Planes in CoN

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

    • Planes in CoN

      Coming from a military background and all my life being a military nut, I am actually surprised how many people on this forum consistently refer to the strike fighters in this game and revolve strategies around them as if they are an attack aircraft. I think it’s about time sometime clears this up here as even I have found myself caught up in the helicopter plane debate. Strike fighters such as the f35 are multi role aircraft capable of performing air superiority duties as well as strikes, hence the name Strike/Fighter. The real comparison to Helis would be the actual attack aircraft, the elite attack aircraft which are dedicated to strikes exactly the same way ASF are dedicated to air. Strike fighters are just the balanced middle of these two and should be treated as such. Upon a quick glance it seems that elite aircraft are cheaper than strike fighters and they do their job so much better, these paired with ASF would be a far superior strategy to strikers and Helis early game especially if you are going to transition into artillery, sams, and radar.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by MattBooth25 ().

    • My usuals know you you are, I would like to discuss this more. To me now it seems wasteful to invest in two types of Helis with a small range, or to invest in strike fighters, when ASF and elite aircraft are practically meant for each other and compliment and cover each others strengths and weaknesses perfectly.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MattBooth25 ().

    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      My usuals know you you are, I would like to discuss this more. To me now it seems wasteful to invest in two types of Helis with a small range, or to invest in strike fighters, when ASF and elite aircraft are practically meant for each other and compliment and cover each others strengths and weaknesses perfectly.
      You do understand that when it comes to playing a game, nothing in the real world matters in the slightest - Right?

      Only the game's rules have any value within the game's universe.

      Rename the CoN Strike Fighter to "Bicycle" and display pictures of "Fish" in the graphics, and it would still be good at exactly what it's good at now, in the game.

    • KFGauss wrote:

      MattBooth25 wrote:

      My usuals know you you are, I would like to discuss this more. To me now it seems wasteful to invest in two types of Helis with a small range, or to invest in strike fighters, when ASF and elite aircraft are practically meant for each other and compliment and cover each others strengths and weaknesses perfectly.
      You do understand that when it comes to playing a game, nothing in the real world matters in the slightest - Right?
      Only the game's rules have any value within the game's universe.

      Rename the CoN Strike Fighter to "Bicycle" and display pictures of "Fish" in the graphics, and it would still be good at exactly what it's good at now, in the game.
      And, your point is? I'm confused on where this is bringing any value to this thread in the slightest. Would you like to discuss the in-game versions of these which is what I am clearly referring to in this thread, with just a small piece on what strike fighters are which could be ignored or read it really doesn't add much to the topic.

    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      . . . I am actually surprised how many people on this forum consistently refer to the strike fighters in this game and revolve strategies around them as if they are an attack aircraft. . . .

      MattBooth25 wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      You do understand that when it comes to playing a game, nothing in the real world matters in the slightest - Right?Only the game's rules have any value within the game's universe.

      Rename the CoN Strike Fighter to "Bicycle" and display pictures of "Fish" in the graphics, and it would still be good at exactly what it's good at now, in the game.
      And, your point is?
      Surely you know perfectly well what my point is, and you're just trolling.

      In CoN, the units called Strike Fighters are an [easily produced] powerful aircraft, no matter what computer-graphics-skin is wrapped around them, and no matter what name they are given, and public-game strategies that revolve around that obvious fact are better than many others.. Duh.

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

    • Do you agree or disagree with any of these following points that I outlines in my original post?

      1. Players are mistakenly referring to and using strike fighters in this game incorrectly, which I think most all of us can agree that these planes are specifically designed in this game to replicate their real-world counterparts and their strengths no matter how much you say that they do not.

      2. Comparing the strength and weaknesses of 4 units in the game, when they are paired together. 2 being helicopters and 2 being planes.

      3. The cost of building asf and striker's vs asf and elite aircraft in tandem early game and also comparing this to helicopters.

      4. Any thoughts that you may wish to share in this present time.

      ,because I am starting to feel like you rarely have anything meaningful to add to these posts. You either are too lazy and refer to others old work, or you simply trash peoples genuine thoughts without offering any insight of your own. Please prove me wrong.

    • KFGauss wrote:

      MattBooth25 wrote:

      KFGauss wrote:

      You do understand that when it comes to playing a game, nothing in the real world matters in the slightest - Right?Only the game's rules have any value within the game's universe.

      Rename the CoN Strike Fighter to "Bicycle" and display pictures of "Fish" in the graphics, and it would still be good at exactly what it's good at now, in the game.
      And, your point is?
      Surely you know perfectly well what my point is, and you're just trolling.
      In CoN, Strike Fighters are "an [easily produced] attack aircraft", and public-game strategies that revolve around that obvious fact are better than many others.. Duh.
      Actually, no, nobody would be expected to assume that's what you meant. Please detail what you mean, when you say easily produced do you mean that some may not have access to it because it is a seasonal, or another reason. If seasonal is your reasoning I still don't understand how that relates to my topic as this strategy would not involve players without these aircraft...clearly. And either way you should have started with that. And not only did you assume that because some don't have this aircraft this would be a poor strategy, you also assumed it would have to be a public game. You clearly dont want to add anything to this, instead you just assume and spew crap.

    • ok thank you for not helping me at all then in my post, keep talking about others when I am asking the question. I will stand by this when I say you are a useless contributor. Is it lazier to write an entire detailed post with my own original thoughts asking for peoples opinions. Or to just read through 2 year old posts, you are honestly so ridiculous.

    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      I am just going to hope that others in this forum can read this, understand what I am trying to understand and discuss and then write back with actually thought out responses.
      Across more than one thread, you've repeatedly used references to real life combat vehicles and tactics, and used those references to describe either how you play, or to recommend tactics, strategies, or game changes.

      In post #3 in this thread I pointed out to you that those real life considerations are irrelevant during game play, and I left unsaid but implied that they are only marginally useful when suggesting game design changes.

      No more, no less.

      I'm just going to hope that others in this forum can read this, can understand what I am trying to convey, and then write better (actually thought out) posts in the future.

    • You are still saying these opinionated statements like stop using real life knowledge to play without offering anything and that makes you an absolute tool. You have nothing to say which is has any backing outside of what you believe and that is a terribly stupid way of going about things. I have offered many ways to have a conversation with you. But you choose to offer nothing. I still have zero idea where you stand on using elite attack aircraft in the game because all you say is some people don’t have it, it’s not accessible in public easily, well guess what I asked about it and I have it, you tool. I don’t even know why you think air superiority fighters wouldn’t pair well with elite aircraft better than using Helis and asf or strikers and asf, because guess what you don’t tell, and I don’t want to know anymore, you just add nothing. Thank for nothing.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MattBooth25 ().

    • you also seem to live by the idea that going to past forum threads is a good way to learn, you are so wrong for that and it clouds everything you do and the way you act here. Yes going to past knowledge is good for a static environment like math, history, cooking, how to drive etc. not for constantly changing games with new tactics and ideas and thoughts being added everyday. That is how ideas grow and develop by creating new threads revolved around past thoughts. You need to have a serious reality check because right now you are so wrong.

    • You clearly see this forum as something that shouldn’t change anymore, no similar thoughts or same questions at a later date to new people, or god forbid you’re gonna come down and say your opinion like your adding something special, your not. You want some stupid never going to happen Wikipedia of knowledge that is the Bible for CoN, you are delusional, it doesn’t work that way buddy.

    • MattBooth25 wrote:

      You clearly see this forum as something that shouldn’t change anymore, no similar thoughts or same questions at a later date to new people, or god forbid you’re gonna come down and say your opinion like your adding something special, your not. You want some stupid never going to happen Wikipedia of knowledge that is the Bible for CoN, you are delusional, it doesn’t work that way buddy.
      Because clearly we need 500 different Threads on SF vs Helis; or Naval Mines or [insert other common Thread topic].
      I am The Baseline for opinions

    • I'll defend a bit MattBooth here : The subject is not new, this is true, but he tries to approach it with his own angle. It's acceptable, and forces to think on the subject differently from some other times. You may argue that it's very subtle, and i'll agree, but this falls under my understanding of "different enough to be discussed even if similar".


      To answer, first, i will not dwell into the helicopters too much : Matt is obviously yet to cross the skill treshold where he will understand why helicopters are considered more powerful than strike fighters. Many topics exist on the subject, i will not be explaining it for a tenth time.

      What is interesting is that what he points tends to show one of the weakness of the general design regarding to targets and roles.


      By simplicity, the game has ASF and SFs, which we can summarise by :

      - A plane for Air to Air
      - A plane for Air to Ground


      In reality, there are many many roles of aircrafts, especially to the Cold War :

      ASF encompass in their general role Air Superiority Fighters, but also Interceptors and Interdictors.
      Strike Fighter encompass in their general role Attack Fighters, but also so called "Multirole" fighters.

      It's not very elegant, because for several of those roles, the unit is not represented properly.

      While the difference is subtle : ASF are in theory an offensive side of the air-air role. More weapons, more radar, dedicated to actually trying to get the airforce of the enemy out of his own airspace. It doesn't account for the role of the Interceptor, supposedly made as a Defensive side of the air-air role, and denying ASFs and Air to Ground assets the ability to establish their own superiority.

      SF are in theory attack aircraft, the successor to the CAS (Close Air Support) role of planes from the WW2. In effect, the game handles them as "semi multirole", in theory able to fight equally in the air and to the ground.

      Maybe we need more variety to planes, also in a way to weaken each single variant, and maybe the approach toward helicopters should be less "damage based", and more related to perks and indirect capacities. Currently, why do we do helicopters more than airplanes ?

      1°) Specialised damage output suits more heavy micro
      2°) Cost efficiency higher in the methodical approach to extermination we follow
      3°) Visibility and radar signature much harder to spot
      4°) Less Counters and threats
      5°) What counters the helicopters has lots of counters.


      Maybe we do really need a "altitude" system with modifiers to performances, and maybe we need a unique "multirole" branch, that is significantly more expensive than ASF or SF, but emulating the thoughts of the powerful countries late in the cold war (less quantity, more potent individual planes).
      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.

    • KFGauss wrote:

      MattBooth25 wrote:

      My usuals know you you are, I would like to discuss this more. To me now it seems wasteful to invest in two types of Helis with a small range, or to invest in strike fighters, when ASF and elite aircraft are practically meant for each other and compliment and cover each others strengths and weaknesses perfectly.
      You do understand that when it comes to playing a game, nothing in the real world matters in the slightest - Right?
      Only the game's rules have any value within the game's universe.

      Rename the CoN Strike Fighter to "Bicycle" and display pictures of "Fish" in the graphics, and it would still be good at exactly what it's good at now, in the game.
      Ooooooo, I'd LOVE this. It wouldn't affect my game in the slightest AND drive the "B-but ma realism" and "ooo, pretty pictures" people absolutely bonkers.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD

    • Opulon wrote:

      I'll defend a bit MattBooth here : The subject is not new, this is true, but he tries to approach it with his own angle. It's acceptable, and forces to think on the subject differently from some other times. You may argue that it's very subtle, and i'll agree, but this falls under my understanding of "different enough to be discussed even if similar".


      To answer, first, i will not dwell into the helicopters too much : Matt is obviously yet to cross the skill treshold where he will understand why helicopters are considered more powerful than strike fighters. Many topics exist on the subject, i will not be explaining it for a tenth time.

      What is interesting is that what he points tends to show one of the weakness of the general design regarding to targets and roles.


      By simplicity, the game has ASF and SFs, which we can summarise by :

      - A plane for Air to Air
      - A plane for Air to Ground


      In reality, there are many many roles of aircrafts, especially to the Cold War :

      ASF encompass in their general role Air Superiority Fighters, but also Interceptors and Interdictors.
      Strike Fighter encompass in their general role Attack Fighters, but also so called "Multirole" fighters.

      It's not very elegant, because for several of those roles, the unit is not represented properly.

      While the difference is subtle : ASF are in theory an offensive side of the air-air role. More weapons, more radar, dedicated to actually trying to get the airforce of the enemy out of his own airspace. It doesn't account for the role of the Interceptor, supposedly made as a Defensive side of the air-air role, and denying ASFs and Air to Ground assets the ability to establish their own superiority.

      SF are in theory attack aircraft, the successor to the CAS (Close Air Support) role of planes from the WW2. In effect, the game handles them as "semi multirole", in theory able to fight equally in the air and to the ground.

      Maybe we need more variety to planes, also in a way to weaken each single variant, and maybe the approach toward helicopters should be less "damage based", and more related to perks and indirect capacities. Currently, why do we do helicopters more than airplanes ?

      1°) Specialised damage output suits more heavy micro
      2°) Cost efficiency higher in the methodical approach to extermination we follow
      3°) Visibility and radar signature much harder to spot
      4°) Less Counters and threats
      5°) What counters the helicopters has lots of counters.


      Maybe we do really need a "altitude" system with modifiers to performances, and maybe we need a unique "multirole" branch, that is significantly more expensive than ASF or SF, but emulating the thoughts of the powerful countries late in the cold war (less quantity, more potent individual planes).
      please allow me 24 hours to respond to this, I have so many things that this has made me think about.

    • Opulon wrote:

      By simplicity, the game has ASF and SFs, which we can summarise by :


      - A plane for Air to Air
      - A plane for Air to Ground

      . . .


      doesn't account for the role of the Interceptor, supposedly made as a Defensive side of the air-air role, and denying ASFs and Air to Ground assets the ability to establish their own superiority.


      . . .
      Given that (to a first approximation) we have the following in-game characteristics to modify to give a new Air-to-Air interceptor unit a personality that is significantly different from existing units:
      • Cost(s)
      • Atk
      • Def
      • Speed
      • Range
      I'm thinking that having a much shorter Range would be the parameter that would most distinguish an "interceptor" from the existing ASF (and SF or EAA).

      It also should probably be a little cheaper than the ASF?

      To keep the interceptor from becoming a fast alternative to helicopters, it would have low Hard-Atk and Soft-Atk abilities.

      Is that the general idea?