Balancing Artillery and Aircraft

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

    • vietcong2005 wrote:

      No Planes and Arty were used to weaken and disperse enemy lines, not to directly kill them. Infantry can easily take cover from planes and arty, as evidenced in World War I. The British shelled the Germans at Somme for over 7 days with over 1.7 mil shells. Yet the Germans simply hid in trenches and were fine and provided ample resistance to British assult, inflicting heavy casualties. This was also evidenced in World War II during the battle of Seelow heights, where the Soviets placed over 9,000 rocket arty and arty and bombarded German positions. Yet, most German forces survived and were able to inflict more losses on Soviets with far less forces. With air planes, during the battle of Sedan, French forces only suffered minor losses from airplanes. The true damage came from dispersion not actual damage. Tanks and infantry are used to go in and inflict damage and capture prisoners.
      This is game,and this game doesn't have any other elements that will inflict units capabilities other then hitpoints,terrain and bonuses of home land and therefore we cannot take that into a count.
      Artillery and airforce is significant piece of equipment and only reason why irl casualties from artillery and airforce were not as high is because logistics.A nation will first deal with assuring air superiority then targetting artillery units using scouts and rushing them away with bombers,then offensive will proceed while here Players carelessly rush and then complain about them being destroyed by range units.

      You need air and artillery same as anti air.Always irl and in game first targets should be potential airstrips and following that locating artillery and destroying artillery then ground offensive should proceed.
      If you follow those steps you will see that those units are not overpowered it is just that people don't want to bother planing their attacks.This is not arcade game this is strategic low key simulation game and a 4D chess,planing up front and understating the ways your enemy is playing is necessary.
      Фарис Синановић, Суна

    • Suna232 wrote:

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      No Planes and Arty were used to weaken and disperse enemy lines, not to directly kill them. Infantry can easily take cover from planes and arty, as evidenced in World War I. The British shelled the Germans at Somme for over 7 days with over 1.7 mil shells. Yet the Germans simply hid in trenches and were fine and provided ample resistance to British assult, inflicting heavy casualties. This was also evidenced in World War II during the battle of Seelow heights, where the Soviets placed over 9,000 rocket arty and arty and bombarded German positions. Yet, most German forces survived and were able to inflict more losses on Soviets with far less forces. With air planes, during the battle of Sedan, French forces only suffered minor losses from airplanes. The true damage came from dispersion not actual damage. Tanks and infantry are used to go in and inflict damage and capture prisoners.
      This is game,and this game doesn't have any other elements that will inflict units capabilities other then hitpoints,terrain and bonuses of home land and therefore we cannot take that into a count.Artillery and airforce is significant piece of equipment and only reason why irl casualties from artillery and airforce were not as high is because logistics.A nation will first deal with assuring air superiority then targetting artillery units using scouts and rushing them away with bombers,then offensive will proceed while here Players carelessly rush and then complain about them being destroyed by range units.

      You need air and artillery same as anti air.Always irl and in game first targets should be potential airstrips and following that locating artillery and destroying artillery then ground offensive should proceed.
      If you follow those steps you will see that those units are not overpowered it is just that people don't want to bother planing their attacks.This is not arcade game this is strategic low key simulation game and a 4D chess,planing up front and understating the ways your enemy is playing is necessary.
      I make extensive use of Tactical Bombers, Attack Bombers, and Arty. In fact my melee troops barely play a role in actual fighting. However, a few hundred planes destroying entire divisions in a few days is just unrealistic. My greatest concern is the great lack of your knowledge in actual history. You seem to think that World War II planes are on the same techniolgcial level as modern day A-10s. The true purpose of Arty and Planes back then was to pin down and weaken enemy troops, but not to actually destroy enemy troops. This allowed for encirclements and gave an oppurtunity for your attack with armored divisions. Warfare is all about combined arms involving, tanks, infantry, ships, planes, and artillery. Also, as you usefully pointed out in your passage, Artillery and Air power are used to target precise objectives like command posts, airstrips, communcation centers, etc. My point is that both these factors were never meant to destroy troops, destroying moving troops would be more unlikely

    • Hurbala wrote:

      Destructo the Great wrote:

      why did you nerf strategic bombers? They r already Bad and you nerfed them? Can you lease make them have more hitpoints since you can’t escort them with interceptors
      Strategic bombers bad? Why are you not able to escort 'em with interceptors?
      Strat bombers have significantly more range than interceptors. You can still escort them, but you would be limited to the interceptor’s range.

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      Hurbala wrote:

      Destructo the Great wrote:

      why did you nerf strategic bombers? They r already Bad and you nerfed them? Can you lease make them have more hitpoints since you can’t escort them with interceptors
      Strategic bombers bad? Why are you not able to escort 'em with interceptors?
      Strat bombers have significantly more range than interceptors. You can still escort them, but you would be limited to the interceptor’s range.
      Exactly, otherwise nobody would do anything else but push this combination! The range of the strategic bombers is their great strength. They are for sure not 'bad'!
      Hier könnt Ihr ein Support-Ticket erstellen. :00000450:

    • Hey

      Suggestion, sorry if not first on this.

      The attackrange/cirkle for artiller should have a hole in the center as it cant perform close combat. The range could actually be a bit longer but you make a cirkle in middle where they dont hit. This would make the attacker able blitz the artillery as they did IRL. Also the user of artillery must acomp with infantry and tanks to defend the battery.

    • Destructo the Great wrote:

      why did you nerf strategic bombers? They r already Bad and you nerfed them? Can you lease make them have more hitpoints since you can’t escort them with interceptors
      Strategic Bombers are superb :) Everyone who bombed the core provinces of an enemy to the stone age (or got your own provinces bombed) can attest to that.

      We adjusted them because Tactical Bombers were nerfed and it didnt make much sense to have Strategic Bombers be cheaper and faster produced than Tactical Bombers, since they are even more complex planes.

    • Strategic bombers are terrifying, not prepared enought to defend against them it's like certain defeat.

      There it's a occasion when strat bombers defeat my interceptor just bombing the air bases and then it's was easy for them destroying all my buildings.

      Definitely a underappreciated unit
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"

    • B17 bomber:
      • Crew: 10
      • Empty weight: 36,135 lb (16,391 kg)
      • Fuel capacity: 1,700 gallons
      P51 fighter:
      • Crew: 1
      • Empty weight: 7,635 lb (3,463 kg)
      • Fuel capacity: 184 gallons



      Depending on how you calculate the "cost", the airplane by itself contains 5 times much material, and 10 times the crew. If you want to include ground crew and so on, the B17 still a beast with 4 engines to the Mustang's 1, there are 13 machine guns in 9 various turrets, all of which must be armed and maintained. It takes almost 10 times as much fuel to fill up.

      1 on 1, the cost to build and operate a strategic bomber should be somewhere between 5 and 10 times that of a fighter. If you want to say that 1 squad of fighters is really 5-10 fighters, that's fine. In that case, the squad of 5-10 fighters easily shoots down 1 bomber.

      Something has to give, either the cost of a strategic bomber has to go WAY up, or interceptors have to get MUCH cheaper. That would be a good way to balance out the game, making it harder for players to bomb cities and units with impunity. Scores of cheaply produced, effective fighters would get that done.

    • You can't really calculate costs like that, CoW has its own logic about unit costs. Similar arguments could be made about an armored car vs. a heavy tank, or about the build of a single regiment vs. the upgrade of all the industries of a city; and the build time of a new level isn't really three times longer than the previous one either.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • But yeah, I agree that the 1.0 unit set was mirrored too much for 1.5. Some units which were shitty before (militia, armored cars, strats) are the queens of the battlefield now, while previously popular units (missiles, light tanks) were over-nerfed.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • Missiles would be ok if they were cheaper on manpower taking in consideration their 1 time use.

      Light tanks I would use them if they have increased their anti infantry damage on offensive, even armored cars do more damage against infantry on offensive.
      "Si crees que esto tendrá un final feliz, es que no has estado prestando atención"

    • Light tank spam was such an annoyance in 1.0 they really wanted to nerf them. I think they're still ok in 2.0 just because they are available so early. Give them more speed and they will be perfect blitz machines. They don't need to be viable longer term. Historically, light tanks were outclassed and replaced by medium tanks in front line roles. If the country in question survived long enough to build a medium tank ;)

    • The only time I ever build light tanks is while I'm waiting for medium tank research to finish, and even that doesn't happen every game. If I'm not going for a tank-heavy offense I prefer building upgraded ACs vs light tanks.

      I am a bit intrigued by the idea of cheaper interceptors though.