For the love of God, STOP AIRBORNE AIRSTRIKES IN BASE SECTORS

[Walderschmidt]

This is abuse, pure and simple. Constant airborne drops into bases, constant fly bys to get planes shot down in my base area to destroy base buildings. All intentional, and the guy who does that just does a pathetic feign as if he does not know what he's doing.

STOP THE AIRBORNE BASE BOMBING

Here's the fucking replay.

temp.rec

(3.87 MiB) Downloaded 120 times

Sure, my side could have played better. Sure, we could have capped more of the map to prevent the allies from getting so many munis, but really, recon runs are only what, 50 munis?

Wald

[maousaki]

I would say generally falling planes cause damage without actually hurting the owner of the planes. Sometimes it's better to not have anti-air, since the plane is gonna shoot/recon anyways and then get destroyed and fall on top of your units.

What i was thinking about all airplane based abilities is to increase their cost if the plane/planes get shot down. Don't know if that's possible in the engine though.

[MarKr]

What i was thinking about all airplane based abilities is to increase their cost if the plane/planes get shot down. Don't know if that's possible in the engine though.

You mean if the plane gets shot down the ability cost would go up? I am not sure if it is possible but even if it was possible you might end up with recon planes for 300 or more munitions and "raid" abilities costing more than 600 ammo which would be impossible to use due to ammo cap which BK mod has.

[maousaki]

That's what i mean but for sure not like that. You will not actually pay the plane in ammunition, but rather just an increase in the cost.

For example recon from 50 to 100 munition if the plane gets shot down. Maybe even the normal cost drops. Furthermore the cost can be also manpower, munition and fuel all together. Anyways airborne doctrines usually swim in fuel.

But if it's not possible then there is no reason to talk about it.

[kwok]

So one thing I was thinking is to make the ability like if a plane gets shot down it can never be used again. In SD44 you control the plane itself like it’s a unit. If it gets shot down you no longer have it
And just cuz I know it might be asked, I don’t know how to make it that you’d have multiple planes, you’d only have one plane. And no air patrols, that wouldn’t work.
This would be a major nerf to air docs, I don’t recommend it right now but it’s an idea to play around with as I’m working on reworks

[Warhawks97]

well... as i see it:

1. A dude abused it perhaps and all shall get punished? There are abuses that you find every game which need fixes. But such things arent common... i had planes crashing my base but its rare that someone spams recon airplanes on your base by purpose hoping to make them crash there.
2. Upping cost after every shot down plane? In games there can be a shitload of aa shooting down 90% of all planes coming in.... all shall get punished for trying air attacks at the end?


I would add a button for aa guns that makes them stop shooting airplanes. Thus if you know your enemie spams recon planes on your base, just disable your base aa weapons. That would be the easiest. The aa at your front can shoot planes afterall if you expect a massive plane attack like patroles etc (like when you charge and expect henschels coming, just enable your aa again).

[maousaki]

I wasn't really talking about the recon planes crashing in base specifically. It was more of an idea. And again i was talking about a small increase, or anyway something that will be balanced, not historical about cost of planes.

Kwok in SD44 you also have limited number of infantry and tanks. That's why planes are limited too. "Europe in Ruins intensifies".

[The New BK Champion]

This is a discussion about a problem that barely exist

[Walderschmidt]

This is a discussion about a problem that barely exist

Deliberately base bombing with recon runs or strafing/bombing runs in someone's base?

Wald

[winterflaw]

> I would add a button for aa guns that makes them stop shooting airplanes.

I may be wrong, but that on the face of it seems crazy.

Stop and think about it for a minute - a button to stop a weapon from doing the very thing that weapon was created to do.

What would we think of a button on anti-tank weapons to stop them shooting tanks, or a button on sniper rifles to stop them sniping?

If we come to think this as a solution, something more fundamental is wrong, and we need to figure out what that is and fix *that*.

(Also, consider when a plane comes over, and its a plane we *do* want to try to shoot down (a bomber), how do we recognize this fact in a timely manner to turn the AA guns back on? this is extremely micro and so a burden.)

Increasing muni cost doesn't seem viable. What happens if someone has exactly 50 muni and they send a plane over? do you put them into negative muni? it' sopen to exploitation - especially if the muni cost of a shot down plane is high, because then you'll be down to 50 muni most of the time. Anyway, it's too fiddly. Combat is busy and complex enough with all costs known ahead of time. If you start throwing in stuff where the cost can vary on execution, it's just a PITA.

Having a plane stop working first time it's shot down is no good. It basically rapidly removes the ability from the game - it's more or less a one shot, and something you can't control, because you can't usually know ahead of time exactly where enemy AA units are. That's too much of a nerf.

> 1. A dude abused it perhaps and all shall get punished?

A reasonable and sane fix for exploitable behaviour, whether it is rarely or commonly used, is not punishment.

[winterflaw]

I regard what happened an as exploit.

It was clearly not the COH/BKM intended use of the recon plane. So much damage from a 50 muni ability is not in line with the rest of the game, nor it is in line with any reasonable view of the use of recon planes in WW2.

A recon plane should be a cheap action. Increasing it's cost is not appropriate, not if you wish it still be to *and only be* recon.

Increasing its cost in fact is recognition of the non-reasonable use of the recon plane as a kamakaize unit *and pricing it accordingly*.

Even if this was done, it still then leaves open the requirement for a *recon only* air unit, and so the problem of how to price that correctly in fact remains.

As it is, it would be better to stay more true to the actual use of recon planes in WW2.

The only way I can really see out of this is to reduce the damage done by crashing planes.

Is this possible?

[kwok]

Could make the recon plane near invincible and never crash.

[Walderschmidt]

^I like the idea of making recon plane do very little damage upon crashing.

Wouldn't punish people for using recon run.

Wald

[speeddemon02]

Would it make sense to add a small amount of fuel to the cost of airplane abilities?

[Beast Slayer]

Reducing the crash damage of planes is the most reasonable solution. Anything else would punish user too much.

[Viper]

This is a discussion about a problem that barely exist

agreed.


i dont agree with reducing damage of planes crashing. it is realistic now.

[Beast Slayer]

This is a discussion about a problem that barely exist

agreed.


i dont agree with reducing damage of planes crashing. it is realistic now.

Im fine with the planes as they are now too. I mentioned the crash damage reduction only because there was other wilder suggestions as a solution to this "barrely existing problem".

[winterflaw]

A recon plane typically would be at a high altitude, going very fast. They were almost never shot down, by anything, fighters or AA. If you did shoot one down, given its altitude, it would crash many miles away.

Perhaps recon planes are immune or almost immune to damage.

(In fact kwok has suggested this change already, although without a rationale).

[MarKr]

If you make recons "near invincible" it will turn the ability into a "non-downside" recon. Normal recon units need to be sneaked into some position from where they provide vision. Recon planes reveal area for a short time without any need for "setting up".
However the bigger problem I see with it is that if Recons become invincible, they will be used as "baits" for AAs to make attack planes less likely to get shot down. You send it somewhere, all AAs in the are will target this one plane (which is unlikely to get shot down) and they won't stop shooting until the plane is down or leaves the map. In the mean time, bombers/straffes/patrols can be sent without much threat because the AAs are still "locked" on the recon.

[winterflaw]

If you make recons "near invincible" it will turn the ability into a "non-downside" recon. Normal recon units need to be sneaked into some position from where they provide vision. Recon planes reveal area for a short time without any need for "setting up".

Sure, but air recon is transient.

However the bigger problem I see with it is that if Recons become invincible, they will be used as "baits" for AAs to make attack planes less likely to get shot down. You send it somewhere, all AAs in the are will target this one plane (which is unlikely to get shot down) and they won't stop shooting until the plane is down or leaves the map. In the mean time, bombers/straffes/patrols can be sent without much threat because the AAs are still "locked" on the recon.

Right. I concur, so making and only making the change of recon to immune isn't viable.

Can it be that AA doesn't shoot at recon planes?

[MarKr]

Sure, but air recon is transient.

Sure, but it allows you to reveal parts of map where you would normally not be able to get your recon units with "permanent" vision. So it is something for something.

Can it be that AA doesn't shoot at recon planes?

It would be possible to do but then it again leaves the "recon without any downside" thing.

Maybe it would be possible to set it so that the plane, when destroyed, uses the "pull up and crash god-knows-where" death type more often than the "dive down and slightly to the side". This should (if it is possible to do) cause that the planes will crash directly into objects on their flight-paths less often.

[MEFISTO]

Hey guys it is simple, you know some peoples abuse doing base bomb without any reason in this case he abuse using those planes to destroy our base and units in the base so the solution is simple remermber his nic name leave the game, and rehost and don' t play with that peace of sh....t Any more, as simple as that. Air reacon is fine as is right now.

[Warhawks97]

@Winterflaw:

ehm.... we do have "hold fire" abilties that prevent all units from exactly what they are supposed to do: shooting the enemie. So i just thought about "disable aa to fire at planes".... if its too micro intense for you, fine, you dont need to use it.


Anything else, invincible recon, higher cost etc is nonsense for reasons already mentioned.


ultimately i would say that Mefisto nailed it.

[winterflaw]

ehm.... we do have "hold fire" abilties that prevent all units from exactly what they are supposed to do: shooting the enemie.

I may be wrong, but these are used to prevent a unit from giving its position away.

So i just thought about "disable aa to fire at planes".... if its too micro intense for you, fine, you dont need to use it.

Which means that this, as a proposed solution for recon abuse, is not viable for me, or anyone who finds it too micro. I would actually say its crazy micro, because how are you going to turn that on/off quickly enough when a non-recon plane comes in? on multiple AA units? I did say this before, you've not explained how it could be viable.

Anything else, invincible recon, higher cost etc is nonsense for reasons already mentioned.

There's an ongoing discussion.

[winterflaw]

Hey guys it is simple, you know some peoples abuse doing base bomb without any reason in this case he abuse using those planes to destroy our base and units in the base so the solution is simple remermber his nic name leave the game, and rehost and don' t play with that peace of sh....t Any more, as simple as that. Air reacon is fine as is right now.

Your proposed solution then is to not fix exploitable behaviour, but not to play with people who abuse exploits.

Given the relatively low number of people playing BKM, a lot of the time, a lot of players will be playing with strangers. You have to play with someone once to find out they're an asshole. Better they can't *be* an asshole, than who knows how many people spending the time to have a game ruined, before the asshole then notices no one is playing with him and changes his nickname, which renders this method ineffective.

Remembering nicknames is a burden on users.

The more exploits there are, the more people who would abuse them, the more names to remember.

And, more fundamentally, why should we *not* apply sane and reasonable fixes to exploits?