A few thoughts

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

    • A few thoughts

      Hi all

      It is about a year that I enjoy my newest toy game (in a very long series of similar strategic toys, spanning to many decades) and I thought of dropping here a few thoughts about the things I find simplistic or simply needing some adjustment. I will try to restrict myself to things that can easily be implemented, without changes in the game mechanism.

      1. Infantry devaluation.

      This is for me the most disturbing part of the game. The extreme increase in the attacking values of planes (esp. tac bombers), combined with the constant value of both hitpoints and AA defense of most infantry type units make the game completely "one-sided" after around Day 13 of the game. The plan "build planes and stack them" is far too dominant, and perhaps the most efficient.
      I am not going to enter into historic debates on that, since it is a game and not a simulation (if I wanted, I would start by asking to increase the AT value of AA guns, having in mind the German 88 AA/AT), but I feel there probably are easy ways to change that:
      a) Increase the AA value of infantry by 0.5 per upgrade level. I would prefer that to a decrease to the attack of bombers, as that would still make the bombers killers of any AT/arty they find unprotected.
      b) A change in the way SBDE works on stacks (will come back to that later)
      c) Gradual increase in the speed of infantry (after all, in the 30s they were marching on foot while in the 50s that was a long forgotten history). This speed increase should be even bigger for AT/AA/arty, as they were the main ones who benefited from the escorting trucks. On the other hand, their speed should continue to be very slow when crossing mountains.

      NOTE: of course I know there are motorized/mechanized infantry in the game. And my firm personal belief is that they are perhaps the less useful units, due to (mainly) the extreme requirements on food/manpower/barracks. In fact, there is no such thing as a separate type of unit like that, but simply the old units were equipped with transportation. But, to return to game mechanisms only, since I dont want to expand in proposals about internal things, like food management, and how they (for example) make Barracks Lvl3 a killer of the economy, I will simply say that it is unfair to require to build a new infantry unit (to make motorized) while simultaneously you "accept" that a 1930 LT or bomber can be simply upgraded to a 1950 one.

      2, Planes

      Unfortunately, there is a unified mechanism for handling all plane types, which prevents serious adjustments (it would be great to have different attack value of AA versus tac bombers, but unfortunately we cannot easily have it). Acknowledging this, the only thing that might be changed easily, apart from the attack/defense values, is the way planes are used, in order to significantly devalue their dominance. They will still remain powerful, but will no longer be cruising at the later stages of the game. That is why i put this suggestion on a different section about SBDE.

      3. SBDE - Stacking

      For me, this is the main area where the game needs changes, and a successful change here will cure many of the other evils. The real problem is that currently overstacking in effect increases the damage control, with no practical limit. Instead of proposing a completely different mechanism, which might be tough to implement (I have made a hint in a different post), I suggest something very simple which can be implemented almost immediately:

      change the SBDE values of units so as to drop very fast, and reach zero when you put more than 2*sbde units in the stack. For example, since the sbde for tac bombers is 5, if you add more that 10 tac in a stack then the 11th, 12th etc. tac doesnt add ANY attack or defense, and only increases the hitpoints of the stack. This is already happening in the game, but with a much higher value. Then the bigger stacks will lose much of their effectiveness, for all types of units - after all, if you claim that sbde represents a limit point after which units dont have a clear line of fire to fight, it is difficult to imagine that you can put twice as many units there in any useful way.

      Wish you all happy gaming!

    • I agree, latter game is all about planes and rockets. AA guns are going from 5 to 12 against planes, but bombers are gong from 3 to 13 against infantry. I feel something is not right there. Planes advance is more than 400% and AA guns are only 240%. You need about 4 time more aa guns then opponent have planes to defend from ground. It is hard almost impossible to defend against planes from ground. If you have enough troops, you will be hit by rockets. Rockets are the most powerful unit, if level 3 or 4. If you have enough rare you have to use them.
      "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.

    • patriota75 wrote:

      You need about 4 time more aa guns then opponent have planes to defend from ground.
      Anti-air are not supposed to be used to defend some infantry, they're used to defend large stacks. I use them when I have a big tank column I want to protect. Secondly, remember AA are way cheaper and faster to make than planes. If you want some actual air defense, use interceptors. AA are meant to be the weaker, cheaper air defense solution, not the go-to. Thirdly, the proper way to defend infantry from planes is with interceptors. AA are super slow, and putting them with infantry negates the infantry's movement speed. Lastly, if planes were indeed nerfed, infantry would not get any better, because by late-game everyone uses tanks, which counter infantry.
      "That's impossible! The Americans only know how to make razor blades."
      "We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
      Hermann Goring and Erwin Rommel

    • iDragons wrote:

      patriota75 wrote:

      You need about 4 time more aa guns then opponent have planes to defend from ground.
      Anti-air are not supposed to be used to defend some infantry, they're used to defend large stacks. I use them when I have a big tank column I want to protect. Secondly, remember AA are way cheaper and faster to make than planes. If you want some actual air defense, use interceptors. AA are meant to be the weaker, cheaper air defense solution, not the go-to. Thirdly, the proper way to defend infantry from planes is with interceptors. AA are super slow, and putting them with infantry negates the infantry's movement speed. Lastly, if planes were indeed nerfed, infantry would not get any better, because by late-game everyone uses tanks, which counter infantry.
      I have far too many objections here:

      1. If planes were really able to eliminate ground troops in all terrains, then (as an easy example) USA would have never seen a situation like Vietnam, and Soviets wouldnt have seen Afganistan. In the game we dont have a very significant infantry mechanism, namely entrenching, which explains exactly why even the thought that planes can completely destroy the enemy land army is flawed in its root. The fact that the game allows it is equally flawed.

      2. AA are cheaper but, being slower, they become unusable due to the one-time insignificant speed increase. Also, while at the start of the game an AA game would have FOUR shots on a tac bomber (tac starts with an attack of 3), later AA will have only ONE shot before it is destroyed. That is both ridiculous historically and nonsense as a game play. AA was advancing together with the planes, with the result being to be almost equally efficient against them in later decades.

      3. Due to the current sbde mechanism, there is no remedy to any of these. Yes, the only logical defense is to use interceptors, and yes the best way to go is to completely forget all about sbde in order to have MUCH better damage control.

      4. If "everybody" goes for tanks/planes in the late game, that alone is an admission of failure in the gameplay.

    • One more thing:

      I said from the start that I am focusing on changes that can be easily implemented without affecting the root of game mechanisms. This case here (which can be grouped in a larger category) has as a "root of all evils" the fact that in "range" battles the terrain modifiers are, in my opinion, wrong. I cannot understand why artillery firing from plains towards mountains is ok, but arty firing from mountains towards plains has a -25% modifier (in any artillery school they would tell you to be in the mountains, not in the plains). Similarly, I cannot understand why AA in the mountains has a disadvantage against planes - common logic would say they opposite. Also infantry, arty, AT in the mountains would have plenty of opportunities to hide (they are much more difficult targets for planes).

      In game terms, it would be desirable that planes have a negative effect when attacking on mountains, and perhaps a slightly smaller negative effect on hills - but since there seems to be no way, under the current mechanisms, to apply such a specific modifier I dont even dare proposing it.

    • So we can agree that is very hard to protect your land force from planes with AA guns. OK<how many interceptors do you need to defeat one stack of 5 interceptors, 5 tac bombers, 5 strategic bombers and 5 naval bombers?
      Also the stack I mentioned will destroy stack of 8 infantry, 8 militia, 8aa guns 8 arty and 3 railroad gun with maybe 5-6 planes losted. SO is it real?
      As more as i play this game I see there is no need to research nay troops but planes :)
      Advance of planes whit every level up is way more than advance of any other unit. I can not find a reason for that.
      "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.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by patriota75 ().

    • atreas1 wrote:

      1. If planes were really able to eliminate ground troops in all terrains, then (as an easy example) USA would have never seen a situation like Vietnam, and Soviets wouldnt have seen Afganistan. In the game we dont have a very significant infantry mechanism, namely entrenching, which explains exactly why even the thought that planes can completely destroy the enemy land army is flawed in its root. The fact that the game allows it is equally flawed.

      2. AA are cheaper but, being slower, they become unusable due to the one-time insignificant speed increase. Also, while at the start of the game an AA game would have FOUR shots on a tac bomber (tac starts with an attack of 3), later AA will have only ONE shot before it is destroyed. That is both ridiculous historically and nonsense as a game play. AA was advancing together with the planes, with the result being to be almost equally efficient against them in later decades.

      3. Due to the current sbde mechanism, there is no remedy to any of these. Yes, the only logical defense is to use interceptors, and yes the best way to go is to completely forget all about sbde in order to have MUCH better damage control.

      4. If "everybody" goes for tanks/planes in the late game, that alone is an admission of failure in the gameplay.
      Your points are all valid. I didn't make this very clear(okay, I didn't mention it at all here, I did in a separate thread), but I just don't want to see planes nerfed. I'm fine with AA being buffed, I just don't want to see planes brought down. However, to say that the game is flawed because people just go for tanks and planes in late game is a little extreme. There are many factors contributing to the uselessness of infantry in late-game, not just being easily countered. They cost food, which is more precious than oil in late game, they consume a lot of food, they need to be build in barracks which cost food and need food to be maintained- there are many reasons as to why the majority of players do not use infantry in late game. Players who can keep their food at manageable levels use infantry all the time, but players who cannot use more affordable tactics, such as tanks. Tanks cost lots of oil, yes, but oil is easier to gain as your oil production does not drop when you gain more provinces. Food consumption increases sharply as your nation inevitably grows.


      patriota75 wrote:

      So we can agree that is very hard to protect your land force from planes with AA guns. OK<how many interceptors do you need to defeat one stack of 5 interceptors, 5 tac bombers, 5 strategic bombers and 5 naval bombers?
      Also the stack I mentioned will destroy stack of 8 infantry, 8 militia, 8aa guns 8 arty and 3 railroad gun with maybe 5-6 planes losted. SO is it real?
      As more as i play this game I see there is no need to research nay troops but planes
      Advance of planes whit every level up is way more than advance of any other unit. I can not find a reason for that
      It is not at all difficult to defend your ground units with high-level AA, if you know how to use them. As I said, I use my anti-air to protect my tanks, not 8 of each infantry unit. I would also like to know, have you tested this claim of yours? That 5 of each plane can kill 8 infantry, 8 militia, and so on? At what level are each of these units? I find this claim to be rather dubious. I have killed 15 planes, divided into 3 separate stacks, at level 6 with 3 light tanks,, 4 tank destroyers and 6 anti air, at levels 4, 6 and 5 respectively. My level 6 planes(stack of 5 and 3) have also been defeated 4 AA, 2 SPAA, 2 railroadguns and 3 light tanks, at levels 4, 3, 1 and 4 respectively.
      "That's impossible! The Americans only know how to make razor blades."
      "We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
      Hermann Goring and Erwin Rommel

    • I am not proposing to nerf down the planes, as I clearly said, especially as a counter to tanks. I am only pointing out the gameplay failures, wherever I see that they can be easily "solved" without causing extra problems in other domains. I also refrain myself from proposals that might be tough to implement, due to them being against mechanisms of the game.

      In the threat about SBDE I explained in detail why the increased damage control offered by overstacking (especially planes) kill easily and with extremely few losses ground stacks. That is why here I suggested solving this problem (as a side note, the inclusion of infantry offers an added AA value, to a much higher extend than tanks, that is why it is usually used as example). I have a much bigger problem with the fact that instead of 3 stacks of 5/5/5 planes you have better results (in damages, which is the critical factor) by using 1 stack of 15/15/15, than with anything else.

    • iDragons wrote:

      It is not at all difficult to defend your ground units with high-level AA, if you know how to use them.
      Obviously I do not know how to use them.
      Like I sad, I had stack 8 infantry, 8 militia, 14 AA guns level 5, 3 railroad guns and I do not remember if I had something more. It was killed by two stacks of planes level 4 or 5 a, in stack I mentioned. OK, they are dead but damage they made was not more than 5 or 6 planes.
      Second stack was in advance, 3 light tanks,10 SPg arty and 10 spg aa guns level 2 or 3 killed by single stack making damage of 3 maybe 4 planes.
      5 destroyers killed by same stack making one plane down. Destroyers were level 5. So you can not do many damage to planes if they are stacked like this.
      I have to say that stack of 5 fighters, 5 bombers, 5 strategic bombers, 5 naval bombers should be vulnerable to let say 20 fighters, but I think they would lost about 10 planes and fighters would be gone. THAT MAKES NO SENSE !!!!
      Also many new players will attack planes on ground. It is logical that when they are on the ground they will not defend and they are easy pray. But here planes on ground are still like in air so they do defend but no refuel. Why they refuel only after attack and then they become vulnerable. So direct hit is bad option, especially because someone could counter with tac. bombers or rockets. And direct hit was the option in WWII , so that is about realism of this game.
      Planes on ground should not defend.
      Bombers should have less values against other planes.
      One more thing, in real life when AA makes more damage, when there is more or less planes in air?
      COW strategy when planes reach level 4 : make stacks like this and you will win for sure if someone else do not make more stacks than you :)
      "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 believe you dont recall correctly the details of this battle (a stack of 5/5/5/5 even with all planes at Lvl5 would be expected to lose to the first ground stack you mention), but this example shows extremely clearly the point I want to make (best to use the Battle Calculator to see this for yourself):

      Suppose the opponent has 15/15/15/15 planes. The WORSE he can do is to send three stacks of 5/5/5/5. The best he can do is to send one stack of 15/15/15/15. This is exactly what I call "laughing at the notion of sbde".

    • First ground stack was under attack of two stacks of planes, not one. Also I forgot to mention is rockets, if there is a big stack with aa you can hit it by rockets, they will be damaged even if they move, and if they are in fortress the rocket level 4 ignores fortification! So who ever makes any ground unit after planes reach level 4 makes a huge mistake. Only planes and rockets are valuable then.
      "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 think you guys are working under the mistaken assumption that ground units should be able to adequately defend themselves against air units during the ww2 era.

      This is a VERY wrong impression and I urge you to reconsider as realistically this makes no sense. In the pre SAM (surface to air missiles) era anything on the ground is pretty much toast. I am not suggesting that air power can by itself annhilate anything on the ground but it sure as hell can supress it to the point of rendering combat innefective without having to kill it.

      So if you are thinking that you should be able to repel bombers only with ground units you are sadly mistaken you must always provide adequate air cover for your ground units otherwise they will get shredded.

      What I do agree with from the original post is that rockets are way OP and need to be nurfed. Rockets back then where inaquarate to say the least and caused damage to infrastructure. There is no known case were a rocket decimated a battalion sized unit. Nuclear rockets sure by all means do damage to units but anything else should only be doing infrastructure damage ONLY!

    • Well, I don't exactly recall any case where nuclear rockets were used for combat purposes, so I have no real idea how strong they are against troops. In fact I even think they have exactly no position in a war game, but that is another issue. I surely don't care either for normal rockets as well, as I didn't even mention them. Let's only say that the idea that Lvl4 rockets can ignore fortification is "weird", given the timeframe it is supposed to correspond to.

      On the other hand, I do remember that air superiority failed to bring victory in wars both in the 50's, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Somehow it seems that the troops were able to hide in the jungle or in the mountains and it all came to nothing. CoW doesn't have anything resembling this (forts can only built in specific spots).

      I fully understand that players hate it when their "pet weapon" is way overpowered in the game, than it was in reality. The tactical bombers of this game are supposed to be "dive bombers", in order to get any kind of accuracy. Dive bombers were notorious for been easily killed by any interceptor, and also by any AA battery, exactly due to the fact they were "diving". No need of SAM for killing these.

      But I happen not to care about historical accuracy. It is not this that makes planes OP - it is the pure fact that overstacking them gives them a much bigger advantage than it gives to other units.

    • patriota75 wrote:

      5 destroyers killed by same stack making one plane down. Destroyers were level 5. So you can not do many damage to planes if they are stacked like this.

      I have to say that stack of 5 fighters, 5 bombers, 5 strategic bombers, 5 naval bombers should be vulnerable to let say 20 fighters, but I think they would lost about 10 planes and fighters would be gone. THAT MAKES NO SENSE !!!!
      I just tested these statements and some of them are completely FALSE. Five destroyers, level five, versus 5/5/5/5 planes, at level 5, equals to all the planes dying and three destroyers dead with the fourth one being at half health. 5/5/5/5 of each plane(we'll call this stack A) versus a properly made stack of 5/5/5/5 interceptors(stack B) results in eight dead interceptors from stack B and all of stack A dying. I implore you, do not make claims that you have not tested.

      patriota75 wrote:

      Obviously I do not know how to use them.
      Yes, I agree. I have said twice now: AA ARE BEST USED TO PROTECT TANKS.

      patriota75 wrote:

      Also the stack I mentioned will destroy stack of 8 infantry, 8 militia, 8aa guns 8 arty and 3 railroad gun with maybe 5-6 planes losted. SO is it real?

      patriota75 wrote:

      Like I sad, I had stack 8 infantry, 8 militia, 14 AA guns level 5, 3 railroad guns and I do not remember if I had something more. It was killed by two stacks of planes level 4 or 5 a, in stack I mentioned. OK, they are dead but damage they made was not more than 5 or 6 planes.
      These two statements directly oppose each other. In the first statement, you said 5/5/5/5 will kill a stack with 8 AA guns and in the second you say it will kill a stack with 14 AA. Could you clarify?
      "That's impossible! The Americans only know how to make razor blades."
      "We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
      Hermann Goring and Erwin Rommel

    • I think he mentioned already that there were two enemy planes stacks, alongside some rockets. Three interesting points are:

      1. The statement that AA is best used to protect tanks. This is not indeed exactly so (it is better to be stacked with other infantry type units, plus tanks, because that will increase both the hitpoints AND the AA significantly), but mainly it is funny that essentially this stacking negates the tanks speed improvement.

      2. Since you did the tests with one stack of planes versus either the ships or the ground stack, you can perhaps try it again, one time with two stacks of 5/5/5/5 and then with one stack of 10/10/10/10. Notice the difference in losses (this is in fact how I started questioning SBDE).

      3. The other problem with the planes is that the opponent is NOT FORCED TO FIGHT. He will simply move around patroling, and there is no real way to use your "superior attacking force" of 20 interceptors to take out the opponent 5/5/5/5 stack. Your options will be confined to either attack them at the end of your patrol cycle or simply stay there in a stalemate situation. Here the problem is that attacking patroling planes with other planes is a big blunder, as they are damaged twice (as explained in detail in the forum), but I didnt want to refer to that fact because there is no simple (in my view) solution.

    • atreas1 wrote:

      1. The statement that AA is best used to protect tanks. This is not indeed exactly so (it is better to be stacked with other infantry type units, plus tanks, because that will increase both the hitpoints AND the AA significantly), but mainly it is funny that essentially this stacking negates the tanks speed improvement.
      There is a simple solution to this. SPAA!11!!1 Plus, if you're using a slow unit, like tank destroyers, having AA really doesn't slow the stack down very much.

      atreas1 wrote:

      2. Since you did the tests with one stack of planes versus either the ships or the ground stack, you can perhaps try it again, one time with two stacks of 5/5/5/5 and then with one stack of 10/10/10/10. Notice the difference in losses (this is in fact how I started questioning SBDE).
      The 10/10/10/10 will survive better because it has more collective health. That's basically all there is to it. Because the 10/10/10/10 has more health, it survives better. Splitting your planes into stacks of 5 is best used for airstrikes against ground units, because it maximizes damage. Putting your planes in one big stack is best for attacking enemy planes and defense, because there is more collective health. At least, I think this is how it works.

      atreas1 wrote:

      3. The other problem with the planes is that the opponent is NOT FORCED TO FIGHT. He will simply move around patroling, and there is no real way to use your "superior attacking force" of 20 interceptors to take out the opponent 5/5/5/5 stack. Your options will be confined to either attack them at the end of your patrol cycle or simply stay there in a stalemate situation. Here the problem is that attacking patroling planes with other planes is a big blunder, as they are damaged twice (as explained in detail in the forum), but I didnt want to refer to that fact because there is no simple (in my view) solution.
      They are supposed to be damaged twice. First group that finishes its patrol cycle will deal offensive damage to planes in the patrol zone, then take defensive damage from the planes. Same thing when the other plane completes its patrol cycle. I'm not quite clear as to what you're saying, though, maybe clarify it a bit more?
      "That's impossible! The Americans only know how to make razor blades."
      "We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
      Hermann Goring and Erwin Rommel

    • I believe you got two things wrong:

      - I told you to do the test of attacking the GROUND stack with a) 2 stacks of 5/5/5, or b) one stack of 10/10/10. The collective health is the same, but the result will probably surprise you (use the Battle Calculator on that).

      - No, it will not happen if the player "nudges" the patrol planes, in order to avoid doing an attack. This is especially important if you overstack. Of course, then the other one can do the same and end up in a kind of stalemate. There was an explanation for that in another article in the forum.

    • atreas1 wrote:

      I believe you got two things wrong:

      - I told you to do the test of attacking the GROUND stack with a) 2 stacks of 5/5/5, or b) one stack of 10/10/10. The collective health is the same, but the result will probably surprise you (use the Battle Calculator on that).

      - No, it will not happen if the player "nudges" the patrol planes, in order to avoid doing an attack. This is especially important if you overstack. Of course, then the other one can do the same and end up in a kind of stalemate. There was an explanation for that in another article in the forum.

      The advantage to mnudging your planes to a different patrol location instead of letting them attack has been largely negated by the balancing changes done since then.

      Of course if you have a simple numbers advantage then you might do a lot of damage by simply returning fire when they attack, like any other battle.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<

    • VorlonFCW wrote:

      The advantage to mnudging your planes to a different patrol location instead of letting them attack has been largely negated by the balancing changes done since then.

      Of course if you have a simple numbers advantage then you might do a lot of damage by simply returning fire when they attack, like any other battle.
      I am glad to hear that, and perhaps there is here something that I have not noticed - which can easily happen, since you need to encounter a strong player with comparable army to test a theory. I will thus give a few scenarios, where I see planes behaving differently (and with big advantage) compared to all other units. They are for me "open questions":

      1. Overstacking against land units. With planes, you have much better damage control by overstacking. With all the other units, it is better to go with SBDE numbers.

      2. Non-punishment of overstacking. Let's suppose that both armies have 10/10/10 planes. One of them makes a single stack, the other makes 2 sbde-perfect 5/5/5 stacks. I would like to know the exact method by which you can punish the overstacking, as you can do with all other unit types. (Of course, the 10/10/10 stack is patrolling and never completes the cycle). (Compare with two armies with 16 arty - the one who overstacks is easily punished)

      3. Simple number superiority. I have 12/10/10 planes and the opponent has 10/10/10 planes. He has split into two stacks that patrol covering each other (never completing the cycle), but I would like to exploit my numerical superiority. What is the method to do it? (Again compare with any land or naval army).

      4. Qualitative superiority. My opponent has 5/5/5 planes and I have "only" 15 interceptors. How can I force a decisive battle, which logic dictates that should be clearly won by me? (Lack of a profitable "direct attack mechanism")

      I repeat that I perhaps am missing something, which I would like to learn. If not, for me planes need to be balanced, as all these constitute serious advantages.

    • 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.
      War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



      VorlonFCW
      Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.

      >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<