you sound like a weak player.. do you want to kill a bigger stack of air bombers? make those intercpetors lol ! bombers alone are very weak and if they come with interceptors bring anti air stacked with other units and covered by your interceptors.. its not that you must bring only 1 unit of AA to kill 50 planes but you need both sky and ground cover just like IN real wars. You all are missing the whole point and crying about planes been too strong when you never ever done a proper stack with anti air and never ever done a decent ammount of interceptors..All this come from inexperience and bad strategy. I never won a single match without having heavy AA and a decent ammount of intercpetors but ofc there are some maps full of noobs were having light tank and tactis is enough!I totally agree with Freezy!! Because just the previous version, ppl spam tact bomber against anything. I sometimes felt sad for ppl (just log-off), and when they come back. BAM, their units and cities is gone. For me, i always prepare a few SP anti-air, so not as much problem. The previous version, only SP AA can kind of suppress, but not stopped because too powerful. AA is still too weak at that time, i found out only the stupid A.I (elite) will recruit them. HAHA.
Home base defense do help abit, but we all know that majority of our land is not our homeland. So we are still vulnerable to spam attack. Unless, non-core land can turn to my homeland, and add more non core land into the map.
Im wondering why im loosing my time explaining the game to random ppl.. just a waste of my time
this post has been edited.
Before with just anybody being invited to be FP - as long as they started and quit enough games w/o a single victory - and not even grasping the beginnings of strategy and tactics, nor having any idea of the roles and application of certain units. "Unfair! My single lone AA regiment couldn't take out 30 Tacs. Not even while being in a level 1 fortress!". It was not any unit being to strong, it was the minds of players being to weak.
But these comment nonetheless and gave input nonetheless through their FP games.
And now, with this thread again. People who never got past the first layer of the game and just saw cool units that they imagine should be able to 'this or that', but they never even found the 'I' to click and see what other info there was available than just the basic stats of the unit.
For such players a Pokemon-styled game is perfect. "See that cool monster I have? It has these stats, given by te devs! Cool hey?"
But it has no place in a WW2 RT-GS simulation.
Now facing the Pokemon-like (sucked-out-of-my-left-thumb-kind-of-stats-based-on-nothing) stats, I fear that was caused partly by those comments.
For me and many other players, units in a WW2 simulation, whether a FPS or GS game, should perform their real life roles as realistically as possible. And tactics should approach realism, as should strategies.
What I miss now:
- Economy was very important ... if not everything ... which had a realistic approach to it with logical functions for buildings and varied choices to be made. In the economic management of your country, moral management was an important factor.
Now, I have hardly any options for improving my economy, besides building IC's. Neither do I have many choices to improve moral, except building weapon factories or barracks (??!!) which I do not want or need or can afford everywhere.
This lack of options creates one big 'emptiness'.
- In real life, the Combined Arms approach - developed by the US Forces after landing in Normandy and earlier of some sorts applied by the Third Reich with its Blitzkrieg (it is actually wrong to say 'Germans', because none of what transpired in those days would have been possible without certain specific but also in general the Austrians, only with whom the Third Reich could come about. One a side note: the Germans also did not start the WW1 either; again the Austrians had something to do with that...) - was the ultimate way to successfully win the war on the ground.
Support to regular front units from the air being the Western way to crush enemy forces, and massive artillery support being the Russian way. Whatever, every unit type having its role to play.
In the old game, this was pretty well reflected in maps with players (who had gained at least some insight) who did or tried to do what was necessary vs the threat from the air and all other threats from various weaponry types.
Ofc, vs AI and 'lesser players' the air force was still the weapon of choice, as it is nowadays when fighting noobs like would be powers like ISIS.
But in general, the right combination of troops solved each and any problem. There was an answer to any type of threat if you were willing and able to commit your think-power to it for a little bit.
This is no longer so in the Pokemon version of CoW: The out-of-whack unit stats (a defending LT stands no chance whatsoever vs an attacking LT??), the fast production, resource constraints: it forces you to make a limited choice out of the limited possibilities and promotes 1 regiment vs 1 regiment battles. It also promotes attack-attack-attack.
Very unrealistic and IMO opinion, and the dimw... sorry... 'lesser players' will make again all the wrong choices.
It has become more confuddling to them; not easier!
All in all, the game until now, has allowed me to roll up 1 neighbour + all conquest by another neighbor in the first few days. Easy-peasy, because you left me no choice.
The post was edited 1 time, last by _Pontus_ ().