Why is it a fighter/bomber combination can indefinitely patrol over an area and annihilate everything that goes through it without refueling. This not how War works. Players are building large amounts of air forces with gold and send 1 troop through to take land, Wars are won on land power taking territories and ground wars. Really unfair to players and air power cannot indefinitely patrol an area without refueling and rearming to give the other side the opportunity to attack the air force on the ground while refueling.
Bombers & FIghters Combination
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
everett wrote:
Why is it a fighter/bomber combination can indefinitely patrol over an area and annihilate everything that goes through it without refueling. This not how War works. Players are building large amounts of air forces with gold and send 1 troop through to take land, Wars are won on land power taking territories and ground wars. Really unfair to players and air power cannot indefinitely patrol an area without refueling and rearming to give the other side the opportunity to attack the air force on the ground while refueling.
>> in patrol mode the attacking values of the planes and the defenders are reduced to 25%
>> means that (imaginary) only 1/4 of the planes are actually attacking and one more quarter is each on outward or return flight or at refueling
>> therefore patrol mode of planes corresponds as only (a maximum of) 1 full attack per hour as for all other units as well
>> so patrol mode is basically the "normal mode" ..
PS .. easiest (cheapest and most efficient) way to combat permanent patrols is to place a (well-mixed) stack of ground units into the patrouilleradius ..
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.
Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony!
-
Restrisiko wrote:
>> in patrol mode the attacking values of the planes and the defenders are reduced to 25%
>> means that (imaginary) only 1/4 of the planes are actually attacking and one more quarter is each on outward or return flight or at refueling
>> therefore patrol mode of planes corresponds as only (a maximum of) 1 full attack per hour as for all other units as well
>> so patrol mode is basically the "normal mode" ..
PS .. easiest (cheapest and most efficient) way to combat permanent patrols is to place a (well-mixed) stack of ground units into the patrouilleradius ..
If it was like that, then the patrolling stack should also defend with 25% of strength when directly attacked by planes. This doesn't happen, so it is better to stop rationalizations.
It is simply the way the game works, because the programmers wanted it so. There is no logic, neither any explanation. And it is not optimal (to put it mildly). -
atreas1 wrote:
Restrisiko wrote:
>> in patrol mode the attacking values of the planes and the defenders are reduced to 25%
>> means that (imaginary) only 1/4 of the planes are actually attacking and one more quarter is each on outward or return flight or at refueling
>> therefore patrol mode of planes corresponds as only (a maximum of) 1 full attack per hour as for all other units as well
>> so patrol mode is basically the "normal mode" ..
PS .. easiest (cheapest and most efficient) way to combat permanent patrols is to place a (well-mixed) stack of ground units into the patrouilleradius ..
If it was like that, then the patrolling stack should also defend with 25% of strength when directly attacked by planes. This doesn't happen, so it is better to stop rationalizations.
It is simply the way the game works, because the programmers wanted it so. There is no logic, neither any explanation. And it is not optimal (to put it mildly).
It is a well accepted fact that tactical bombers are the strongest unit in game but they are not brokenly OP. That is why there are fighters, AA, and SPAA. If your enemies are spamming aircraft, build some of these units. -
First of all, I am not talking about UNITS (specifically about tacs). It is their choice to make some unit strong, be it the tactical bomber (a unit that btw got extinct for very practical reasons in reality) or whatever else. The question was about mechanisms, and patrol in particular.
Planes have two attacking methods (patrol and direct attack), which by the way is again a unique feature of the class. Whoever doesn't see that one of these methods is practically sub-optimal, due to the enormous advantage of the other just turns a blind eye on the facts of reality.
You are also talking about playability and balance. This is also interesting. I cannot remember how many times I have had to answer to that question in the Help chat, because - not surprisingly - none of the new players seems to be able to understand why patrol is almost always a better attack mechanism. Which perhaps also answers to the question why the experienced players don't complain for it: because it gives them a huge extra advantage over the newer players. -
atreas1 is completely right.
Also the board game feeling of CoW (which we all appreciate) wouldn't suffer in the least from making patrol what it was (a defense manoeuvre for fighters). Nor would it make the game more complicated (as eruth stated). Even the opposite is the case: It would make air mechanics way more intuitive and easier to understand, thus less complicated.
How to achieve that I described in --> this thread <--. -
atreas1 wrote:
..
It is simply the way the game works ..
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.
Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony!
-
I agree with Restrisiko in that the easiest (cheapest and most efficient) way to combat permanent patrols is to place a (well-mixed) stack of ground units into the patrol radius. For such function, ground AA units would be my top choice. And if you got interceptors to spare, put them to use! ...
-
Apologies that I misinterpreted your ire.
However, I still disagree with you. There are times that direct attack is better. If a unit is on very low health and you want to finish it off right now a direct attack will work. If the airbase is close enough that you can get in multiple attacks per hour, direct attack will work. -
Let's simply say that, for direct attack to be worthwhile, it needs that the opponent is really close (less than 15 minutes flight), the planes have no danger to be engaged while refueling (and the opponents doesnt have rockets as well), and there are no enemy planes patrolling over the units. All these together is approximately 0.001% of the cases of interest. Add to that the case of a very weak units that is far and tries to escape the planes (with the other preconditions same) - another 0.001%.
Which leaves direct attack as only a means to punish the mistake by the enemy to use direct attack first. This is the common case, especially against newer player who are mislead to believe that direct attack is a good idea. And that is the reason why the standard advice is "better use always patrol". -
atreas1 wrote:
Let's simply say that, for direct attack to be worthwhile, it needs that the opponent is really close (less than 15 minutes flight), the planes have no danger to be engaged while refueling (and the opponents doesnt have rockets as well), and there are no enemy planes patrolling over the units. All these together is approximately 0.001% of the cases of interest. Add to that the case of a very weak units that is far and tries to escape the planes (with the other preconditions same) - another 0.001%.
Which leaves direct attack as only a means to punish the mistake by the enemy to use direct attack first. This is the common case, especially against newer player who are mislead to believe that direct attack is a good idea. And that is the reason why the standard advice is "better use always patrol".
-
I happen not to recall when I asked to take away direct attack. In fact, my option would be exactly to keep only direct attack, and leave patrol only for fighters and naval bombers. Something that resembles reality a bit, don't you think? I happen not to remember EVER B29s wandering around in case they see some factory to bomb...
-
atreas1 wrote:
I happen not to recall when I asked to take away direct attack. In fact, my option would be exactly to keep only direct attack, and leave patrol only for fighters and naval bombers. Something that resembles reality a bit, don't you think? I happen not to remember EVER B29s wandering around in case they see some factory to bomb...
While strategic bombers going on patrol might not be historical, tactical bombers patrolling certainly is. Often, especially late war allied aircraft in Europe, ground attack aircraft would be sent to an area with orders simply to attack any target that presented itself.
This would also make controlling aircraft harder. It would make it significantly harder to find targets for tactical bombers, especially if they were out of range of naval bombers or fighters. -
everett wrote:
Why is it a fighter/bomber combination can indefinitely patrol over an area and annihilate everything that goes through it without refueling. This not how War works. Players are building large amounts of air forces with gold and send 1 troop through to take land, Wars are won on land power taking territories and ground wars. Really unfair to players and air power cannot indefinitely patrol an area without refueling and rearming to give the other side the opportunity to attack the air force on the ground while refueling.
BMfox
Moderator
EN Community Support | Bytro Gmbh
Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/BMfoxCallofWar
Found a bug or need help? Send a ticket here!
-
Share
- Facebook 0
- Twitter 0
- Google Plus 0
- Reddit 0