Matrix Games Forums

Zeckke wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2024 9:30 pm jaja

A long time ago i dont read any of this forums

dont waist your funny stupid post with me

A long time agoo

Duedman wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2024 10:19 pm I rarely do understand one of your posts. And i really do think that no one does.
How about using Google translate or something?

Duedman wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2024 10:19 pm

Zeckke wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2024 9:30 pm jaja

A long time ago i dont read any of this forums

dont waist your funny stupid post with me

A long time agoo

I rarely do understand one of your posts. And i really do think that no one does.
How about using Google translate or something?

HamburgerMeat wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2024 8:30 pm

Tanaka wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2024 5:45 am

HamburgerMeat wrote: Mon Mar 04, 2024 3:50 pm

strategic bombers are generally used for 2 things:

1. reduce MPP, so that could be french mines or oilfields in the USSR/middle east

2. cut supplies - this makes it difficult for axis to reinforce, as they are unable to operate units to the affected area. it takes alot of strat bombers to achieve this in france, but it can be done by 43. An allied player could do it anyplace they want to establish a presence, preferrably an area with sufficient ports to help reinforce. once the allies are well established, its hard for the axis to force them out

Right but you should still be able to defend against them.

I don't know, I rather like seeing the might of Allied international capital devastate the resource hungry axis. A nerf could really impact the allied ability to win late game

HamburgerMeat wrote: Thu Mar 07, 2024 11:27 pm i think that the earlier proposed fighter changes are fine, but i wouldnt want to reduce them to 1 strike as some others have recommended in the past.

the fighter change will probably result in needing to repair the strategic bombers more often, which will slightly slow down an allied railroad shutdown. that's an acceptable nerf. allies probably have enough air force anyway to sweep axis fighters out before sending their strat bombers

that being said, IMO it's fine for axis to not be able to defend themselves in the late war from something in the allied arsenal. not like the allies have a great answer to manstein fueled panzers early war.

i dont mind ahistorical either, as everyone knows that the germans wouldnt have had the fuel for some of these barbarossa pushes we see

Tanaka wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 2:47 am The Allies actually did not have an answer to Manstein fueled panzers early war that is historical. The Axis actually could defend themselves against Allied strat bombers that is historical. What is the problem again? We are worried because the allies will actually have to repair their bombers like in real life? Sheesh

Also if the Axis had captured the Russian or Middle Eastern oil fields they most certainly could have gone further than Moscow. However when they reached Moscow in real life fuel was not the issue as much as the winter weather and mud and getting the fuel to them through it and an exhausted army that had no winter clothing.

Duedman wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 7:22 am In my recent match vs OCB mid lvl Strategic Bombers SUFFER vs lvl3 AA. It is WiE tho but I think data matches?
Don't know how lvl5s would fare.

Duedman wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2024 10:19 pm

Zeckke wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2024 9:30 pm jaja

A long time ago i dont read any of this forums

dont waist your funny stupid post with me

A long time agoo

I rarely do understand one of your posts. And i really do think that no one does.
How about using Google translate or something?

MoongazerSlitherineSSL wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 7:07 am

Tanaka wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 2:47 am The Allies actually did not have an answer to Manstein fueled panzers early war that is historical. The Axis actually could defend themselves against Allied strat bombers that is historical. What is the problem again? We are worried because the allies will actually have to repair their bombers like in real life? Sheesh

Also if the Axis had captured the Russian or Middle Eastern oil fields they most certainly could have gone further than Moscow. However when they reached Moscow in real life fuel was not the issue as much as the winter weather and mud and getting the fuel to them through it and an exhausted army that had no winter clothing.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Luftwaffe was wrecked by 1944 and at the end of the war they couldn't defend against Allied bombers.

But anyway, this is a wargame, with emphasis on "game". I do agree that strategic bombers are sort of ridiculous right now but I have hard time imagining how Allies can land in Europe right now without destroying Axis supply in the region. They should take more damage, especially at early tiers. However, this will affect the balance of the sides. My proposition is to buff USSR somewhat, so the delayed D-Day won't effect its performance (Soviets should be buffed in general at the expense of the US, right now all matches are basically led to "how fast can Germany kill Russia", everything else matters little)

MoongazerSlitherineSSL wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 7:39 am

Duedman wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 7:22 am In my recent match vs OCB mid lvl Strategic Bombers SUFFER vs lvl3 AA. It is WiE tho but I think data matches?
Don't know how lvl5s would fare.

Lvl 3 AA with good readiness shreds all aircraft. High lvl strats have a chance to avoid damage but this is too much of a bet. Personally I don't like this mechanic. I will never bomb a hex near the flak hoping that I will just avoid 200-250 MPPs worth of damage. And if I do by mistake, avoiding this damage feels like cheating.

Tanaka wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 8:04 am Are we only talking about 44-45 here? So if by late war in history the Germans had no skilled fighter pilots left that means in this game if you still do have elite fighters they should do nothing against strat bombers?

During 1943, only about 25% of Eighth Air Force bomber crewmen completed their 25-mission tours—the other 75% were killed, severely wounded, or captured.

That is not happening in this game. Not even close by a mile. 90-100% survive against any elite axis fighters. It is the elite axis fighters that are all shot down by the strat bombers.

OldCrowBalthazor wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 8:07 am Duedman and I both seem to notice that there's a wider difference between AA2 to AA3 as there is for example AA1 to AA2. Almost seems exponential. This in WiE. I haven't played WaW in MP since about 2 patches ago...but I'm pretty certain there were no changes to AA in WaW with the recent patches.
Also not sure if WiE AA is exactly the same as WaW AA, but it seems so.

OldCrowBalthazor wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 8:07 am Duedman and I both seem to notice that there's a wider difference between AA2 to AA3 as there is for example AA1 to AA2. Almost seems exponential. This in WiE. I haven't played WaW in MP since about 2 patches ago...but I'm pretty certain there were no changes to AA in WaW with the recent patches.
Also not sure if WiE AA is exactly the same as WaW AA, but it seems so.

El_Condoro wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 9:56 am

OldCrowBalthazor wrote: Fri Mar 08, 2024 8:07 am Duedman and I both seem to notice that there's a wider difference between AA2 to AA3 as there is for example AA1 to AA2. Almost seems exponential. This in WiE. I haven't played WaW in MP since about 2 patches ago...but I'm pretty certain there were no changes to AA in WaW with the recent patches.
Also not sure if WiE AA is exactly the same as WaW AA, but it seems so.

I wonder if that is because of rounding. AAD against strat bombers increases by 1.5 per level, so
0=0 (!)
1=1.5 (rounds to 2)
2=3 (3)
3=4.5 (5)
So, there is a jump of 2 between level 2 and 3.