army sizes

    • The damage OUTPUT will be the same, but the damage INPUT will be dramatically different. By forcing the planes to split into more stacks, they receive far more damage (since the AA value of the land units is used only when they are attacked.

      But this difference is more due to the restriction on the number of planes in each stack. Currently it is a classical optimization problem (to optimize output damage or to minimize received damage) - the proposed scheme just maximizes received damage and in return it gives back a few HP. It needs extensive testing and statistical data from the game in order to see if such a change is either desirable or effective.
    • atreas1 wrote:

      The damage OUTPUT will be the same, but the damage INPUT will be dramatically different. By forcing the planes to split into more stacks, they receive far more damage (since the AA value of the land units is used only when they are attacked.

      But this difference is more due to the restriction on the number of planes in each stack. Currently it is a classical optimization problem (to optimize output damage or to minimize received damage) - the proposed scheme just maximizes received damage and in return it gives back a few HP. It needs extensive testing and statistical data from the game in order to see if such a change is either desirable or effective.
      This helps as to what the point is, I was indeed focussing soley on damage output.

      It would need some very extensive testing indeed.
    • Thanks atreas1 for explaining my reasoning.

      And yes, the change would require balancing, of course.
      It's possible that reducing oil consumption of planes as in my proposal would be a bit too much - i.e. that the other plane-buffs I have in my proposal would already be enough to compensate for the nerf of reducing their SBDE limit.

      But now that Edepedable got the thought, I think all three of us agree with the principle, don't we?
    • In general, I would LOVE to have an upper bound on the number of planes of a single kind in a stack (for example, 5 tacs maximum) without any further change on HP.

      But, for such a change to be effective, IMHO it should also be accompanied with a restriction on overlapping patrolling stacks (or even a complete revamp of the unrealistic notion of endless patrol). I dont care so much that planes are lethal against land units, as to the fact that with the current system we dont even have any real dogfight.
    • atreas1 wrote:

      Let's stop hiding ourselves behind our fingers: since we are talking about a game, we should focus on whether there is an issue in gameplay. In a strategic game, there should be a counter to everything, otherwise there is one strategy that is winning: then all players do the same thing every time, there is no diversity, and the game becomes dull. That is the reason why (for me) nuclear weapons have exactly no place in the game, and also strategic rockets need serious rework.

      On planes now, there is one very important problem and people just turn a blind eye on it:

      in all other types of units you can exploit numerical superiority to attack. For example, if you have 7 LT and the opponent has 6 LT, you basically win. There is a direct attack method, a fight, and that's it.
      With planes this is NOT SO. Once you have your first two 5/5 stacks ready they cannot practically been attacked, unless the opponent obtains a HUGE numerical superiority (I will not explain again why this happens). This is wrong, flatly, because effectively planes continue to accumulate till the end, unless somebody decides to sacrifice them needlessly.

      I personally happen to believe that planes are just OP against newer players, but simply a tie against good players. But the issue is that there is (for me) a gameplay problem. That's all.
      Maybe put combat experience could change it ;). I want to see it in the game ...
    • I think that If the developers change the planes, in that way, making it less usefull than actually are, in the 20,30th or surrounding days the biggests maps of CoW will just paralyze, stop, until one of the both fighting armies accumulate enough, or simply some troops more than the enemy. Winning of course, but only making that the strategic will depends on the number and not in the tactics.

      With my own experience, I suffer the nerf of the planes, I didn't abuse using it. But of course are neccesary in every game to won. Usually, before change the stats I grouped 20 TP and 10/5 Fighters in the same group, maybe doing 7 ( Being the size of U.S and Canada).
      I didn't remember well how many oil consumed, but i perfectly remember that the patrols wasn't same effective than are these days. Maybe the trouble begin there.

      How powerful are the planes without taking land to refuel.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      But now that Edepedable got the thought, I think all three of us agree with the principle, don't we?
      If with 'the principle' you mean that planes need to be nerfed on top of changing the rockets and nuke rockets, I'm not sure.

      I agree with your first two points about nerfing rockets and nuke rockets. As far as nerfing airplanes goes, I have no way of knowing if thats a solution. Nor am I even that familiar with the airplane problem on high levels. I rarely play a game past day 40.

      The problem you propose is two fold. 1) planes are OP in late game. 2) players do not shape a front partly because of 1. Your proposal for 1 would need testing of it would work.

      As for point 2, I doubt that it would help.
      Lets asume that your aproach for stopping the OP ness of airplanes works. Then it is still better to keep your units in big groups in order do have a bigger damage output against the planes you are versing.

      Edepedable wrote:

      As for the problem of players not forming fronts. I think there is little that can be done about that. More units in 1 place means less units lost in total. Since they keep each other safe from both enemy airplanes and land units. It makes it so they do better damage on the defense and as a whole on the attack. Also they have lower chances of running into situations where they are outnumbered. Changing this aspect of the game would need a major overhaul of the game.

      Like divisions not being able of having more than (40?) total units in them or something? Needing commanders or what not to manage large divisions? If being in a province that does not connect to your core (lack of supply lines) give damage or hp penalties? As long as having a lot of units together in one place gives advantages instead of disadvantages players will keep doing it that way.
      What I say here would remain just as valid with your proposed changes to airplanes.

      atreas1 wrote:

      In general, I would LOVE to have an upper bound on the number of planes of a single kind in a stack (for example, 5 tacs maximum) without any further change on HP.

      But, for such a change to be effective, IMHO it should also be accompanied with a restriction on overlapping patrolling stacks (or even a complete revamp of the unrealistic notion of endless patrol). I dont care so much that planes are lethal against land units, as to the fact that with the current system we dont even have any real dogfight.
      I agree. It is not the plane unit that is the problem. It is a unique mechanic that is the problem. Perhaps bombers should no longer be able to patrol.
    • For the tenth time I did NOT propose to nerf or buff planes.

      Now my officially very last attempt to explain: My proposal was to lower the SBDE limit for planes and to give them other buffs in return (take those I listed in my first post in this thread, because each of them has an additional positive effect... maybe omit the reduction of oil consumption if that would be too much). So players would keep building the same amount of planes, but use them in smaller groups. Which would allow ground units to walk around in smaller groups.
      And you would definitely make use of that new liberty. Of course big stacks have an advantage in ground battle as well. But that advantage alone isn't sufficient to make you leave taller parts of your border empty (like you now have to do because of the 5+5(+5) air stacks).


      Edepedable wrote:

      Perhaps bombers should no longer be able to patrol.
      With that I agree. For that I wrote --> this thread <--.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      Now my officially very last attempt to explain:
      No need, I understand what you are saying. I just disagree.

      Hans A. Pils wrote:

      So players would keep building the same amount of planes, but use them in smaller groups. Which would allow ground units to walk around in smaller groups.
      And you would definitely make use of that new liberty. Of course big stacks have an advantage in ground battle as well. But that advantage alone isn't sufficient to make you leave taller parts of your border empty (like you now have to do because of the 5+5(+5) air stacks).
      I think your assumption is wrong. Players do not just put units together in big groups because of airplanes. Yes its 1 reason. I think having big stacks giving an advantage in ground battles is reason enough on its own. It is actually well worth it to leave parts of your borders undefended. Though perhaps not un scouted.

      I get what you are saying, I just think you are wrong. I think the only way to really know would be to test it. Then again, some players just like putting all their units together, so it might not ever change because its simply most players preference. So it is likely most players won't change making big stacks unless serious disadvantages to having big stacks will be implemented. You offer no such solution.