A few thoughts

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

    • I made a mistake, not 5 destroyers, it was 5 cruisers what is even worse! They had some submarines under too. I can not recall the number of submarines. I did not check on calculator, I do not do that, I am speaking from my experience. Maybe i am just unlucky but it happened. Also, about 20 fighters that not happened it is my question, how many fighters you assume in real life is needed to crush 5 fighters, 5 bombers, 5 strategic bombers and 5 naval bombers? I will check calculations and put them here.
      About these stacks I mentioned, there were two of them. I played free for all event, got Spain, expanded to Italy and France, and till end of game I had only 3 oil provinces. on east i had to make alliance with germany who used a lot of gold. On south I was under attack from Gabon who was holding two thirds of Africa. First time after a while I was in position to defend a small piece of land. I decided to make stacks like I mentioned and to make as much damage as I can. i knew i lost,but i was holding there for weeks. Germany took Gabon out of game, and I was hit by Colorado who was holding whole America at that moment. First stack he attacked with two groups of planes and hit by several rockets. Stack was under fortifications level 2.... It melted and I did not see more of 5 to 6 planes crushed.
      Second stack was not under fortifications, it was at move and under patrol under two stack of planes. Melted too, very small damage to planes.
      I am not surprised by fact I was defeated, but I am by small damage they made.
      "Then, when you run out of ammunition and the enemy continues to advance - to the bayonet, when they break your knife - to your hands, when they break both of your hands - to your teeth, when you get the last tooth knocked out, as long as you move, as long you are there - attack! When they mortally wound you, see to it that you fall in their way, so they have to go around you, jump over you or move you - bother them even in death!" speech of lieutenant Tasic before battle of Cer 1914.

    • I have the feeling (by your description) that most of the damage was due to rockets, and not due to planes. Still, the interesting question is what you said: how many interceptors would you need to take out a 5/5/5/5 stack?

      Common logic would demand that 20 should be more than enough (at least, that would be the case in a real fight). You will be surprised by the game answer (it is what I suggested about the lack of a direct dogfight, to exploit the qualitative advantage).

    • VorlonFCW wrote:

      FIrst part of the strategy is to start the war on your own timetable, taking out planes first. Players that invest heavily in planes are lost when they lose some at the beginning of the war. Particularly if they ever leave their planes vulnerable, that is the time to strike.

      I don't think I have ever built more than a handful of strategic or naval bombers in the past two years. Instead of 2 groups of 5/5/5 I would prefer to have 3 groups of 5/5 Interceptors/Tacticlal bombers. interceptors are much better in a patrol fight than any others. If they have 30 planes then I assume that it will cost me 30 planes to kill them. Better economy and supply lines, plus a high command subscription to keep the plane factories humming along is one key to victory here.

      A second key is to make sure that I get interceptor research started on the next level within minutes of the day change where it is possible. If I can schedule a battle for the few hours where my planes might be a higher level than the other player then I have an advantage.

      Another key for me is to try and determine with my spies what the enemy is building for planes, and produce my airforce accordingly. If someone builds a lot of planes, and you can tell this by how many airbases they build in their industrial cities, they I plan for even more planes.

      Additionally I try and plan for a distraction. An invasion from an odd direction, or even a breakthrough in several places with ground units will force them to divert their attention. They should take some of their tactical bombers to deal with my invasion, leaving my planes to have free reign of their front lines. This also can make them refuel their planes to relocate, which might be within range of a well timed rocket. If we have equal numbers of planes or nearly equal, then they will be vulnerable if they split them to chase me down.



      With all of your situations I keep it simple. I keep my several stacks of 5/5 (or maybe 5/6 or 6/5 if I have extras) in one single patrol circle, and let them do their thing. It is like a game of chicken, and I don't flinch. I fully expect to lose planes in each of those situations, and I figure that I build the planes to do their job. When the war is over and I still have my undamaged planes I figure I did something wrong. I go and get them scratched up, beat up, and killed. That serves my purpose. Sure when I get down so that the groups are 3/3 instead of 5/5 I will recall them and form new groups of 5/5. I also know that I will need more planes when the battle is over, and I plan ahead for building more.
      Most of these points are absolutely good general advises, that can be put in good use in all forms of combat (outmaneuver in technology, intel about enemy army, distraction are all part of the necessary war strategy). As for strat (or naval bombers), I only say that especially strat can do miracles in bolstering an air stack, as they both increase the AA defense and the ground attack, with the only disadvantage to decrease the speed (which is tough if at all possible to exploit).

      The only thing that doesn't work is splitting your planes stacks when facing an overstacking opponent. It doesn't matter whether I add strat or not (I take them out for the moment, to show my point). If the opponent has one stack of 10 interceptors and 10 tacs, patrolling (without completing the cycle), then one thing that certainly fails is to patrol with two stacks of 5/5 - your planes will get slaughtered. You can even try with two stacks of 6/5 - the result is the same. The inefficiencies of SBDE are the reason behind this.

    • I'd like to make some assorted remarks on various issued raised in this thread.


      As already stated in a different thread, I don't agree that overstacking planes is the way to go. This may be true in a laboratory environment (your planes patrolling the enemy at their leisure, taking all the time they need to kill them), it is a failure in a fluid battle situation. Enemy air may show up as well, the stack may move itself out of reach of your planes, your airfield may be threatened, different enemy stacks may require air attention as well, and more. 5-5 stacks are more effective in damage-per-timeunit, which is the defining stat, not damage-versus-losses.



      AA is absolutely a unit which makes a stack unappetizing to air attack, but as already stated, you need some armored units as well in a majority-infantry stack. If you only use soft targets, your stack withers quickly; adding some vital armor makes it MUCH more durable, giving your AA more time to inflict losses on enemy air.


      The battle calculator (dxcalc.com/cow) should be used with caution. It is fan-made, and the programmer who built it left the game over a year ago; hence the battle stats for units reflects the situation back then, neglecting various changes made since then.


      Land units indeed have a decreasing relevance as the game progresses; yet they retain their only and most defining role: actually conquering terrain. No matter how much air and rockets you deploy, they can only destroy stuff; but without land units, they will be limited to the range of air bases you already control. Land units maintain their conquering role throughout the game, and since victory is tied to controlling land, they will always remain necessary.


      Air-to-air is the single most misunderstood element of the game, and the mechanics update hasn't done much to clear it up. In particular, the difference between defending planes when PATROLLING and when MOVING is little known. I will write a synopsis shortly when I have the time.


      I completely agree with infantry being broken. As suggested in a different thread, players should be encouraged to convert all excess manpower into infantry, as it was done historically, resulting in infantry being the predominating unit (at least numerically) an ALL battlefields. This could be achieved by reducing the food requirements and build times. No word of Bytro yet on this suggestion. As it is, building infantry after day 1 is very rare.


      Upgrading regular infantry to "motorized" in some way is an interesting suggestion! It should require oil though, and thus be optional. (As a side note, most of the German infantry remained unmotorized for the entire war, mainly due to the structural oil shortages in Germany and controlled territory).
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • I am absolutely with you - overstacking should be at least severely discouraged in a strategy game - and I am somewhat disappointed the game mechanisms fail to do it properly when it comes to planes (they are much better for other types of units). I hope the promised post will shed some light in the defensive mechanisms, which might bring one idea or two.

      I would also want to see more of land battles, even later in the game. Unfortunately, the way things are now I don't see it coming.

      I said from the start that I would not go as far as proposing anything that looks to me as "tough to implement", but I am missing the upgrade mechanism of an old strategy game of two decades ago: infantry-type units could upgrade their transport mechanism (trucks or even armored vehicles), at a reasonable cost. The other unit types would have an even tougher way to upgrade - not only to research the appropriate technology, but also to completely replace the equipment (costly and much more realistic than the auto-upgrade, as it isn't obvious how suddenly without a serious cost in metal all your tanks or ships are upgraded). But perhaps this will be a different topic.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Land units indeed have a decreasing relevance as the game progresses; yet they retain their only and most defining role: actually conquering terrain. No matter how much air and rockets you deploy, they can only destroy stuff; but without land units, they will be limited to the range of air bases you already control. Land units maintain their conquering role throughout the game, and since victory is tied to controlling land, they will always remain necessary.
      Yup, you need some Scout cars 3-5 to take empty land after you finish with your rockets and planes :) I assume scout cars are the best because of their speed. After planes reach level 4 I think building something that is not a plane is just a waste of time and resources :)
      "Then, when you run out of ammunition and the enemy continues to advance - to the bayonet, when they break your knife - to your hands, when they break both of your hands - to your teeth, when you get the last tooth knocked out, as long as you move, as long you are there - attack! When they mortally wound you, see to it that you fall in their way, so they have to go around you, jump over you or move you - bother them even in death!" speech of lieutenant Tasic before battle of Cer 1914.

    • atreas1 wrote:

      I have the feeling (by your description) that most of the damage was due to rockets, and not due to planes. Still, the interesting question is what you said: how many interceptors would you need to take out a 5/5/5/5 stack?

      Common logic would demand that 20 should be more than enough (at least, that would be the case in a real fight). You will be surprised by the game answer (it is what I suggested about the lack of a direct dogfight, to exploit the qualitative advantage).
      I assume that in real life 10 to 15 fighters should take down the stack we mentioned. In a game if you go with 20 fighters in one stack you will loose for sure. I am not sure what would happen if you go with 4 stacks with 5 interceptors each. I assume they would win but with heavy looses. I do not use calculator, I just assume. No time to check it so if someone can I would appreciate help.
      "Then, when you run out of ammunition and the enemy continues to advance - to the bayonet, when they break your knife - to your hands, when they break both of your hands - to your teeth, when you get the last tooth knocked out, as long as you move, as long you are there - attack! When they mortally wound you, see to it that you fall in their way, so they have to go around you, jump over you or move you - bother them even in death!" speech of lieutenant Tasic before battle of Cer 1914.

    • This particular case doesnt even need a calculator: it is a complete massacre for the interceptors, unless you can have a significant numeric superiority (and also probably forget everything about SBDE). Since the opponent has an sbde-perfect stack, think what will happen in a few rounds of attack with 4 stacks of 5 interceptors (assuming all planes are Level3, not that it matters much):

      Round 1
      Stack receives 35 HP damage
      Interceptors receive 79.5 damage

      Stack receives 35 HP damage
      Interceptors receive 75.9 damage

      Stack receives 35 HP damage
      Interceptors receive 72.3 damage

      Stack receives 35 HP damage
      Interceptors receive 63.5 damage

      Total for the first round (in HP): stack lost 140, interceptors lost 291.2.

      In other words, the stack (who had more HP initially) suffered half the damage. It doesnt take a magician to guess what will happen at the end.

      Yes, these are deterministic figures, but in such a case you simply cannot hope.

    • So 20 interceptors can not defeat stack of 5/5/5/5, divided or not.... No sense to me.
      "Then, when you run out of ammunition and the enemy continues to advance - to the bayonet, when they break your knife - to your hands, when they break both of your hands - to your teeth, when you get the last tooth knocked out, as long as you move, as long you are there - attack! When they mortally wound you, see to it that you fall in their way, so they have to go around you, jump over you or move you - bother them even in death!" speech of lieutenant Tasic before battle of Cer 1914.

    • That's when SBDE comes into play... 20 fighters in one stack are very inefficient. 4 stacks of 5 fighters each (or 3x7 to take losses into account) will MASSACRE the mixed stack.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      That's when SBDE comes into play... 20 fighters in one stack are very inefficient. 4 stacks of 5 fighters each (or 3x7 to take losses into account) will MASSACRE the mixed stack.
      Here we can agree to disagree. I gave the numbers for the first round of 4 stacks of 5 interceptors (yes it is estimations based on strength, and they even allow them that they dont get double hit by the patrolling stack). I can also give the numbers for 3x7 (no difference really).