AA Feedback

[Warhawks97]

After having played a couple of games and also watching and analyzing some replays i would say that AA is just too strong.
During the games i didnt notice how many planes got shot down because most didnt even make it into the map.
And all that was needed was a single M16 quad cal 50 (which for some reason seems to be stronger than emplaced version), single german 20 mm HT, Puma, Opel Blitz, whatever.

I learned in BK that i have to set up my AA smart and more than one to be save. Now i could place them just anywhere (not even close to the frontline where the planes came across and far away from their flight path) and shot down so many planes.
I had for example 9 with a sinlge M16 being far in the backline (i literally forgot it there), 5 with a single Opel Blitz that covered my entire team and 12 with a wirbelwind which i also put somewhere in haste. A single Gepard protected me and my team against a combo of RAF and AB planes.
and so on and so on.


These units are available literally right from the start of the game (HR games), cost no CP, are cheap and are also good in shredding infantry and light vehicles into pieces. And they single-handedly deny an entire branch of an enemie doctrine that has cost them tons of CP.


I would perhaps think about dividing AA units. There would be those available for free but less effective, so you have some sort of protection but better get more than one. And then there would be those costing a few CP but which in turn are a lot more effective. You unlock and get them when your enemie is literally swarming you with planes. These are just my thoughts about it.


Currently its just absurd in my opinion.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I agree, in my experience single AA placed in the corner of the map takes down the major portion of airstrikes. Therefore AB and RAF often feel pretty underwhelming in late game, as one AA vehicle denies your entire CP branch, which is supposed to be the main support instrument.

[Walderschmidt]

Hasn’t been my experience. Will try to test more when I get a chance.

Wald

[CGarr]

AA is fine to me. You can kill AA trucks, you can't kill planes if AA doesn't work. Anyways, people are still saying airborne is "OP" right now with all it's strafes, even after the big AA buffs, so nerfing AA would probably result in that being constantly bitched about again by even more people.

Airborne and RAF shouldn't be centered entirely around their airstrikes as the source of their late game strength if it is such a controversial topic. The ground troops should take the spotlight instead, similarly to how Luft is balanced. Sure, it might feel 'redundant', but I'd argue the factions are still unique enough on their own that it wouldn't be a big deal if the docs played similarly, tank-centered docs are arguably way more redundant anyways. Placing most of these doctrine's firepower in their airstrikes has only resulted in constant complaints stating that air is too weak or too strong, and unlike with standard unit balance, there isn't any good in-game examples to reference for how to balance airstrikes. As such, it will always be safer to have AA be too strong than for it to be too weak, as far less people will complain if it is too strong, and you can make a valid argument about AA actually being counter-able by ground troops where airstrikes aren't counter-able if AA is ineffective.

[Warhawks97]

AA is fine to me. You can kill AA trucks, you can't kill planes if AA doesn't work. Anyways, people are still saying airborne is "OP" right now with all it's strafes, even after the big AA buffs, so nerfing AA would probably result in that being constantly bitched about again by even more people.

Airborne and RAF shouldn't be centered entirely around their airstrikes as the source of their late game strength if it is such a controversial topic. The ground troops should take the spotlight instead, similarly to how Luft is balanced. Sure, it might feel 'redundant', but I'd argue the factions are still unique enough on their own that it wouldn't be a big deal if the docs played similarly, tank-centered docs are arguably way more redundant anyways. Placing most of these doctrine's firepower in their airstrikes has only resulted in constant complaints stating that air is too weak or too strong, and unlike with standard unit balance, there isn't any good in-game examples to reference for how to balance airstrikes. As such, it will always be safer to have AA be too strong than for it to be too weak, as far less people will complain if it is too strong, and you can make a valid argument about AA actually being counter-able by ground troops where airstrikes aren't counter-able if AA is ineffective.

The issue is that these aa units are not only AA units, but also decent in killing inf.

So whats left in a doc that has only inf and airstrikes?


For me its like a 37 mm AT gun would shoot up Panthers which btw cost just 6 CP or Pershings. And thats with ease. Thats why i would prefer to have standard medicore AA but which is cheap and spamable. And then there would be those hardcore AA units that get unlocked.

Right now during games i am like "dont they use airstrikes?". And After the match i am like "oh they did, they just didnt make it into the map even".



You must be really foolish to get your AA not working like parking it right in front of your base surrounded by hedgerows.

[MarKr]

AA units are only effective in AA mode. When they are mobile, they suck at shooting planes, when they are in AA mode, they cannot attack infantry. They are affected by smoke so if you know where the unit is, you can drop some smoke on them and send the plane, the unit will miss most or all of its shots and if it doesn't hit, it doesn't destroy the planes. If you use smoke and the opponent moves the unit, the unit is mobile and sucks at plane killing again.

In the past (like very long time ago) airstrikes were basically just an offmap arty that had a different visual and sound effect. The intention is that airstrikes are deadlier than offmap arty but the downside is they can be countered by AA, but there are ways to lower the effectiveness of the AA. Oponent can build more AA units but that makes him dump more resources into the AA coverage, which means fewer of other combat units in the field.

[Walderschmidt]

I don’t think AA is OP right now from playing with it. Maybe I just am not using or placing it to Warhawks standards, but I think it is fine now.

Wald

[Warhawks97]

AA units are only effective in AA mode. When they are mobile, they suck at shooting planes, when they are in AA mode, they cannot attack infantry. They are affected by smoke so if you know where the unit is, you can drop some smoke on them and send the plane, the unit will miss most or all of its shots and if it doesn't hit, it doesn't destroy the planes. If you use smoke and the opponent moves the unit, the unit is mobile and sucks at plane killing again.

In the past (like very long time ago) airstrikes were basically just an offmap arty that had a different visual and sound effect. The intention is that airstrikes are deadlier than offmap arty but the downside is they can be countered by AA, but there are ways to lower the effectiveness of the AA. Oponent can build more AA units but that makes him dump more resources into the AA coverage, which means fewer of other combat units in the field.

most aa units are at arround 300 MP. The basic once. Its not a big deal really.
Also do you really want everyone to fire smoke every time before launching planes? Most airstikes are very situational and you cant wait untill or mortar smoke did its job. Like "Wait enemie, i must smoke your aa first".

This is so damn impossible. I also said "it can" in emergency situations be used vs inf and killing them decently. Sometimes, when i noticed a plane was coming, i did switch into aa mode, the unit fired like a shot, plane was downed in a mere second and then i got it back into movment mode. Depends on map size ofc. But its possible.


And aa does not just "counters them", it denies them.

If i translate it for ground units: AT guns counter Tanks. But they dont completely deny them.

Imagine every tank would be insta killed just when getting into the fire arc of an medium AT gun.
Imagine a fully upgraded fully veted elite inf unit would be insta killed when getting into the fire arc of an HMG.

This is no longer a counter, its a denial tool.


And when you say that these units do not actively fight on the ground when being in aa mode and eating ressources, well, thats fine. Planes make up like 1/4 of an entire unit. Countering 25% of an entire doctrine with one simple 300 MP unit is a very good trade. As i said, think as if a pershing would always instantly blow up once getting into the range of a 50 mm AT gun. And then tell me its ok because the AT gun does not fight as long as no tank is coming.


@wald: I watched your game. You got no AA for a long time and the you got was basically placed right in your base. The Henschels literally flew at the other side of the map very far away. So yeah it was a missplacment there.

[CGarr]

The issue is that these aa units are not only AA units, but also decent in killing inf.

So whats left in a doc that has only inf and airstrikes?


For me its like a 37 mm AT gun would shoot up Panthers which btw cost just 6 CP or Pershings. And thats with ease. Thats why i would prefer to have standard medicore AA but which is cheap and spamable. And then there would be those hardcore AA units that get unlocked.

Right now during games i am like "dont they use airstrikes?". And After the match i am like "oh they did, they just didnt make it into the map even".



You must be really foolish to get your AA not working like parking it right in front of your base surrounded by hedgerows.

Did you not even read what I wrote?

I didn't say anything about AA being ineffective currently, I've had no problems with using AA in the latest patch. It should shoot down every plane that comes, the only difference between the AA units should be their performance when facing ground units. COH maps are tiny, AA would easily have the effective range to cover the entire map. You should be happy that it doesn't do that, you actually have to place your AA next to the units you want to protect in BK. Nobody wants to spend a ton on AA because it's just not a fun mechanic. You don't get to control AA in any way other than keeping it close to your other units, and you can't predict where an airstrike will come from. The status quo where a couple of dedicated AA trucks is good enough is fine for most people, I'm like 90% sure most would bitch if you told them they need 3-4 trucks or the bigger AA units to be sufficiently protected.

As for your argument about these docs not having much if you take away airstikes, I literally said that they shouldn't be balanced around the airstrikes. I've written an absurd amount on why they shouldn't, it's too controversial of a mechanic to balance entire doctrines around. Luft does the air-thremed doc concept right, in that it keeps the airstrikes as an addition rather than making them the centerpiece. You can easily win with Luft without the airstrikes (i personally tend to), the same cannot be said for AB or RAF. Maybe read what I wrote instead of pretending I'm an idiot because of some words you put in my mouth.

During the doctrine reworks, I was very clear and vocal on my stance regarding the price of airstrikes. Spending 6+ CP on a 200 muni strike with a massive cooldown and a decent chance to just not kill the intended target because they dodged or the rockets didn't land perfectly on target is fucking stupid. At most, airstrikes should cost 4 CP. I was also in support of lowering their cost, as unlike arty, you can actually prevent airstrikes from landing on target by just killing the plane before it gets to whatever it is strafing. By lowering the cost, air docs would be stronger than arty docs, but would have to deal with any sort of AA presence near their target before they can successfully make use of their airstrikes, thus lending more incentive to the use of their airborne units to deal with AA. Judging by what MarKr wrote, that is what the devs intend. You aren't treating it as such, you are treating it as an offmap strike. If you want something that does consistent damage and can't be stopped, play inf or armor doc and use the offmap 105 barrages.

Denial is the only sufficient level of protection, anything less and you run the risk of losing either groups of units or very expensive ones, thus rendering both the investment in the units you lost and the investment in AA units a waste, as one died before it could do its job and the other didn't do so successfully when given the opportunity. If we are to use your stupid AT gun analogy, it would be like spending 300 MP on an 76mm only for that 57mm to die to a Panther just driving up to it frontally and firing HE at it, thus rendering it a wasted investment. Most people would consider that poor balance, so why should AA be treated any different? Sure, airstrikes are expensive, but maybe don't be a dumbass and call them in when you know the enemy has AA? Your recon runs can very easily check if they do without costing you much in the way of muni. It's a dumb thing to do in the same way that rolling up to a big ass AT gun frontally with a tank is a dumb thing to do, so I don't see why you're treating it any different. AA trucks can be killed quite easily, they have like no armor and generally die to a single volley from AT inf. Sure, they kill inf, but if you attack with more than one squad, they aren't going to kill fast enough for it to matter. The bigger AA vehicles are less vulnerable, but you have to pay quite a bit for them, so it is a fair trade.

The less dependent these docs are on airstrikes to win, the better off they are, as people will bitch incessantly if AA is nerfed to a point where airstrikes can be a constant presence on the field even if AA is built. Look back to before the latest AA buffs, and see how much people have been complaining about AA. Look at the discord, it's brought up in pretty much every balance discussion, even if the discussion isnt about AB or RAF.

[Warhawks97]

Did you not even read what I wrote?

I didn't say anything about AA being ineffective currently, I've had no problems with using AA in the latest patch. It should shoot down every plane that comes, the only difference between the AA units should be their performance when facing ground units. COH maps are tiny, AA would easily have the effective range to cover the entire map. You should be happy that it doesn't do that, you actually have to place your AA next to the units you want to protect in BK. Nobody wants to spend a ton on AA because it's just not a fun mechanic. You don't get to control AA in any way other than keeping it close to your other units, and you can't predict where an airstrike will come from. The status quo where a couple of dedicated AA trucks is good enough is fine for most people, I'm like 90% sure most would bitch if you told them they need 3-4 trucks or the bigger AA units to be sufficiently protected.

When a player faces a doctrine that has strong tanks, it seems they dont have issues to get a bunch of AT guns and TD´s. Like what i already saw was 4 stugs, 5+ M10 and AT gun because of being scared from Panthers, they spam AT gun emplacments etc.

I already saw players getting three M16 or double wirbelwind/Ostwind or a bunch of HMG´s and AA emplacments all accross the map just because they prepared for Airborne units dropping somewhere.
I saw guys placing three HMG´s and Möbelwagen in the city of Goodwood just because they prepared for a CQC squad or RAF glider going down in the town.

Player spend countless ammounts of ressources for "What if scenarios" like AT gun and AT gun nest overkills, they place quad cal 50 and 20 mm at vital points just because "perhaps" there could be a Reg 5 squad dropping down somewhere.

I saw games at maps like goodwood, Duclair and others in which one player turned a certain area into a Fortress but the enemie never even attacked there. The area was never taken but the game lost because the enemie destroyed their base instead.
And you want to tell me srsly that players will freak out just because they have to build more than one AA?? From my experience these dudes are the same retards that complain about Tanks and Vehicles without having ever used any kind of AT gun/TD or Tank by by their own.

As for your argument about these docs not having much if you take away airstikes, I literally said that they shouldn't be balanced around the airstrikes. I've written an absurd amount on why they shouldn't, it's too controversial of a mechanic to balance entire doctrines around. Luft does the air-thremed doc concept right, in that it keeps the airstrikes as an addition rather than making them the centerpiece. You can easily win with Luft without the airstrikes (i personally tend to), the same cannot be said for AB or RAF. Maybe read what I wrote instead of pretending I'm an idiot because of some words you put in my mouth.

The less dependent these docs are on airstrikes to win, the better off they are, as people will bitch incessantly if AA is nerfed to a point where airstrikes can be a constant presence on the field even if AA is built. Look back to before the latest AA buffs, and see how much people have been complaining about AA. Look at the discord, it's brought up in pretty much every balance discussion, even if the discussion isnt about AB or RAF.

The old Luftwaffe had had just two airstrikes. A 250 ammo Fw190 fighter bomber dropping 8x50 kg bombs or 70 kg bombs. And Henschel raid for like 250 or even 300 (old days) ammo.
Air support was barely a a thing back then even though powerfull. But people went for rambo fallis and Panther spam all the time.


And guess what? People complained about it. So the airstrikes got better and the inf and tank capabilties reduced. The inf isnt bad but not as rambo as it was because people bitched about it.

We had Cromwell arty in RAF doc which literally replaced the airstrikes. No one used airstrikes anymore because Cromwell was simply better.
And guess what? People complained about it saying that this doc should rely on airstrikes and not arty. So it got removed.


So basically people will always bitch. Make planes useful and they bitch.
Make inf usefull and they bitch. Best current example here: SAS is too strong, pls tweak. Well, nice, but at the same time Airstrikes shall play only a smaller role?

So what exactly you think can be buffed without any kind of stupid braindead retard will complain about? inf, arty? Nope, we already had it or still have it. Tanks? Nope, it turned Luftwaffe into a pseudo armor doc.

During the doctrine reworks, I was very clear and vocal on my stance regarding the price of airstrikes. Spending 6+ CP on a 200 muni strike with a massive cooldown and a decent chance to just not kill the intended target because they dodged or the rockets didn't land perfectly on target is fucking stupid. At most, airstrikes should cost 4 CP. I was also in support of lowering their cost, as unlike arty, you can actually prevent airstrikes from landing on target by just killing the plane before it gets to whatever it is strafing. By lowering the cost, air docs would be stronger than arty docs, but would have to deal with any sort of AA presence near their target before they can successfully make use of their airstrikes, thus lending more incentive to the use of their airborne units to deal with AA. Judging by what MarKr wrote, that is what the devs intend. You aren't treating it as such, you are treating it as an offmap strike. If you want something that does consistent damage and can't be stopped, play inf or armor doc and use the offmap 105 barrages.

And i am not a fan to mirror the docs.
Another example SE vs RA doc. How many players complained about RA beating SE in terms of arty. And it got always said: They are no mirrors. SE has sabotage and other stuff RA does not have. Good inf and (back then Nashorn).

And now we shall mirror all three air docs?

Luft doc was usually less centered arround Air support even though those it had were freaking strong. They had inf, good tanks and good defensive options and even Nebelwerfer and stuff. But that was fine. Kind in the way vcoh luft doc was made.

AB on the other hand had always been pretty dependent on decent air support. For the most part it was weaker than RAF one but they got tuned to be actually usefull. In vcoh, EAW mod and in BK mod the doc late game support came from the air. And i dont see why it should be changed.

I hear people saying "Give them jackson" or "give them Jumbo" in every match. In every damn match i hear that.
But what would be the result? All US docs sharing 1/4 or even 1/3 of their unlocks? Always sherman, m10, Jackson, Jumbo, Arty?


Right now i barely play any Luft doc. I play Luftwaffe for Wirbelwind and Airstrikes. I play AB in case others get armor and inf. I dont see why doubling a doc as it would just make it easier for the enemie to prepare for one threat. And i havent played RAF in years.

I pick this doc only when others already choosed the other two remaining docs. Why? Because of the airstrikes.
If we make airstrikes only a "4 CP little support thing" and in return making their inf better, adding competetive arty like SPGS and 105 howitzers, or adding jumbos and Jacksons, why would anyone pick them?
Going AB just for Jacksons? Why? Armor doc gets better fuel boost upgrade, cheaper shermans and usefull tank commanders. Inf gets good inf, lots of inf, very good defensive stuff etc. Why bothering picking AB being some sort of "downgraded armor and inf doc"?
So Having planes in a teamfight along with tanks inf and arty is one reason i choose AB when inf and armor has alreay been chosen. Take this away and it will always be more usefull to just go double armor right away+ 1x inf doc.

No Joke: This is already happening. Take away airstrikes to cripple them to a little support branch and no one will ever pick this doc again.


And making inf stronger: Well, how many people complain about SAS already?

Denial is the only sufficient level of protection, anything less and you run the risk of losing either groups of units or very expensive ones, thus rendering both the investment in the units you lost and the investment in AA units a waste, as one died before it could do its job and the other didn't do so successfully when given the opportunity. If we are to use your stupid AT gun analogy, it would be like spending 300 MP on an 76mm only for that 57mm to die to a Panther just driving up to it frontally and firing HE at it, thus rendering it a wasted investment. Most people would consider that poor balance, so why should AA be treated any different? Sure, airstrikes are expensive, but maybe don't be a dumbass and call them in when you know the enemy has AA? Your recon runs can very easily check if they do without costing you much in the way of muni. It's a dumb thing to do in the same way that rolling up to a big ass AT gun frontally with a tank is a dumb thing to do, so I don't see why you're treating it any different. AA trucks can be killed quite easily, they have like no armor and generally die to a single volley from AT inf. Sure, they kill inf, but if you attack with more than one squad, they aren't going to kill fast enough for it to matter. The bigger AA vehicles are less vulnerable, but you have to pay quite a bit for them, so it is a fair trade.

An AT gun denies afterall just a very small and certain part of the map. If it denies at all due to boucning off or low damage. 76 guns btw get most of the time overruned by Panthers unless its an emplacment. But those cost CP as you can see.

And if players are aware that Pershings/Jumbos/Panthers are comming you can be assured they will not only build a whole bunch of AT guns, but also spending a bunch of CP and even more res into very special heavy anti tank units. I dont get why it shouldnt be the same for planes.


I tell my inf mates to get a bunch of AT gun nests once Panthers start roling out.
Ive never told anyone to get a couple of AA once the enemies unlocked a bunch of airstrikes. Recently i fought double AB doc. My mate went Prop and i SE. He didnt build Ostwind for the most part, only Tigers despite telling him to get ostwind to kill inf and planes. At the end i got just one Opel Blitz AA and it shot down 5 planes in the last few mins of the game that attempted to kill the Tiger.
We had just one AA unit vs two Air docs. But we had at least 5 units at a time. (28 mm car, two AT squads, 2x 37 mm, 50 mm and a Hetzer) to counter their tanks and vehicles. How fucking stupid is that? To counter an air doc i need more Anti tank stuff than i need anti air stuff? Have we gotten this far?

Basically saying: Total tank denial means to build lots of AT stuff and spending CP into dedicated CP.
Also: Have you ever put a single medium AT gun in the center of the map countering everything from the far right to the far left of the map? Thats how all my recent Opel Blitz were like.

Not even a Jagdpanther will deny tanks everywhere when placed in the middile of the front line. There are gaps left and right. But a single cheap AA unit from one player (in a 4 vs 4 that means a per player investment of less than 100 MP) placed roughly in the center will protect the entire map?
Thinking thats OK is insane.
Translated into AT guns it would mean a 6 pdr would have a 360 degree fire arc with like 500 range, 100% accuracy, 100% pen and 100% oneshot probability against any vehicle and tank. Have you ever placed a single medium AT in the maps center and no tank or vehicle could pass/flank it?
Thats how AA feels like.

Note pls i barely play any Air doc. I just pitty the poor Luft and AB dudes right now. One or two AA units and a cheap tank and they are done most of the time. Their inf and planes just getting slaughtered.


Thus my stand on that subject: You want complete airplane denial and clean air? Get a bunch of AA.
Same as you want complete tank denial: Get a bunch of dedicated AT weapons instead of one medium AT gun.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Actually, why AA got changed in the first place? I remember that years ago in the old BK x2 Ostwinds or x2 Crusaders that were smartly placed already could shut down Henchels and Thunderbolt patrols. So, I don’t think there ever was a problem with AA at all.

Current allied air docs are super weird. I don’t get this logic at all: Let’s turn 101s to rifles with air reinforcement and zero AT capabilities, but make Strafe run a cheat ability that insta wipes any inf inside the AOE regardless of the vet, this airstrike in return can be denied forever by a single AA.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Don't really have a strong opinion on AA units right now.. but i think they are all equally strong in AA mode regardless of tier, which i am not sure is fine or not.

However...

@MarKr
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4138
Everyone seem to agree with this. Maybe it could help.. as at least planes won't be fired at by AA units unless in AA mode, and flak88s are missing the ability btw.

[CGarr]

Actually, why AA got changed in the first place? I remember that years ago in the old BK x2 Ostwinds or x2 Crusaders that were smartly placed already could shut down Henchels and Thunderbolt patrols. So, I don’t think there ever was a problem with AA at all.

Current allied air docs are super weird. I don’t get this logic at all: Let’s turn 101s to rifles with air reinforcement and zero AT capabilities, but make Strafe run a cheat ability that insta wipes any inf the AOE regardless of the vet, this airstrike in return can be denied forever by a single AA.

That was my point, the emphasis on the stupid strafes is what is making AB aids to play. Strafes are hard to balance in a way that is fun for both sides. AA is not fun to use because you don't really control it, and planes can come from wherever, so positioning isn't really a factor outside of just generally keeping them near whatever you want to protect. It's just boring. The strafes should be weaker and more emphasis should be placed on the AB inf. Being able to drop anywhere on the map is enough to make the doctrine unique, we don't need godly strafes for AB to be AB.

[Consti255]

Actually, why AA got changed in the first place? I remember that years ago in the old BK x2 Ostwinds or x2 Crusaders that were smartly placed already could shut down Henchels and Thunderbolt patrols. So, I don’t think there ever was a problem with AA at all.

Current allied air docs are super weird. I don’t get this logic at all: Let’s turn 101s to rifles with air reinforcement and zero AT capabilities, but make Strafe run a cheat ability that insta wipes any inf the AOE regardless of the vet, this airstrike in return can be denied forever by a single AA.

That was my point, the emphasis on the stupid strafes is what is making AB aids to play. Strafes are hard to balance in a way that is fun for both sides. AA is not fun to use because you don't really control it, and planes can come from wherever, so positioning isn't really a factor outside of just generally keeping them near whatever you want to protect. It's just boring. The strafes should be weaker and more emphasis should be placed on the AB inf. Being able to drop anywhere on the map is enough to make the doctrine unique, we don't need godly strafes for AB to be AB.

Yep. i would be on dicky aswell.
Strafes should be a support ability and not like a outplay button to press.
I think the Luft strafe and RAF fragbombs are fine as they are. I think the US strafe is just really to good to not go for (raw effectiveness of the ability itself). Its a CP farming machine right now. Nerfing it and the aa would be a better balance instead of keeping AA and the strafe that strong. According against the US strafe i think the AA is fine. According to other Plane abilitys? No.
The AA balance right now is base arround the US Strafe and not the other planes imo.
Loosing a early srafe as allies is just HORRIBLE. No CP, No kills, 125ammo gone.
So i would rather have a less effective strafe than NO strafe which is the case right now.
Allies right now are so dependet on strafes to get CP. After the last game ive played AB and just witnessed 1 Flackpanzer 38 took out 2 strafes in a row which just lost the game for me.
I couldnt get CP to get M10 which are 2 CP (which is actually so god damn expensive for AB ) and we got steamrolled by stugs and F2s.
As far as i experienced it is almost impossible to go a support role as AB right now in the beginning and in the later stages they dont matter at all due to AA spam on axis side.

Is just insane how the cheap AAs do such a great job vs planes that it is straight out a ressource waste to deploy bigger AAs like the Möbelwagen for example.
The Möbel and Ostwind should be one of the best AA in the game due to there Flak 43. There is no reason right now to get them for AA purpose.

My suggestion:
nerf US strafe (Aoe decrease and cooldown increase)
nerf US Ammo drop (less ammo or better imo more cooldown)
nerf AA capabilits of smaller AA Units or make them more costly ( 20mm Flak in all forms )
nerf AA capabiltys of bigger once ( Flak 43 for example ) but not that hard. It should be way above the smaller once. (balance wise)
AA should get the bonuses of the AA mode after they finished digging in and not getting them instantly after clicking the button.

Open for some discussion.

[Warhawks97]

Actually, why AA got changed in the first place? I remember that years ago in the old BK x2 Ostwinds or x2 Crusaders that were smartly placed already could shut down Henchels and Thunderbolt patrols. So, I don’t think there ever was a problem with AA at all.

Current allied air docs are super weird. I don’t get this logic at all: Let’s turn 101s to rifles with air reinforcement and zero AT capabilities, but make Strafe run a cheat ability that insta wipes any inf the AOE regardless of the vet, this airstrike in return can be denied forever by a single AA.

That was my point, the emphasis on the stupid strafes is what is making AB aids to play. Strafes are hard to balance in a way that is fun for both sides. AA is not fun to use because you don't really control it, and planes can come from wherever, so positioning isn't really a factor outside of just generally keeping them near whatever you want to protect. It's just boring. The strafes should be weaker and more emphasis should be placed on the AB inf. Being able to drop anywhere on the map is enough to make the doctrine unique, we don't need godly strafes for AB to be AB.

Yep. i would be on dicky aswell.
Strafes should be a support ability and not like a outplay button to press.
I think the Luft strafe and RAF fragbombs are fine as they are. I think the US strafe is just really to good to not go for (raw effectiveness of the ability itself). Its a CP farming machine right now. Nerfing it and the aa would be a better balance instead of keeping AA and the strafe that strong. According against the US strafe i think the AA is fine. According to other Plane abilitys? No.
The AA balance right now is base arround the US Strafe and not the other planes imo.
Loosing a early srafe as allies is just HORRIBLE. No CP, No kills, 125ammo gone.
So i would rather have a less effective strafe than NO strafe which is the case right now.
Allies right now are so dependet on strafes to get CP. After the last game ive played AB and just witnessed 1 Flackpanzer 38 took out 2 strafes in a row which just lost the game for me.
I couldnt get CP to get M10 which are 2 CP (which is actually so god damn expensive for AB ) and we got steamrolled by stugs and F2s.
As far as i experienced it is almost impossible to go a support role as AB right now in the beginning and in the later stages they dont matter at all due to AA spam on axis side.

What is the difference between axis and allis strafe? Why is allis OP but axis not? As far as i can say both kill everything in their flight path. US strafe is longer but axis in return as a henschel element in it killing vehicles accross its flight path. I had games where i lost an inf squad and two vehicles right into the mid game. I couldjust write GG and left because losing a greyhound a halftrack in US mid game and inf squad is nothing you can recover from.

About the dependency US is more relying on it for various reasons. The first is that reg 5 is undoubtedly better once dropped than 101st as it doesnt get shred by rifles as easily as the 101st gets, can ambush and its schreck being more usefull against vehicles thana single RL. 101st suffers from vehicles and the strafe is one thing to help out with them.

And as far as WH is concerned, it feels like they recover from early-mid game pushbacks easier than US. They have cheap units, powerfull units and a strong tec system.

Is just insane how the cheap AAs do such a great job vs planes that it is straight out a ressource waste to deploy bigger AAs like the Möbelwagen for example.
The Möbel and Ostwind should be one of the best AA in the game due to there Flak 43. There is no reason right now to get them for AA purpose.

thats true. Thats why i said it would perhaps make sense to divide AA units in basic once and those that get unlocked.
And then perhaps unlocks that would drop the cost of AA units.

My suggestion:
nerf US strafe (Aoe decrease and cooldown increase)

Somewhat, yes. But pls remove the Henschel element from German strafe. Both should kill the stuff that is within the target area.

nerf US Ammo drop (less ammo or better imo more cooldown)

Only when its dependency is less. Right now this doc is utter shit without it.

This doc is soooo ammo dependent. It can deplet your ammo stock in a second without changing much on the ground.
Luftwaffe is doing great with its planes that cost ammo and fuel. AB always sits on its fuel without use while its ammo stock can only be maintained with this drop.

nerf AA capabilits of smaller AA Units or make them more costly ( 20mm Flak in all forms )
nerf AA capabiltys of bigger once ( Flak 43 for example ) but not that hard. It should be way above the smaller once. (balance wise)
AA should get the bonuses of the AA mode after they finished digging in and not getting them instantly after clicking the button.

Yes.





Another Thing i dont get:

Base AA=completely usless. There are players that just bomb your base aa and then drop fallis into your base. Thats so dump.
I have to put an AA unit inside my base because my base cant protect itself.

Meanwhile the frontline is save from planes just because there is one AA unit.
The current trend is that people start attacking base AA and units near the base rather than at the frontline where one AA unit keeps the sky clear. Thats just so fucking idiotic.

[Diablo]

How about ammo drop costing 40 fuel and 100 manpower?

[Warhawks97]

How about ammo drop costing 40 fuel and 100 manpower?

the effect would be the same as when making airstrikes costing fuel and ammo basically.

Somehow AB should be able to make some good use of the fuel stockpile it sits on. Its dependency on ammo alone is just too much. They need ammo for their infantry, arty, Tanks that always have to use AP rounds, airstrikes.....


Also this unlock is, just as M10, an so called "option". But its not really an option, its one of these unlocks essential for survival. So its not really an option. And that sucks.

[Consti255]

Yes i forgot about mentioning that the Luft strafe does this.
It should be removed and the 20mm should only shoot on the selected location..
The US one has less cooldown iirc?

M10 arent as Hawks said an option. They are a must for survival when you got pushed back. Recovering or holding ground without them is just really really hard. Anyway its more of an other topic.

And yes the base AA is just stupid in terms of AA capabilitys. Players are just drops Stukas on it and your good to go.
Is there a possibility to make the base AA more capable of hitting planes that are directly aimed at the base itself ?

[MarKr]

There is a lot of suggestions here but some go against intended mechanics. For example giving the AB planes lower ammo costs but some fuel costs (as Luft has it). It was given to Luft while keeping in mind that Luft actually has tanks worth building and so getting the upgrade can at have a negative impact on your options of fielding your tanks and so it may not be the best idea to get that upgrade in every single situation in every single match no matter what you're facing. In short, it can have some drawbacks in some situations.
AB doesn't have this option because for AB it would be just a straight no brainer to get the upgrade every time because they don't have any tanks they could dump their fuel into. AB has the option to trade MP for ammo and so their airstrike costs are effectively lowered already by this and dumping all this ammo into airstrikes leaves you with less ammo for weapon upgrades for your infantry. If AB got that upgrade, the fuel cost would be negligible 100% of times and with the resource swap it would make airstrikes always available and it would also leave more ammo for infantry upgrades. We would also like to keep these plane-affecting unlocks doctrine-specific to get some diversity among the air docs - Luft can use fuel to lower ammo costs, RAF can get shorter cooldowns (next update), AB has resource trade.

Lowering the effectiveness of AA is another issue. It is possible to do but we don't wanna get back to situations where you can send an AIRplane to kill anti-AIR units and succeed 95% of a time (even 50% success rate would be too much in our opinion). For the next update we'll be lowering the range of AA back to 60 which will make them cover smaller part of the map and so leave more room for maneuvering your planes.

So feel free to post some ideas and suggestions but try to think of something that doesn't conflict with these points:
- No lowering of AB airstrike ammo costs and adding fuel costs
- No changes to AA units that would allow planes to destroy the AA units while in AA mode


@Conti255: The base AA used to be more effective against planes but it was complained about a lot as player bases are usually close to each other and so there can easily be 6 or sometimes more base AAs that cover the airspace (and they don't cover just the base but shoot any plane that comes that way) so more effective base AA will mean pretty big "stripes" of AA coverage accross the entire map. If you want to cover base from planes, use AA unit near your base.

[Warhawks97]

There is a lot of suggestions here but some go against intended mechanics. For example giving the AB planes lower ammo costs but some fuel costs (as Luft has it). It was given to Luft while keeping in mind that Luft actually has tanks worth building and so getting the upgrade can at have a negative impact on your options of fielding your tanks and so it may not be the best idea to get that upgrade in every single situation in every single match no matter what you're facing. In short, it can have some drawbacks in some situations.
AB doesn't have this option because for AB it would be just a straight no brainer to get the upgrade every time because they don't have any tanks they could dump their fuel into. AB has the option to trade MP for ammo and so their airstrike costs are effectively lowered already by this and dumping all this ammo into airstrikes leaves you with less ammo for weapon upgrades for your infantry. If AB got that upgrade, the fuel cost would be negligible 100% of times and with the resource swap it would make airstrikes always available and it would also leave more ammo for infantry upgrades. We would also like to keep these plane-affecting unlocks doctrine-specific to get some diversity among the air docs - Luft can use fuel to lower ammo costs, RAF can get shorter cooldowns (next update), AB has resource trade.

well, its a big buff for luft. I never had any issues with fuel. There arent that many tanks and you spare the vehicles later on. So i dont see how it affects Luftwaffe aside buffing it.

It just helps to upgrade your inf with their fg42 and also calling in airstrikes. I never had any issues building tanks on top of calling in planes. So you would be better off reverting it. But that would cause a rebellion i guess.

Also i think all docs should be able to get some good use out of all three res types. Its kinda pointless that certain docs have such a strain on just two ressources while keeping the third untouched. And others make great use of all three (eg Bk doc).

Lowering the effectiveness of AA is another issue. It is possible to do but we don't wanna get back to situations where you can send an AIRplane to kill anti-AIR units and succeed 95% of a time (even 50% success rate would be too much in our opinion). For the next update we'll be lowering the range of AA back to 60 which will make them cover smaller part of the map and so leave more room for maneuvering your planes.

So feel free to post some ideas and suggestions but try to think of something that doesn't conflict with these points:
- No lowering of AB airstrike ammo costs and adding fuel costs
- No changes to AA units that would allow planes to destroy the AA units while in AA mode


@Conti255: The base AA used to be more effective against planes but it was complained about a lot as player bases are usually close to each other and so there can easily be 6 or sometimes more base AAs that cover the airspace (and they don't cover just the base but shoot any plane that comes that way) so more effective base AA will mean pretty big "stripes" of AA coverage accross the entire map. If you want to cover base from planes, use AA unit near your base.

Then there is nothing i guess. As i said, When i started with BK nobody really complained about AA. It was normal to get 2 Ostwind or some cheap AA to be save. These aa units can also be used in various roles like anti vehicle and anti inf as well. Being airplane denying units on top of it is not necessary.

[Krieger Blitzer]

There is a lot of suggestions here but some go against intended mechanics. For example giving the AB planes lower ammo costs but some fuel costs (as Luft has it). It was given to Luft while keeping in mind that Luft actually has tanks worth building and so getting the upgrade can at have a negative impact on your options of fielding your tanks and so it may not be the best idea to get that upgrade in every single situation in every single match no matter what you're facing. In short, it can have some drawbacks in some situations.
AB doesn't have this option because for AB it would be just a straight no brainer to get the upgrade every time because they don't have any tanks they could dump their fuel into. AB has the option to trade MP for ammo and so their airstrike costs are effectively lowered already by this and dumping all this ammo into airstrikes leaves you with less ammo for weapon upgrades for your infantry. If AB got that upgrade, the fuel cost would be negligible 100% of times and with the resource swap it would make airstrikes always available and it would also leave more ammo for infantry upgrades. We would also like to keep these plane-affecting unlocks doctrine-specific to get some diversity among the air docs - Luft can use fuel to lower ammo costs, RAF can get shorter cooldowns (next update), AB has resource trade.

Lowering the effectiveness of AA is another issue. It is possible to do but we don't wanna get back to situations where you can send an AIRplane to kill anti-AIR units and succeed 95% of a time (even 50% success rate would be too much in our opinion). For the next update we'll be lowering the range of AA back to 60 which will make them cover smaller part of the map and so leave more room for maneuvering your planes.

So feel free to post some ideas and suggestions but try to think of something that doesn't conflict with these points:
- No lowering of AB airstrike ammo costs and adding fuel costs
- No changes to AA units that would allow planes to destroy the AA units while in AA mode


@Conti255: The base AA used to be more effective against planes but it was complained about a lot as player bases are usually close to each other and so there can easily be 6 or sometimes more base AAs that cover the airspace (and they don't cover just the base but shoot any plane that comes that way) so more effective base AA will mean pretty big "stripes" of AA coverage accross the entire map. If you want to cover base from planes, use AA unit near your base.

in addition to reducing the range, plz disallow AA units from targeting planes in free roaming.. they should only target them when AA mode is active, also; flak88s are missing AA mode btw. (Topic was made about this)

Also, wonder if you were able to replace Def doc flak88 emp model with the one in Luft, would be super cool.

[Consti255]

We would also like to keep these plane-affecting unlocks doctrine-specific to get some diversity among the air docs - Luft can use fuel to lower ammo costs, RAF can get shorter cooldowns (next update), AB has resource trade.

Finally i dont have to wait for an hour do get my frag bombs as RAF.
Good change in my opinion.

[Warhawks97]

We would also like to keep these plane-affecting unlocks doctrine-specific to get some diversity among the air docs - Luft can use fuel to lower ammo costs, RAF can get shorter cooldowns (next update), AB has resource trade.

Making these things faction specific is the right way i would say.


However, and thats my toughts about it, res trade is more an axis thing.

I would make it as following:

Luft:
Ressource trade similiar to the Blitz Ammo/Mp swap. Lots of ammo for fuel and income drop for a certain duration.
At the same time the doc focuses on air defence like getting 20 mm weapons cheaper after unlock. So unlike AB which will be a pure offensive doctrine or RAF with its special style of sneakiness and intellignece, Luft generally focuses also on air defense stuff.


AB:
Having some sort of air supremacy. They have no heavy guns or tanks and being supported from the air is extremely vital. The doc should however be able to make some use of its fuel that it is stockpiling.

Generally i would even consider a comeback of a raid ability representing the said air supremacy.


RAF:
dont know yet.