Change back the dog fight mechanics

there is no "ultra-bonus". It is just the expected outcome given the mechanics. Stop exaggerating stuff with sophomoric adjectives.

As I said, then the problem persists... because the only way to attack ANY patroller would mean taking defensive damage from ALL patrollers, which is exactly what we need to prevent.

we are not talking about direct attacks. try again.

That's called an "example".

...talk about sophomoric...

Alright, I've been following the planes mechanic problems for quite some time. I have some suggestions to make:

Rework planes mechanic to this way

1. Direct Attack(DA)
2. Patrol(P)
3. Attacking Planes(AP)
4. Patrolling Planes(PP)
5. Flying Planes(FP)

DA vs DA:

DA vs P:

P vs P:

Further scenarios:
FP vs AP:

FP vs PP:

What this rework does are:

Hello guys, nice discussions I talked with our devs about all proposals and also changed some of them to make them feasible. We then boiled down everything to the following options, which would be doable in the timeframe we have:


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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Please discuss these options. If no concensus can be reached, we fall back to D)


Edit: added option E)

option C only defeats the patrol option completely. it basically is just turning patrol into direct attack, with a 15 minute delay. this is no fix at all.

But it would give you the option to direct attack everything in the patrol circle. Useful when a battlefield is littered with individual units.


If I understand option C correctly: If no enemy units are present in the patrol circle at the tick, then the patrol continues?

yes, only if planes hit a target they return to base.

if i send planes out on patrol, if there are no enemies there, i'm not going to continue the patrol just in case someone shows up, besides, wouldn't attacking buildings count as an attack?

all option c does is defeat the point of patrolling.

By defeating the patrol u r just asking players to micro manage plane stacks all the time, instead of being able to walk away and let the attack continue. no other unit type would have this liability. Any other unit that has bombardment capability may still just happily sit there at full strength attacking at 100 percent once per hour for as long as the player wants, never having to turn into a weakened unit to refuel, or re-arm.

Actually i forgot one option which was already discussed 2 pages ago, added it in my above post as option E).

Without having read your responses yet, just a general reminder: only a small portion of players is discussing this issue here, but the decision will affect much more players. Please keep this in your arguments in mind and also think about how this will affect other player groups and other playstyles than your own
Oh and in case no agreement is reached here we can also open a new poll to count votes.

Will read all your arguments soon, so please keep discussing.

My two pennies:

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.

This will increase air power (actually patrol power, but that's about the same) in all non-air-opposed situations. Since air is MORE than powerful enough already, this would only be feasible if combat stats (particularly for tac bombers) would be nerfed, and I know some people that would oppose that on the beaches, in the fields, and in the villages.

It could also be abused as an air version of "shoot and scoot", doing a tick and then flying on to a more favorable position without losing total damage output.

It also means attacking against a sizable enemy force that is already patrolling would be nigh-on impossible (you move to attack them and take that horrible "first hit against", only to find that they just fly off elsewhere after that.

So no, A is very bad.

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.

That would solve the problem, but limit air flexibility enormously. You basically would have to "position the first time right" or pay a heavy penalty (lose 2x flying time plus refuel). Completely changes air dynamics in non-dogfight situations also. That doesn't necessarily mean its bad, but it is very hard to fathom consequences. This is also a nerf for air power.

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.

What is the OFFENSIVE difference between patrolling and direct attack then? It hardly seems necessary to keep both alive as a game mechanic, if they are so similar? Also, the current exploit is about stacks NOT having their tick; so this doesn't solve anything, you could still leave murderous defensive patrolling stacks around if you prevent them from ticking?

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

No. We have to find SOME kind of solution. All-day air battles requiring both players to be on every 15m, and in the end there's no damage to either sides, that's just BAD.

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.

This would make patrolling a defensive AND manoever order; all offense must be done by direct attack (which could FOLLOW manoever). Like B, it will completely alter air combat dynamics. Refuelling will be a much more common problem (AND opportunity as the enemy does it). Still I'd prefer it to B. As I said before, if patrol also covers friendly PLANES (not just ground/sea troops), this will make attacking more than one full stack impossible (current problem persists), so it shouldn't cover friendly PLANES, and direct air-to-air attack should also be rebalanced because currently results are disatrous for the attacker. But yeah, if that is done, this is absolutely my favorite.

@freezy, you missed another suggestion in this thread:

F) When breaking patrol (moving somewhere else), all enemies able to fire at it get an extra unopposed shot at the breaking group.

This will make air combat much more static and less flexible; you pay a penalty for using the air's key virtue, flexibility. Makes it harder to retreat from a losing battle, and makes planes vulnerable to being "jumped" (locking them in their own mandatory damage soak) with a superior force. Very hard to teach newbies at well; they won't understand this at all. Better than the current situation, but not much.


So my order or preference would be: E first, B second, F third, none of the others.

the one thing about D is that most players will not figure out the original exploit anyway, especially if we just quit talking about it. for veteran players that know about the exploit, at least it works for all players equally.

nerfing air power would definitely take the fun out of the game for a lot of players, and cut down on one of the only mechanics in the game that give it an "action" feel.

hah. so that was the plan all along. LOL. Just you wanting the game to play by your rules. I see. Pretty sneaky, sis.

OK, this is too much for me to read in the short amount of time I have. But I do kinda like option "C". But maybe the real solution is to stop making the patrols different from the attacks. First off, I was taught that all air combat only operates on 25% strength, not just patrols, so choosing an attack vs. patrol depended on how many strikes you could get in an hour of one type vs. the other. That being said, what if the patrol were treated differently entirely?

Alright. This is how I think it should be treated. All patrols are no-longer "tick" based. Instead, you send aircraft on patrol and it patrols its area. When an opponent target is discovered, your air unit attacks it...and only one target at a time. Both aircraft remain in field until either the invading unit passes through the patrol space or one of them is destroyed. Once the patrol no longer has that one target available, it must go back and refuel. Then it returns to the same patrol area.

If there is more than one target in the patrol area, then your patrolling unit goes after the nearest one first. Once it's destroyed, the unit goes back to refuel, returns and takes on the next-closest target. Once all targets have been eliminated, the plane returns from refuelling one more time and then waits in the air until new targets present themselves. This would be indefinite until the patrol is cancelled. Also, if you change your patrol to another area, so long as you are in the green pie-slice, you don't have to refuel to move to the new area. But, when you patrol, the attack always begins immediately, not after 15 minutes. That would eliminate the other exploit that started this whole thread.

I am going to agree with Roko that A would be quickly abused.

Option B would leave planes at the mercy of rockets all the time. If you have ever tried to use planes against an overcaffinated hyperaware egomaniac with a pile of rockets you will realize that refueling is dangerous. Not just from rockets, but lets say that I can guarantee that this patrolling stack of planes will attack a decoy target, return to base, and be refueling exactly when I want them to be. I can have my planes lined up to hit them at refueling. Forcing planes to be vulnerable will get much more abused than the current arrangement.

Option C while interesting as a wide area effect attack option is not a good solution to me. It keeps your planes from being on station in their defensive role. Lets say I have a group of units near the front line, and my enemy has a nuclear bomber. I want my planes on patrol to intercept and destroy that nuke bomber, rather than attack a decoy unit and return to base leaving my ground units without air cover. See also my comments above about decoys, refueling, and vulnerabilities.

D: I am not all that miffed about the current arrangement. Sure a couple of hyperaware players can drive themselves crazy postponing their tick, but I am not losing sleep over this. If that is the way it works, than that is the way it works.


So I think I am going to support E)



If this happened, would it then be possible to patrol in peaceful territory without declaring war? If so I really like this option.

Even if not: Patrol will be for defending and observing. Attack will be for doing damage. That makes it simple to explain to players both new and experienced. Planes on patrol should defend themselves and the ground troops in their zone from air attacks, and nothing should make them leave their post. As outlined above you don't want the air support to jump after a decoy, return to base, and let the next attack waltz right through the line. If you want planes to inflict damage you send them to attack, simple and straightforward.


I think that option E also counters the players whose only strategy is building 50 or 100 planes, without having any variety on the battlefield. Air power should be an element of strategy, not a complete strategy by itself. I believe that E accomplishes that.