounds good.


      E) planes do not deal damage during patrol anymore, unless other planes attack them directly or a friendly target within their patrol radius is attacked.

      Booooring. But OK, it could work. It would just be a nerfed game.


      PS your suggestions just crashed and burned.


      @DxCyour suggestion about making it so that only a limited no. of stacks can do patrol damage to me sounds silly. How on earth are you going to put that into code.

      How will you determine which stack gets to attack and which are not going to work. Why would I build planes if I know only, say 20% of them will work.

      If you say it's within just one area, then I will just place them slightly apart.

      Or, finally, as with Freezys suggestions:

      I will just keep them flying.
      Sincerely, wildL
      EN Mod
      Report a problem

    • DxC wrote:

      Xarus wrote:

      So, why is option E for some of the players here in this thread so negative?
      Because it is like nuking a prov with a single militia in it and no buildings. It is a seriously overkill way to deal with the issue. [...]
      I agree with that, DxC.
      But solving our dog fight problem was not the only purpose of my proposal to remove patroling for bombers. I also think it would render air combat much more interesting. Removing bomber-patrols would have the following consequences:
      • You would no longer be able to run air-to-ground attacks in an area that's within the reach of your opponents' interceptors. At least not when planning to leave the screen in the meantime. I think that would be OK and certainly realistic - you need to obtain air superiority first.
      • Bombers would become a bit less useful (because of then having a major tactical option less) compared to ground units. Personally I think that would be fine, because now they're a bit too almighty. They would still be powerful and playing completely without bombers would still be no option, cause then you wouldn't force your enemy to drag air defenses around with him.
      • The way bombers are used would be much more realistic. They fly to their target, drop their load of bombs in short time, go back to air base. They don't circle above the enemy for ages without ever having to refuel or reload ammunition.
      • We would see direct air-to-air attacks (of course precondition is that planes on direct attack have same chances as defending - but that bug should be solved anyways). Always beautiful to watch and a lot of action. Your fighters plucking your enemies planes out of the air. The one who's able to build more fighters would obtain air supremacy. Just like in real life.
      • Direct attack is intuitive and easy to understand also for new players. That - as things are now - you should practically always attack by patroling, is something you have to learn from experience. It's something artificial and strange gameplay. Takes you a dozen games to learn all the twists of the patroling system.
      All in all, people would have to think much more on how to use their planes. Now it's always same-same: stack together 6 fighters + 6 tacs + maybe 6 naval bombers and let them circle over the next-best enemy army. Much more tactical decisions if bombers couldn't patrol. For example, you'd have to ask yourself if you use your fighters for escorting your bombers, or rather for patroling over your own ground units.

      I completely don't understand, why many players are so keen on attacking ground units by "patroling" over them. What would be so bad about giving direct attack order instead?

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Hans A. Pils ().