Announcement Patch Notes 2302.28

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

    • Maxim | CM wrote:

      " If there are no available places in range for planes to land safely, they will instead crash immediately. "
      Can someone explain to me what does this mean. I've just lost a five stack of fighters (that where patroling that is) just because their airport was destroyed. No other airport was in the inmediate range, but there was one NOT that far away. Instead of go that way, how that would usually happen before, (and was not that far so the planes wouldnt run out of fuel) they just crash landed and that was it

      Man, I would give them a praise for their take on realism if they didn't choose the worst things to be realistic about. Or if that "realism" were at least well implemented; gave us Coke, and now trying to force feed on us Pepsi. Its just my opinion anyway, but I think that a year ago this game was more enjoyable

    • a week ago is enough. I always asked to nerf airforce. but that is to much of a nerf.
      unfortunately i started my current game with all in airforce. i have only 5 core cities so converting to land based army as damage dealer will be impossible.
      but till this feature is reverted I recommend everyone to be careful and consider a army based focus on troops.
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.

    • TheGENOC1D3R wrote:

      Can someone explain to me what does this mean. I've just lost a five stack of fighters (that where patroling that is) just because their airport was destroyed. No other airport was in the inmediate range, but there was one NOT that far away. Instead of go that way, how that would usually happen before, (and was not that far so the planes wouldnt run out of fuel) they just crash landed and that was it
      Man, I would give them a praise for their take on realism if they didn't choose the worst things to be realistic about. Or if that "realism" were at least well implemented; gave us Coke, and now trying to force feed on us Pepsi. Its just my opinion anyway, but I think that a year ago this game was more enjoyable
      If you can provided all info to replicate this will be very good. in beta test we found this issue too but it is fixed, retest, confirm to be fixed. so if it show up again yes i would like more details
      This post was made by Leader of the Church of ROAD

    • playbabe wrote:

      TheGENOC1D3R wrote:

      Can someone explain to me what does this mean. I've just lost a five stack of fighters (that where patroling that is) just because their airport was destroyed. No other airport was in the inmediate range, but there was one NOT that far away. Instead of go that way, how that would usually happen before, (and was not that far so the planes wouldnt run out of fuel) they just crash landed and that was it
      Man, I would give them a praise for their take on realism if they didn't choose the worst things to be realistic about. Or if that "realism" were at least well implemented; gave us Coke, and now trying to force feed on us Pepsi. Its just my opinion anyway, but I think that a year ago this game was more enjoyable
      If you can provided all info to replicate this will be very good. in beta test we found this issue too but it is fixed, retest, confirm to be fixed. so if it show up again yes i would like more details
      My figthers where hovering east of Japan. The planes where lvl 6, so they had an increased range. Their airport was in Sapporo. And I had another one in Guam, that is not THAT far away for a figther to reach. Sapporo goes adios and so the planes just kill themselves out of existence, instead of relocating to Guam, like they should have.

      What's really annoying is that, before all those "updates" like the refueling mechanic, or the "new" targeting system for naval unit, playing was a more enjoyable experience. Better to have something simple and solid that works best for what it is, than "realistic" mechanics that are overcomplicated, unnecesary and broken from birth

      Btw, if this is a bugs fault, doesn't that mean that, to make things right, you also have to give me back the units I lost? I mean, it was on you at the end of the day

    • TheGENOC1D3R wrote:

      playbabe wrote:

      TheGENOC1D3R wrote:

      Can someone explain to me what does this mean. I've just lost a five stack of fighters (that where patroling that is) just because their airport was destroyed. No other airport was in the inmediate range, but there was one NOT that far away. Instead of go that way, how that would usually happen before, (and was not that far so the planes wouldnt run out of fuel) they just crash landed and that was it
      Man, I would give them a praise for their take on realism if they didn't choose the worst things to be realistic about. Or if that "realism" were at least well implemented; gave us Coke, and now trying to force feed on us Pepsi. Its just my opinion anyway, but I think that a year ago this game was more enjoyable
      If you can provided all info to replicate this will be very good. in beta test we found this issue too but it is fixed, retest, confirm to be fixed. so if it show up again yes i would like more details
      My figthers where hovering east of Japan. The planes where lvl 6, so they had an increased range. Their airport was in Sapporo. And I had another one in Guam, that is not THAT far away for a figther to reach. Sapporo goes adios and so the planes just kill themselves out of existence, instead of relocating to Guam, like they should have.
      What's really annoying is that, before all those "updates" like the refueling mechanic, or the "new" targeting system for naval unit, playing was a more enjoyable experience. Better to have something simple and solid that works best for what it is, than "realistic" mechanics that are overcomplicated, unnecesary and broken from birth

      Btw, if this is a bugs fault, doesn't that mean that, to make things right, you also have to give me back the units I lost? I mean, it was on you at the end of the day

      what targeting system? Do you mean the one that is no longer an issue like even slightly?

      Okay, what took out the airbase in Sapporo? Were you online and saw everything when all of this happened? I’m guessing it was navy that took it out or you weren’t online and the city was taken. Given where you were patrolling it wouldn’t be surprising if your planes just got shot down by frigates. Is it still in your reports? If not maybe the news? Both of those are still incorrect though sometimes so take that for what it’s worth.

    • Jim Lake wrote:

      TheGENOC1D3R wrote:

      playbabe wrote:

      TheGENOC1D3R wrote:

      Can someone explain to me what does this mean. I've just lost a five stack of fighters (that where patroling that is) just because their airport was destroyed. No other airport was in the inmediate range, but there was one NOT that far away. Instead of go that way, how that would usually happen before, (and was not that far so the planes wouldnt run out of fuel) they just crash landed and that was it
      Man, I would give them a praise for their take on realism if they didn't choose the worst things to be realistic about. Or if that "realism" were at least well implemented; gave us Coke, and now trying to force feed on us Pepsi. Its just my opinion anyway, but I think that a year ago this game was more enjoyable
      If you can provided all info to replicate this will be very good. in beta test we found this issue too but it is fixed, retest, confirm to be fixed. so if it show up again yes i would like more details
      My figthers where hovering east of Japan. The planes where lvl 6, so they had an increased range. Their airport was in Sapporo. And I had another one in Guam, that is not THAT far away for a figther to reach. Sapporo goes adios and so the planes just kill themselves out of existence, instead of relocating to Guam, like they should have.What's really annoying is that, before all those "updates" like the refueling mechanic, or the "new" targeting system for naval unit, playing was a more enjoyable experience. Better to have something simple and solid that works best for what it is, than "realistic" mechanics that are overcomplicated, unnecesary and broken from birth

      Btw, if this is a bugs fault, doesn't that mean that, to make things right, you also have to give me back the units I lost? I mean, it was on you at the end of the day

      what targeting system? Do you mean the one that is no longer an issue like even slightly?

      Okay, what took out the airbase in Sapporo? Were you online and saw everything when all of this happened? I’m guessing it was navy that took it out or you weren’t online and the city was taken. Given where you were patrolling it wouldn’t be surprising if your planes just got shot down by frigates. Is it still in your reports? If not maybe the news? Both of those are still incorrect though sometimes so take that for what it’s worth.

      No longer an issue? Man, have you ever tried to attack some "unkow radar contact" near to the shore just for the ships to start attacking the center of the province instead. That happens a lot of times, like really, a lot, considering that has been ""fixed"

      An no, there were no frigates arround. The airport was taken down by a stack of strike fighters, and at the time my figthers were hovering far away of such airport, so they didnt take any damage, ever. Besides, I was notified that that just happen so, yeah, the planes just commited suicide after losing their airport. I leave the images below as evidence of that
      Files

      • evidencia.jpg

        (28.34 kB, downloaded 4 times, last: )

      • evidencia2.jpg

        (10.19 kB, downloaded 4 times, last: )

    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      Hi,

      I started a nice and clean discussion about this new feature.

      R.I.P. CON ? The Hand of GOD feature release
      Mate, I just dont get why they are so adamant on changing things that already work. "If it works just fine, dont fix it". Instead of overcomplicating things with that "realism" of the refueling mechanic, why dont they just roll back the air unit mechanics to the time they worked as best as it was? a.k.a. before that refueling lame-thing. It was not perfect, but it worked just fine

    • yeah they should work on the important things such as mines, the building queue(so I can get security council again) and different colors for radar contact(naval,sonar and airplane/helicopter)

      I also thought they do a boost the activity rush again. I still enter maps were 50% of the countries are jsut wastelands. And its godo countires liek japan
      I mean i am stuck with core cites kirgistan and the nice 7 citiy japan is basically untouched.
      Easy thing is:
      If a player doenst issue any orders withint he first 10 mintues kick him from the game and open the spot to someone else.

      And dont spawn 10 time the same map but wait till one is full and then open a new one. otherwise only the top picks are done and noone will join the game that are 50% full. Cause you know that only the "shithole" 5 homeland cities countries in the middle of africa or some other nowhere land are left
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.

    • I just noticed an other funny effect.I had a stack of 1 recon, 1 inf and 1 NG. I aurlifted them. the stack waa separate in 3 different transports.Problem:
      I dont zhink they will merge at the port of destination. and they are a perfect overstacking target for enemy fighters.
      @Dorado If you Close the Forum and move everything to Discord you will lose my Feedback for sure.

    • Wait, so how did this happen?

      Before, when the airport was destroyed planes became trucks.
      Now, it no longer happens - they move if they can, otherwise they crash.

      So, how did these planes become trucks, even though the airport is untouched? i presume they crapped in their pants and decided driving was safer than fighting? :)
      Files

    • Sgniappo wrote:

      Wait, so how did this happen?

      Before, when the airport was destroyed planes became trucks.
      Now, it no longer happens - they move if they can, otherwise they crash.

      So, how did these planes become trucks, even though the airport is untouched? i presume they crapped in their pants and decided driving was safer than fighting? :)
      Hi! Can you provide us the GameID related with this issue? Thanks!

    • A word of practical, operational feedback.

      I'm France. I'm attacking Belarus. I do that through Germany and Poland. I do that with a fair amount of air assets.

      I attack from Warsaw, which has a lvl 1 airport. The closest airport after that is Stockholm. Belarus sends its bombers to Warsaw, i don't intercept them in time, i lose 12 choppers and 3 drones. Planes, having a longer range, manage to survive through Stockholm. Mixed stacks lose their choppers, planes survive.

      Fine, my fault, i knew about the changes, and i knew this could happen.

      In retrospect though, how could i have done this differently? The only way was to have Poland build more airports around for safety, or protect the single airport with tons of AA, since one or more units can always get through (in this case the bombers were re-routed to Ukraine, took a southern route, not the one i was expecting, so my planned ASF interception failed).

      My point is: operationally, this change is making territory that borders with your allies difficult, if not impossible, to attack by air. Because since it's not your territory, you can't build multiple backup airports, and you can hardly ever ask people (with less resources than you) to do that, because they have their own resourcing constraints.

      As others said before me: it's land time. oh this is gonna be boooriiiing...
      s

    • Sgniappo wrote:

      ... and you can hardly ever ask people (with less resources than you) to do that, because they have their own resourcing constraints. ...
      Nitpicking: Well, you could go through the hassles of selling a resource-poor ally some of your resources (I know that's no fun and not foolproof, but it is possible).

      Big picture: I agree that some things that were easy(ish) before are different now - That might be a good thing in the long run, but that doesn't make the psychological effects of needing to break old habits and redesign strategies less jarring.

      For a little while the people this pushes out of their current comfort zones and will get to spend some time finding new ones (new favorite strategies and playing styles).

      Heaven forfend that those new comfort zones include more land combat =O (more artillery duels? <X ) (maybe MBTs become the new uber-meta-units? <X <X ;) )

    • KFGauss wrote:

      Sgniappo wrote:

      ... and you can hardly ever ask people (with less resources than you) to do that, because they have their own resourcing constraints. ...
      Nitpicking: Well, you could go through the hassles of selling a resource-poor ally some of your resources (I know that's no fun and not foolproof, but it is possible).
      Yes. That makes a number of assumptions though, like 1) that your allies are active and they don't login once/day (my Poland doesn't even know yet that his airport is now a beautiful green field where natural life flourishes), 2) that they can actually have the money to purchase your resources (and the market, pricing, smallest bid, etc.)

      On the comfort zone, change management philosophy, teambuilding exercises and MBTI profiling... :rolleyes: :love: sure. we'll figure everything out. But that doesn't change that attacking enemies by air through ally territory is now messy?

      s

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

    • Sorry for stating the obvious here, but doesn't this issue make carriers totally, or even more, useless?

      Meaning: Carriers are meant to be a forward airport. by definition, you don't have airports in range, if you use carriers. I put my planes on the carrier, go across the pond, attack with planes (or choppers). Land, build airport, let everything else come in.

      In a previous game i attacked Algeria from France with e-frigates and choppers. outside of operational range, by default.

      But if in any way my carrying capacity is reduced (one efrigate is down, for example), all of the air capacity that before would have packed its bags and flown back, sinks.

      We can agree that it's realistic. But we'll also agree that unless the range is ferry like it was recommended above, then carriers are a very, very risky business. Considering the lack of popularity to-date, this won't encourage carrier use.

      No?

    • Sgniappo wrote:

      Considering the lack of popularity to-date, this won't encourage carrier use.
      Even without this issue, I have yet to see a convincing use case for carriers. That is, a situation where their cost would be justified in terms of advantage that would not be better achieved by other units.

      It is probably no coincidence that experienced players tend to not rely on them.
      Commander Zozo001 :thumbsup:
      humble player