Jump to content

PROJECT PROPOSAL - Naval Air Support System


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

I disagree heavily with both of you.  Planes are still king, and it's been said several times as to why.  How quick to beige shouldn't be the metric used in determining balance.

The fact planes can wipe out a significant, if not outright zero, an opponent's military to the point where you can control it with your own build of Ground/Navy to stop their MAP use and not have any other counter to it shows you why planes are too powerful.

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beiging someone is winning the war mechanically is it not? 

The trade off of destroying more mil is that you get beiged, losing infra and resources. There is balance right there in offsetting the military losses with resource gain from the beige. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, you're from the sphere that deliberately lost its first series of wars so you'd avoid allowing TKR to rebuild and allow you to launch a second wave to punish opponents who had run out of planes.

If the beige not counting argument matters, why not just increase beige to 20% loot / 20% infrastructure damage, making it more devastating to lose a series of wars? But in actuality, you had carefully measured BKers needed supply quantity so that TKR would have looted almost nothing when they beiged your nations, so while planestrat would have been more expensive had such a practice been in place, you'd still have done it.

Edited by Inst
  • Upvote 1

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alex said:

Have anyone's opinions changed on this suggestion? I'd like to bring it back to the forefront for discussion, and look at implementing it on the test server shortly.

Your problem is focus. What problem are you trying to address with this change? Are you trying to weaken planes, buff ships, what are you going for? 

 

This is such a specific use project that it’s 1 overpriced 2 underpowered and will offer little in the way of actual change. Predominantly the shift from focusing on damaging air units happens when the target has lost the ability to defend itself effectively in the air. If someone has this project it -might- delay the shift to hitting ships by 1 attack in 1 war out of likely 3, that they’re already losing. 

 

So again I ask, what issue are you trying to address with this change? If you were looking to add a very specific project that will have no impact on the game in any meaningful way 99.99% of the time then you’re succeeding. 

  • Like 3

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe

So I'm going to go ahead and echo the people saying this isn't a good idea, since what this proposal would do is take a powerful unit and make it even harder to deal with, which would disproportionally benefit larger players with bigger navies.  Ships already do the most infra damage, remove the most resistance and impose a blockade that can be problematic if you're trying to move resources in (or out) of a target nation.  More importantly, they're also the only unit type other than soldiers (which are inherently weak) that can't be nerfed using existing mechanics, since there's no equivalent to ground or air control to reduce the combat value of ships.  Large navies are already a pain to deal with (especially if you're updeclaring and/or running an all planes strat) and, if you're outgunned on the sea, planes become the only way to deal with the massive infra and resistance damage ships inflict.  Giving ships an additional anti air capacity without including an inherent weakness (since, again, ships are the only units that can't be reduced in effectiveness by controlling another sphere of combat) basically guarantees that larger players with larger naval (and ground and air) capacities will be able to inflict a disproportionately large amount of damage on opponents, since you'd nerf the only means to deal with a larger number of ships.  And yes, planes are effective but they can be nerfed already by achieving ground control.  Unless an equivalent mechanic is put in place to nerf ships its not good from a balance perspective to impose a second nerf on planes, since you're just empowering an already powerful unit and weakening one that can already be weakened by existing mechanics.

Also Buorhann, a 5:1 ratio of tanks:planes (or I guess latent AA capacity) would be absolutely insane.  A 20 city nation can max out at 25k tanks and at 5:1 AA units that would be the equivalent to 5k planes.  Since the cap is 90 planes per city, that 20 city nation would be able to generate the equivalent to 55 cities worth of bonus aircraft, meaning that every single airstrike would result in an utter failure.  So yeah, way too high.

Edited by Curufinwe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

I disagree heavily with both of you.  Planes are still king, and it's been said several times as to why.  How quick to beige shouldn't be the metric used in determining balance.

The fact planes can wipe out a significant, if not outright zero, an opponent's military to the point where you can control it with your own build of Ground/Navy to stop their MAP use and not have any other counter to it shows you why planes are too powerful.

I'm not disputing planes are king, I'm disputing the logic that they shouldn't be. 

Noone complains that the Queen is too powerful in chess and needs to be nerfed because of it, the understanding is that the queen is a powerful unit that should be protected at all costs and used carefully and responsibly. A balance of power between navy, ground and air just turns the combat system into a rock paper scissors simulator.

That being said, sheepy should have retooled score values for units ages ago back when he agreed with the suggestion in like 2016. IF you want to "fix" the imbalance, simply increase the score value of planes and reduce the score values of tanks so they are more representative.

Tanks are heavily neutered by their cost/power ratio and their overinflated score. Addressing the latter issue would be easy enough.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me pose another question: why isn't naval attack equal to 15 resistance? If you move it to 15 resistance instead of 14, that means you can now gain naval victories in 28 MAP (5 to 80, 2 to 100). It's an simpler fix than making it harder for aircraft to bomb ships.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Curufinwe said:

Also Buorhann, a 5:1 ratio of tanks:planes (or I guess latent AA capacity) would be absolutely insane.  A 20 city nation can max out at 25k tanks and at 5:1 AA units that would be the equivalent to 5k planes.  Since the cap is 90 planes per city, that 20 city nation would be able to generate the equivalent to 55 cities worth of bonus aircraft, meaning that every single airstrike would result in an utter failure.  So yeah, way too high.

It was an idea, not the actual numbers I'd go with.  Just off the top of my head while I was on my lunch break.

 

2 hours ago, The Mad Titan said:

Beiging someone is winning the war mechanically is it not? 

That has, in no way, any impact on balancing the power between the units, nor should it.

@Ships being too powerful/Lack of inherent weakness

You're forgetting that Ships have the highest maintenance and cost to build, also the most expensive attacks.  You're also forgetting that the weakness of ships is...  Planes, lol.  Planes kill a ridiculous amount of Tanks/Ships.  I'd be ok with the status quo if Planes had a large reduction of power (Killing 40+ Ships or 4k+ Tanks in a single 4 MAP use attack is seriously broken without any kind of blow back to those Planes).

>Build an airforce

While this would be solid advice, defending Aircraft that is severely outnumbered barely scratches the attackers.  Actually, now that I think of it, if an opponent targets anything other than Aircraft - the defenders could have a interception bonus instead (Which could encourage people to build up their Planes despite being at a disadvantage).  Hmm...

@Planes can be nerfed by Ground Control

Sure, if you can get that.  If you're the blitzer and you establish either control (Ground or Air) right off the bat, your opponent is already struggling.  If you get Air Control, that player's Ground is nerfed.  So explain how that player can get Ground Control then?

In any case, you two are being silly about this.

>beiging "wins the war"

>ships are OP

>Leaders of the biggest sphere still uses mass Planes and tries not to beige

Almost like you're trying to deflect away from the strat that's been used ever since 2015 (Which goes to show you how grossly stupid Planes have been).

 

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

Noone complains that the Queen is too powerful in chess and needs to be nerfed because of it.

A balance of power between navy, ground and air just turns the combat system into a rock paper scissors simulator.

No one also has a chess board full of Queens either.  I'm pretty sure if someone ran the numbers on which attacks are done the most, or which unit is bought the most - Planes/Airstrikes would take the cake by a large margin.

Truth be told, I'm not against that idea.  I'm sure it wouldn't work that way, but if it did, it'd get more variety of attacks than just air spam.

 

2 hours ago, Inst said:

If the beige not counting argument matters, why not just increase beige to 20% loot / 20% infrastructure damage, making it more devastating to lose a series of wars?

I don't think anyone asked for the reduction in damage from being beiged, but it happened.  I didn't care one way or another, honestly.

My only issue in the war module's current standing is that Airstrikes are too cost effective.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

I'm not disputing planes are king, I'm disputing the logic that they shouldn't be. 

Noone complains that the Queen is too powerful in chess and needs to be nerfed because of it, the understanding is that the queen is a powerful unit that should be protected at all costs and used carefully and responsibly. A balance of power between navy, ground and air just turns the combat system into a rock paper scissors simulator.

That being said, sheepy should have retooled score values for units ages ago back when he agreed with the suggestion in like 2016. IF you want to "fix" the imbalance, simply increase the score value of planes and reduce the score values of tanks so they are more representative.

Tanks are heavily neutered by their cost/power ratio and their overinflated score. Addressing the latter issue would be easy enough.

Or make tanks cheaper (0.5 steel instead 1 steel, for example) so the opportunity cost of building them isn't as high.  That at least would address concerns that they don't deliver bang for their buck, although I can't speak to the economic impact that would have on the game since that's not my area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

That being said, sheepy should have retooled score values for units ages ago back when he agreed with the suggestion in like 2016. IF you want to "fix" the imbalance, simply increase the score value of planes and reduce the score values of tanks so they are more representative.

Tanks are heavily neutered by their cost/power ratio and their overinflated score. Addressing the latter issue would be easy enough.

Yes please, a more representative score system will be better for the game.

16 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

Or make tanks cheaper (0.5 steel instead 1 steel, for example) so the opportunity cost of building them isn't as high.  That at least would address concerns that they don't deliver bang for their buck, although I can't speak to the economic impact that would have on the game since that's not my area.

There was also a proposal some time ago (to address the steel costs) to have it 0.5 steel and 0.5 alu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

That has, in no way, any impact on balancing the power between the units, nor should it.

@Ships being too powerful/Lack of inherent weakness

You're forgetting that Ships have the highest maintenance and cost to build, also the most expensive attacks.  You're also forgetting that the weakness of ships is...  Planes, lol.  Planes kill a ridiculous amount of Tanks/Ships.  I'd be ok with the status quo if Planes had a large reduction of power (Killing 40+ Ships or 4k+ Tanks in a single 4 MAP use attack is seriously broken without any kind of blow back to those Planes).

>Build an airforce

While this would be solid advice, defending Aircraft that is severely outnumbered barely scratches the attackers.  Actually, now that I think of it, if an opponent targets anything other than Aircraft - the defenders could have a interception bonus instead (Which could encourage people to build up their Planes despite being at a disadvantage).  Hmm...

@Planes can be nerfed by Ground Control

Sure, if you can get that.  If you're the blitzer and you establish either control (Ground or Air) right off the bat, your opponent is already struggling.  If you get Air Control, that player's Ground is nerfed.  So explain how that player can get Ground Control then?

In any case, you two are being silly about this.

>beiging "wins the war"

>ships are OP

>Leaders of the biggest sphere still uses mass Planes and tries not to beige

Almost like you're trying to deflect away from the strat that's been used ever since 2015 (Which goes to show you how grossly stupid Planes have been).

There's an opportunity cost associated with that strat, which tends to get glossed over when people talk about planes being super OP.  Running exclusively planes means you take more infra damage in the initial rounds of fighting (particularly from ships), you will lose ground control and be blockaded and you will, more often than not, end up being beiged and losing additional infra and loot, since an exclusively planes-based strat isn't an effective way to either beige out a more balanced opponent or prevent yourself from being beiged.  And losing ground control means that it's actually more like 20 ships or 2k tanks per AS for a 20 city nation, so we're talking 15 airstrikes (which you won't get in a single round since that would represent 180 resistance) just to clear the fleet of a fully built nation of the same size.  Meanwhile, in an ordinary war, those ships are doing 350 to 400 infra an attack, three times a day (dispersed over the most expensive infra in several cities, unlike nukes which concentrate all 12 MAPs on one city) and can beige you out before you can fully clear them, resulting in additional damage and lost loot. 

Having a maxed navy is the most efficient way to kill infra against an opponent with fewer (or no) ships and that (along with perks like setting up blockades) is their niche.  The only real counter to this is planes, since you can't reduce their effectiveness by gaining control of another theatre, spying them doesn't kill enough to make it worthwhile 90 percent of the time and building ships when you're heavily outnumbered at sea is just an easy way to throw cash away. So yeah, making it harder to counter ships does make the best infra killing unit in the game even better, especially since there's no other way to counter them without introducing a mechanic to reduce their effectiveness at sea.  

Also, for the record, BK doesn't not use ships because they suck in their current form, but rather because the score bloat from ships is too high if we're running a compressed build.  If that isn't a consideration, such as in the current war, we do maintain navies, since ships come in handy in a lot of situations. 

Edited by Curufinwe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

Also, for the record, BK doesn't not use ships because they suck in their current form, but rather because the score bloat from ships is too high if we're running a compressed build.  If that isn't a consideration, such as in the current war, we do maintain navies, since ships come in handy in a lot of situations. 

I'll address the rest of your post when I wake up, but I just wanted to talk about this tidbit.

3 hours ago, Curufinwe said:

Giving ships an additional anti air capacity without including an inherent weakness (since, again, ships are the only units that can't be reduced in effectiveness by controlling another sphere of combat) basically guarantees that larger players with larger naval (and ground and air) capacities will be able to inflict a disproportionately large amount of damage on opponents

Let's talk about Ships themselves.  Some facts:

-They have the highest cost of attack (In resource use)

-They're very expensive to build

-(Stated by you) They bloat the score too much

-They suffer huge losses by Airstrikes

Yet you addressed Ships as if they were overpowered.  You're confusing me with your stance on this.  You've explained why your alliance doesn't go Ships (Or hell, any alliance really), but yet argue that nerfing Air or buffing Ships is too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reduce cost to $20m maybe & as long as ships still are effective in sea battles, good idea. Currently Naval Ships can have no direct effect in helping with air or ground supremacy. This would change that & make it more possible to defend against higher city count aircraft attacks. Since currently more cities means more aircrafts; so almost impossible for lower city count nation to defend against a higher city count nation in the air who’s maxed on aircrafts.

Also would change it to 2 each, due to ships being much more expensive & limited in amount; as well as making sense upgraded they can shoot a few down at least rather than defenseless against air attacks. (Could even make default they count as 1 defensive & project doubles that)

Edited by Noctis

libertyribbon.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
9 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Your problem is focus. What problem are you trying to address with this change? Are you trying to weaken planes, buff ships, what are you going for? 

 

This is such a specific use project that it’s 1 overpriced 2 underpowered and will offer little in the way of actual change. Predominantly the shift from focusing on damaging air units happens when the target has lost the ability to defend itself effectively in the air. If someone has this project it -might- delay the shift to hitting ships by 1 attack in 1 war out of likely 3, that they’re already losing. 

 

So again I ask, what issue are you trying to address with this change? If you were looking to add a very specific project that will have no impact on the game in any meaningful way 99.99% of the time then you’re succeeding. 

I'm not trying to solve any problems, I'm looking to add new content and create more and different scenarios. At some point, the war system just gets repetitive due to simplicity - adding different strategy options makes the game more interesting (and fun) in my opinion, versus the same rigid playstyles.

13 hours ago, Buorhann said:

If anything, it's simply a Project.  So if you don't think there's any value in it, then don't buy it.  (I would) 

This is the point that I think needs to be emphasized here - this thread has basically derailed into a "how to completely change the war system" thread which is not at all the point of this suggestion. Adding this project is a very minor expansion to the existing mechanics, and ultimately if you don't like it, you don't have to use it. So long as it isn't overpowered and gamebreaking, I'm of the opinion that more options > less options.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not, insofar as it's tilted in such a way that larger nations benefit more than smaller nations. Moreover, it's not really an option or choice, because if this addition is non-trivial, it means that even players who don't choose to buy this project end up having to fight people who do. Think, say, how people wanted to stick to Wings of Liberty instead of Heart of the Swarm or Legacy of the Void because even if they chose to neglect the new options HoTS and LoTV added, they couldn't force other players to do so.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Alex said:

I'm not trying to solve any problems, I'm looking to add new content and create more and different scenarios. At some point, the war system just gets repetitive due to simplicity - adding different strategy options makes the game more interesting (and fun) in my opinion, versus the same rigid playstyles.

Then this is not a change that will have the result you're looking for. This change does not create different scenarios in war. A change in which Naval can attack air, or ground could attack air would create different scenarios. Creating a project which has such a niche effect that, even when it does come into effect, does nothing to swing the outcome of a war. No one is bombing navy while a significant air still exists unless they're trying to blockade a bank holder. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alex First of all, I liked this project proposal but... One problem i found in there is the number issue. 
As in real world you cant  possibly install anti air guns in all of them. Moreover, than what will be the point of having the Air strike function if you already know that you wont even get a phyric victory in a dog fight.
One amendment i would like to do in your proposal is reducing the aircraft carrier or anti air gun in ships or whatever you are planning to do in this project. So you should change the aspect of turning one ship equivalent to 1 aircraft,  instead you can turn 20% or 25 % of naval ships who acquire the ability to fight the air. 
thanks.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just different kind of ships to the game like air craft carriers could fight air  submarine to give some spy bonus and battle ships could attack tanks with having different strategies of each nation’s navy could be cool 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alex said:

I'm not trying to solve any problems, I'm looking to add new content and create more and different scenarios. At some point, the war system just gets repetitive due to simplicity - adding different strategy options makes the game more interesting (and fun) in my opinion, versus the same rigid playstyles.

This is the point that I think needs to be emphasized here - this thread has basically derailed into a "how to completely change the war system" thread which is not at all the point of this suggestion. Adding this project is a very minor expansion to the existing mechanics, and ultimately if you don't like it, you don't have to use it. So long as it isn't overpowered and gamebreaking, I'm of the opinion that more options > less options.

I think it would have an impact on the military system, so I don't think it should be to expensive if a project is the way you go about making Naval Ships useful for air defense.

Although generally I think I'd be in favor; as long as its not to expensive for most players to get. I don't think it should be much more expensive than the Propaganda Bureau; if even more expensive than that. Since it shouldn't be to hard to get when it changes how units work like that.

libertyribbon.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
9 hours ago, Buorhann said:

I'll address the rest of your post when I wake up, but I just wanted to talk about this tidbit.

Let's talk about Ships themselves.  Some facts:

-They have the highest cost of attack (In resource use)

-They're very expensive to build

-(Stated by you) They bloat the score too much

-They suffer huge losses by Airstrikes

Yet you addressed Ships as if they were overpowered.  You're confusing me with your stance on this.  You've explained why your alliance doesn't go Ships (Or hell, any alliance really), but yet argue that nerfing Air or buffing Ships is too much.

I said we don't use ships when we're running a very specific strategy, not that we don't use them at all.  Score bloat considerations are relevant when we're trying to score compress, which (as I'm sure you know) involves keeping score as low as possible, so any extra units (or infra) are often pared down.  That doesn't mean that the score added by ships is unreasonably high - a full compliment of ships for a 20 city nation adds 600 points, while a full compliment of planes adds 900 points and a full compliment of tanks adds 1250 points. So the score value of a city's worth of ships (30 points) is actually less then the equivalent in planes (45 points) or tanks (62.5 points), but does comparatively more infra damage, more resistance damage and can't be nerfed by control.

Also, BK is currently at about 40 percent of its max ship capacity, so yes we do use them ?

4 hours ago, Alex said:

This is the point that I think needs to be emphasized here - this thread has basically derailed into a "how to completely change the war system" thread which is not at all the point of this suggestion. Adding this project is a very minor expansion to the existing mechanics, and ultimately if you don't like it, you don't have to use it. So long as it isn't overpowered and gamebreaking, I'm of the opinion that more options > less options.

If you're of the opinion that this only constitutes a very minor alteration to the mechanics (and therefore is positive under your more > less options matrix), why are we having this conversation at all?  Numerous posters have pointed out unaddressed issues with a project buffing ships and the only person who has voiced full throated support is Buorhann, but if you're planning to go with 'if you don't like it, don't use it' (which seems to be how you're leaning, despite the criticism), why waste everyone's time soliciting feedback?  Seems more like the illusion of a consultative process than the reality (which I mean I'm fine with in practice, but if you're going with that don't waste my time asking for input if it's not going to matter either way ? )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do this should probably change restance lost per attacks or etc. and rebalance a few things planes are a slow beige but are the most versatile group for being able to hit every other group, it's not a bad project idea but I imagine there are better projects

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this might rebalance it a bit so people can have both a navy and airforce; without it putting them in range of people who can easily wipe their airforce due to more cities & then their navy. So I see some benefit there.

Navy seems restricted by population more than how many Navy Improvements you have for me at least; even if I don't have any in some cities & cut back how many in others. So for high city nations who have low infra; they can't have a really inflated navy size without a big enough population to support it. So would add some interesting changes there.

Edited by Noctis

libertyribbon.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

A change in which Naval can attack air, or ground could attack air would create different scenarios. Creating a project which has such a niche effect that, even when it does come into effect, does nothing to swing the outcome of a war.

That's a interesting perspective on the first statement.  The latter statement could easily effect a battle (Or multiples).

The typical way a war is conducted is through surprise coordinate blitz with 2 or 3 people on a single player.  The intention is to wipe out Air and wipe out either the opponents Navy or Ground right after.  Basically establish control ASAP.  You already know this though.

These projects could either outright deny the initial control setup or stall them out long enough for the player receiving the attacks to come back (Hopefully with a double buy, or if the RNG was favorable enough, just a single buy).  Granted if a player is one of those who are inactive for hours on end, it won't benefit them in any way, but those who are active - it would.

It would also reduce the amount of Air damage through their own loss of attrition.  Causing the attackers to rebuy their Planes instead of being able to sit on them in pristine condition, that is, if their opponent actually has Ships or Tanks prior to initially being attacked.

2 hours ago, Curufinwe said:

Numerous posters have pointed out unaddressed issues with a project buffing ships

Just because you have a wall of text doesn't mean you have unaddressed issues.  In fact, I think I already addressed a few of them.  And others are pretty damn bogus.

Not a single player, prior to this, has ever gone around saying Ships are OP and was serious about it, but your initial wall of text pretty much implied that was your perspective.  A very odd one at that considering.  Throughout the years players, not just me, have said that Ships are generally worthless and too expensive to hold.  What we got was a boost to tanks and the addition to potentially destroying Imps.

What I find even more interesting is the way how people want to balance this out.  Just recently a poster here suggested making Tanks even more cheaper, when they already got that boost before.  Is that how you and your community want to balance things out?  Just make units even cheaper?  That doesn't address any of the issues.  It doesn't address the fact that Airstrikes are still too powerful.  No one even really brought up that Ground needed to be buffed up anyways.

Let alone you're against an idea of a Project that helps Ships.  You're forgetting that a player would have to sacrifice a project slot for it, and that player - in order to get use out of it - would have to maintain a very expensive unit in the game.  The "inherent weakness" you mentioned earlier would exactly be that, they take a hit on their Economy for it, while also having their score bloated, etc (The previous points I already brought up about Ships to you).

 

The reason why Alex brings it up is because in the past when he brought out changes without soliciting much opinion, they were generally short sighted changes.  At least this way he'd hopefully get different perspectives.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

That's a interesting perspective on the first statement.  The latter statement could easily effect a battle (Or multiples).

The typical way a war is conducted is through surprise coordinate blitz with 2 or 3 people on a single player.  The intention is to wipe out Air and wipe out either the opponents Navy or Ground right after.  Basically establish control ASAP.  You already know this though.

These projects could either outright deny the initial control setup or stall them out long enough for the player receiving the attacks to come back (Hopefully with a double buy, or if the RNG was favorable enough, just a single buy).  Granted if a player is one of those who are inactive for hours on end, it won't benefit them in any way, but those who are active - it would.

It would also reduce the amount of Air damage through their own loss of attrition.  Causing the attackers to rebuy their Planes instead of being able to sit on them in pristine condition, that is, if their opponent actually has Ships or Tanks prior to initially being attacked.

You're incorrect. This change only impacts air units while doing bombing runs against navy. All this will do is delay by maybe 1-2 attacks from 1 player the timeline on switching from dog fighting to bombing navy. You can completely avoid the impact of navy on air by simply doing dogfights until you have favorable numbers with the added bonus. 


It's utterly pointless and completely able to be worked around. You're just wrong on this one. 

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.