Option to set up a way back for an airplane to the airport, instead of defealt straight line

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

    • Option to set up a way back for an airplane to the airport, instead of defealt straight line

      In real life we can change the way the plane travels back, but in CoN its default. So actually we can design a way to the target, but we cannot do it the way back. Its not logical and should be possible, just as with naval or land units. By setting some points of the travel on the way for a plane, both ways actually
    • Seroslav - Setting aside the questionable value of deluging the forum with every thought that pops into your head . . .

      Wouldn't you agree that it's rude to post a new suggestion, instead of simply adding your voice to the existing conversation about a subject, when one exists?

      I firmly believe that not doing a search before posting a suggestion like this one is a form of rudely assigning more value to your own time than you assign to the time of all of the readers who you wish to see it.

      Maybe a different approach would be more successful than the one you're currently using?

      KFG
    • Maybe, but number of voices wanting some change and the frequency it pops-up might also have influence on the issue, if it will be changed in game or not. You have a topic in the subject, so if You are not interested You can just scroll it. Topic says it clearly what it is about.

      PS. I didnt post 40 other ideas to change/upgrade the game, so You are strongly wrong that I posted every thought. It's rude of You to say so actually.
    • In English (I say that because English might not be you're native language) there is an expression, "Exaggerating to make a point." It's a common non-rude thing to do, and it is what I was doing. If that offended you, I apologize.

      Your reply completely sidestepped my point.

      Please do research. Please find existing discussions when they exist. If a discussion already exists, and if you have something to ADD to the existing discussion, please add it; even it is just a simple, "I agree".

      Reading an "I agree" addition to a thread is quick and easy for me, and probably for most other readers.

      Having to take time to study a paragraph or two to look for anything new, takes more of the readers' time, and doesn't endear you to them if you are just repeating a topic that has already been beaten to death.

      And - If a discussion doesn't exist, then by all means, please start a new thread.

      YMMV

      KFG
    • Seroslav wrote:

      In real life we can change the way the plane travels back, but in CoN its default. So actually we can design a way to the target, but we cannot do it the way back. Its not logical and should be possible, just as with naval or land units. By setting some points of the travel on the way for a plane, both ways actually
      The main argument against this is that the person who you've attacked with your aircraft should be able to launch a counter air or missile strike against your planes when they're on the ground having returned to their base. If you can give your planes a load of waypoints for its return journey, it becomes nearly impossible to time this counter strike correctly.
    • WalterChang wrote:

      The main argument against this is that the person who you've attacked with your aircraft should be able to launch a counter air or missile strike against your planes when they're on the ground having returned to their base. If you can give your planes a load of waypoints for its return journey, it becomes nearly impossible to time this counter strike correctly.
      WC - You wrote that a person who has been attacked by aircraft "should be able to ... against your planes when they are on the ground".

      Is that really a thing that "should" exist because that's they way we naturally think the universe works (I agree that intuition tells me real planes should (and do) take any return path they have enough fuel to follow), or is it a design decision that has an (intentional) effect of weakening air power in this game?

      Because being unable to control my planes return path contradicts my intuition, I suspect it's the latter (a choice intended to weaken air power in the game).

      KFG

      The post was edited 1 time, last by KFGauss ().

    • KFGauss wrote:

      WalterChang wrote:

      The main argument against this is that the person who you've attacked with your aircraft should be able to launch a counter air or missile strike against your planes when they're on the ground having returned to their base. If you can give your planes a load of waypoints for its return journey, it becomes nearly impossible to time this counter strike correctly.
      WC - You wrote that a person who has been attacked by aircraft "should be able to ... against your planes when they are on the ground".
      Is that really a thing that "should" exist because that's they way we naturally think the universe works (I agree that intuition tells me real planes should (and do) take any return path they have enough fuel to follow), or is it a design decision that has an (intentional) effect of weakening air power in this game?

      Because being unable to control my planes return path contradicts my intuition, I suspect it's the latter (a choice intended to weaken air power in the game).

      KFG
      Hmmm. I suppose I've got so used to bring able to do it over many years that it feels like something I "should"be able to keep doing!

      If post-strike waypoints were allowed, though, I do think they should be limited to 1 or 2, and that you should have to set them before the strike. (So that you can't just go round and round forever avoiding enemy aircraft or airbase strikes until the other guy gets bored and leaves you alone)
    • Isn't airforce already enough op in game?
      I mean if a player focus on eg strikes and asf (in production and upgrades) he can have a lot of them early on. Like 30 planes on day 15. Even more but maybe he will build some ground. 30 planes is a lot at day 15. Lvl up ofc.
      To counter that if you focus on ground you have to produce a lot of SAM's. And to upgrade them. Because 1 or 2 per city is not enough to save you.
      He can strike with everything and rest (lvl 5 hospital) for 8h, then strike again. 2 even 3x per day he can afford to attack a single point. Without significant losses. He can bait your AA with drones meaning he may have zero losses except drones.
      The problem is you can't defend all the cities. You would have to focus on SAM production for that.
      And if and when he finds your weak spot your city is grounded.

      I know if you're careful you can predict this and counter. But you see the point.
      It is strong mostly because SF are potent enough to destroy buildings.

      So let's give airforce more power to avoid SAM's. :thumbdown:

      Btw I like to play with strong airforce.
    • Yeah, it's probably a design to make them a bit weaker, however in real life this is how it works, airforce is the king, just look at US military strategy, first they do is to "close the sky", like in Lybia war, then bomb everything from above and ground units goes in just to take control of the most important locations.

      Similar strategy works very well in CoN, as the current warfare is more or less like this and in some degree, game tries to simulate real life.

      It's nice to have many different ways to play it, so some balancing between different units types, but on the other way to make it in some way realistic. We dont have horse cavalry or cataputs in game and we dont speak about making them even to airplanes. Disharmony is more realistic, nobody says that units need to have same statistics, so planes can be stronger, as in real life.

      However I understand if Dorado wont change it to avoid bigger airforce domination.
    • As I said airforce is already dominant in game if you compare it to ground. Against navy not enough as should be.
      To balance the game they made planes fragile so if you aren't careful you loose them easely. But they heal quickly and move fast.
      With strong airforce in game you can do hit and run (heal). Ground or navy players can't do that.
      Even arty hit and run tactic requires not to be hit back. Or you have long way back to hospital at home.

      Btw, US military strategy is to attack ONLY weaker countries. And only after years of economic sanctions. They will not attack a country that can retaliate with significant force especially with strong AA. No chance!
      That's why they easily achieve air dominance.
      They're not good example.
      Better example is Israel - Arab war when Israel achieved air victory and won the war. One of those wars when they were similarly strong.
      I agree air dominance is key.
    • Zemunelo wrote:

      As I said airforce is already dominant in game if you compare it to ground. Against navy not enough as should be.
      To balance the game they made planes fragile so if you aren't careful you loose them easely. But they heal quickly and move fast.
      With strong airforce in game you can do hit and run (heal). Ground or navy players can't do that.
      Even arty hit and run tactic requires not to be hit back. Or you have long way back to hospital at home.

      Btw, US military strategy is to attack ONLY weaker countries. And only after years of economic sanctions. They will not attack a country that can retaliate with significant force especially with strong AA. No chance!
      That's why they easily achieve air dominance.
      They're not good example.
      Better example is Israel - Arab war when Israel achieved air victory and won the war. One of those wars when they were similarly strong.
      I agree air dominance is key.
      And, you know this because ....?
    • KFGauss wrote:

      Z - I was asking about your description of US military strategy - It seemed odd.
      Just check what the USA is doing in the last decades.

      Most terrorists from 9/11 were Saudis, instead the USA went to invade their go to 'pushover' Iraq, just making the whole 'terrorism' issue even worse.

      The so called 'world police' turned into a bully with overbloated military a long while ago. The go to war without a proper goal and exit strategy, which makes them stuck in endless wars like Afghanistan.

      Not to mention, that they 'killed' more democraties with their CIA, then they helped. Some of the worst offenders of human rights in the world like the Saudis and Israel are their 'friends' after all.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      The lack of control is a designed weakness, because otherwise it would be quite hard to estimate their refueling period and time is with your nuke or striker attack :)

      How ever, you have still a little bit control, though it is quite resource costly. :D

      "If i said you wouldn't land at this AIRPORT, I MEAN IT"

      *proceeds to burn the airfield*
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • yep, if you have planes returning, you can demolish the airfield, forcing the plane to land somewhere else. Its really a last resprt if u dont want your expensive planes destroyed... not sustainable really
      "Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres."-Charles De Gaulle, Leader of Free France in World War 2.
      English: "Patriotism is to love your country. Nationalism is hating that of others."