Bombers & FIghters Combination

everett · Jul 30th 2019, 2:17pm

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.

Restrisiko · Jul 30th 2019, 6:01pm

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.

CoW, especially the combat system, does not work as a simulation but practically as a "board game" (the game pieces are "placed") :thumbup:

>> 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 .. :thumbsup:

atreas1 · Jul 30th 2019, 7:14pm

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 ..

I have read that argument before, and I will say again and again that it is completely untrue (it is the usual practice of programmers, who call "features" the bugs in their programs, as I painfully admit I also do in my programs).

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).

eruth · Jul 30th 2019, 10:43pm

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 ..

I have read that argument before, and I will say again and again that it is completely untrue (it is the usual practice of programmers, who call "features" the bugs in their programs, as I painfully admit I also do in my programs).
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).

Calm down. This is the way the game has been for years (since launch? I can't remember how much they changed the aerial system int hat big update a few years ago). This is how it is intended to work and I have never previously heard other players complaining about it. COW is not a simulation; many things, including this, are abstracted for the sake of balance, playability, and keeping the complexity down.
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.

atreas1 · Jul 31st 2019, 7:04am

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.

Hans A. Pils · Jul 31st 2019, 9:03am

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 <--.

Restrisiko · Jul 31st 2019, 10:47am

atreas1 wrote:

..
It is simply the way the game works ..

Right, that's what I tried to convey to everett -- thanks for your confirmation :thumbup:

gusv · Jul 31st 2019, 8:35pm

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! ... :tumbleweed:

eruth · Aug 1st 2019, 2:48am

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.

atreas1 · Aug 1st 2019, 8:20am

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".

eruth · Aug 2nd 2019, 5:28pm

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".

That doesn't mean we should just get rid of it. Just because it is rarely worthwhile doesn't mean that we should limit player's options. Also, you are severely underestimating the frequency of situations in which direct attack is useful. It's put them at closer to 3% each. Not huge, but significantly more than 0.001%.

atreas1 · Aug 2nd 2019, 5:49pm

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...

eruth · Aug 3rd 2019, 10:56pm

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...

It seems I misunderstood you. My apologies.
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.

BMfox · Aug 6th 2019, 5:34pm

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.

Why would it be unfair? Everyone has the same toolbox, everyone can make planes and patrol them indefinitely. But they don't as on patrol only 25% are or flying to the ABS, refuelling at the ABS or returning to the patrol destination. That's why you attack at 25% every 15min because only 25% of the planes is present. Of course you don't see this mechanic when your planes are patrolling.

Share