Increase of NB Range

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

    • Increase of NB Range

      Should Naval Bombers Have a Longer Range Similar to..... 11
      1.  
        Somewhere Between TB and SB (4) 36%
      2.  
        Strategic Bombers (3) 27%
      3.  
        Tactical Bombers (2) 18%
      4.  
        Somewhere Between int and TB (2) 18%
      5.  
        Interceptors (0) 0%
      So in WWII, long ranged planes were favoured for naval fighters and bombers due to the vast distances that are involved in naval warfare. This is reflected in the game by giving NB the shortest range of all aircraft, shorter than even the rocket fighter until level 3. I think this is ridiculous as the horribly short ranges make NB almost useless due to their inflexibility stemming from such a short range while still needing a level 2 airbase to build.

      Before this thread descends into chaos, I will state the naval bomber is a good unit I just think that it needs a longer range to be used more effectively, or nearly to be used at all.

      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • In my opinion, the range of NBs is fine as it is.

      I see it primarily from the sight were the system related to the submarines.


      You whrote:
      ".. the horribly short ranges make NB almost useless .."
      ".. in WWII, long ranged planes were favoured for naval fighters and bombers .."
      I mean, the ranges in CoW are perhaps not really realistic, right, but they are necessary in my eyes ..

      .. because in WW2 it was also so that not every submarine was located, and that submarines were able to flee / dive into each degree angle of the compass rose or have gone to different depths ..

      .. but here at CoW, a submarine is always discovered by the NB, and once located, it can not escape either in depth or in more than 2 fixed directions. At intersections in 4 (or, in rare cases, up to 6) given directions.
      Once a submarine is been located, here at CoW, it had and has no chance of escaping (if the opponent is not completely overslept ).
      In addition, and completely against their actual combat manner, submarines have to attack always while surfaced and then stay fixed and appeared for the entire duration of the battle visible and vulnerable to everyone.


      Initially, this necessary shortcoming (necessary because it's not a simulation and it is unplayable as a browsergame, if there are invisible / not combatable units) of the submarines was compensated by the fact that they had have in direct comparison to the NBs a combat relation at the same level of about 90 - 100.
      So a NB had to call a destroyer for help (or had to reinforce with other planes), if he not wanted to risk own heavy damage in the fight against a submarine.

      A very fine strategic element of the game by the way - but yet only old memory ..


      .. because of, as a result of the endless lamentations from players who are not able to understand and handle the system, bytro already changed the direct balance of power between Subs and NBs and now NBs can attack even higher-level submarines almost without own risk.
      Maybe wonderfully realistic as far as the combat values are concerned - but the combat system or the fight against submarines (which are still presented in a completely unrealistic way) has been reduced from strategic challenge to a simple wood-duck-shooting.

      And previously there was already the introduction of aircraft carriers, by which the wood ducks the submarines were no longer safe even on the high seas.


      Already, (as a combat unit) the submarines at CoW are in principle much more some lame and vulnerable gunboats then silent hunters.

      That's why I see no need to make the NBs even more superior now, while also even with my own NBs I have never had problems with their range.


      PS:
      I also still believe that the enormous increase in range of the Strat-Bombers was wrong.
      Maybe reasonably realistic, but wrong for the balance of this game.
      Strat-Bombers are wonderful op now - if you deceive and distract your opponent or knows when he is inattentive, you can do colossal much damage far into his back areas and even unit stacks with not too high air defense are no problem.


      But however and as always all that is just my own irrelevant point of view.
      And because there is no button for "Leave it as it is", I can't participate here anyway ..

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
      ..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
      .... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D
    • Restrisiko wrote:

      I see it primarily from the sight were the system related to the submarines.
      At the end of reading your post, I thought to myself this: it is all well and good that NB now defeat subs with ease, but this was not my issue. My issue is that, no matter how powerful they are I can't get them into position with ease.

      Also, please remember this quote. I foresaw this happening.

      Quasi-duck wrote:

      Before this thread descends into chaos, I will state the naval bomber is a good unit I just think that it needs a longer range to be used more effectively, or nearly to be used at all.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • WayneBo wrote:

      Perhaps a better solution (and more realistic):
      Split the functions:
      Naval bombers would have the short range, but could attack warships and subs.
      Naval Patrol Planes have long range, but no weapons, other that a little air defense.
      I went on a rant about this several times in the past. The problem with the current in-game naval bomber unit is that it is a flawed combination of two very different types of naval aircraft. The proper split would be:

      1. short-range "naval attack planes," corresponding to aircraft carrier-based single-engine dive bombers and torpedo bombers, with about about the same range as our fighters (or the current naval bomber unit) and somewhat lesser speed than fighters but greater speed than the current naval bomber. These naval attack aircraft would have the offensive strength of the current naval bomber against surface naval units (CV, BB, CC, DD), but would be significantly less effective against submarine units.

      2. long-range "naval patrol bombers," corresponding to multi-engine patrol planes such as the PBY Catalina, Sunderland, navalized B-24 Liberator and Focke-Wulf Condor -- these are the planes that were effective sub-hunters because they had the range, the loitering time, and the ability to carry multiple torpedoes and depth charges. They were also great for reconnoitering surface ships, but not so great at attacking them because of their relatively slow speed. These naval patrol bomber units would have the slower speed of the current naval bomber unit as well as its offensive strength points against submarines, but would be far less effective against surface naval units.

      That would be the "realistic solution." That said, the game already has too damn many unit types to work into most of the small-map games because of their typical 30 to 35-day time horizon. Most players don't make effective use of the current naval bomber unit, and I fear that splitting its functionality in two will likely make it even less used.
    • Quasi-duck wrote:

      ...

      Also, please remember this quote. I foresaw this happening.

      Quasi-duck wrote:

      Before this thread descends into chaos, I will state the naval bomber is a good unit I just think that it needs a longer range to be used more effectively, or nearly to be used at all.


      Well, I read that and because I read that, I wrote what I wrote by which I've tried to explain detailed why I think that NBs are effectively enough and therefore should not have more range at their current strength and that I have no problems whith their current range .. :thumbsup:
      Nota bene, what I mean is if NBs were to get a higher range, then should must be made beforehand or at the same time some changes in favor of the submarines. ;)



      On the other hand I like this idea of WayneBo ..

      WayneBo wrote:

      Perhaps a better solution (and more realistic):
      Split the functions:
      Naval bombers would have the short range, but could attack warships and subs.
      Naval Patrol Planes have long range, but no weapons, other that a little air defense.
      .. however not as a split function, but as two independent units that must be separately researched. (Yeah, I already hear it..; will be too complicated for some players then again to have to decide on a strategy, instead of simply smash down everything with a few Universal-Chuck-Norris-Units )
      A similar suggestion (of unarmed long-range reconnaissance planes as a separate unit) has been in the German forum nearly 3 years ago, and as I did back then I would support a similar proposal now as well.

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
      ..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
      .... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D
    • Restrisiko wrote:

      .. however not as a split function, but as two independent units that must be separately researched. (Yeah, I already hear it..; will be too complicated for some players then again to have to decide on a strategy, instead of simply smash down everything with a few Universal-Chuck-Norris-Units )
      A larger naval air arm sounds good to me, especially if we go with what Montana said.

      MontanaBB wrote:

      1. short-range "naval attack planes," corresponding to aircraft carrier-based single-engine dive bombers and torpedo bombers, with about about the same range as our fighters (or the current naval bomber unit) and somewhat lesser speed than fighters but greater speed than the current naval bomber. These naval attack aircraft would have the offensive strength of the current naval bomber against surface naval units (CV, BB, CC, DD), but would be significantly less effective against submarine units.
      I would very much support this, along with the other unit. My only suggestion is that these naval attackers should do decent damage to ground units, not as much as a TB but more than the int and NB currently do. If you can put enough bombs on something to sink a ship, you can use it to give ground units a very bad day with high explosives too.

      EDIT: Though I feel this would need a third research slot, due to research already being very limited.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:



    • Thank you Lawrence. As a good example of this, the other day I had an ally playing UK build me a NB for my Far East theatre while playing as the USSR. I have enough airbases so a lvl 3 TB can fly from Moscow to Vladivostock. The NB is bound for Uelen, my easternmost province, and total travel time was 4 days and 12 hours. Right now it is in Ulan Ude and will take 2 days and 21 hours more.
      :00000441: Forum Gang Commissar :00000441:

      Black Lives Matter!!!!! All Lives Matter!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: