Skillplanes need an IMMEDIATE hotfix

IRL you cant' escape from planes I think, but for a game, it's very punishing.

IRL it was extremely difficult for planes to reliably hit tanks with direct fire. The strafe abilities in this game are much more realistic than the tracking loiters

IRL it was extremely difficult for planes to reliably hit tanks with direct fire. The strafe abilities in this game are much more realistic than the tracking loiters

"Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions on the Eastern Front of World War II. The majority of these were undertaken while flying the Junkers Ju 87, although 430 were flown in ground-attack variants of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. He was credited with the destruction of 519 tanks, severely damaging the battleship Marat, as well as sinking a cruiser (incomplete and heavily damaged Petropavlovsk), a destroyer (the Leningrad-class destroyer Minsk) and 70 landing craft. Rudel also claimed to have destroyed more than 800 vehicles of all types, over 150 artillery, anti-tank or anti-aircraft positions, 4 armored trains, as well as numerous bridges and supply lines. Rudel was also credited with 9 aerial victories, 7 of which were fighter aircraft and 2 Ilyushin Il-2s. He was shot down or forced to land 30 times due to anti-aircraft artillery, was wounded five times and rescued six stranded aircrew from enemy-held territory"

Can we please stop referencing IRL examples for coh, especially when talking balance?

Show Spoiler

Can we please stop referencing IRL examples for coh, especially when talking balance?

Show Spoiler

My point is that when going after vehicles, direct fire is a good option for airplanes.

That is why airplanes likes Stuka G and Henschel Hs 129 where developed in WWII and why A10 was developed after the war.

"Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions on the Eastern Front of World War II. The majority of these were undertaken while flying the Junkers Ju 87, although 430 were flown in ground-attack variants of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. He was credited with the destruction of 519 tanks, severely damaging the battleship Marat, as well as sinking a cruiser (incomplete and heavily damaged Petropavlovsk), a destroyer (the Leningrad-class destroyer Minsk) and 70 landing craft. Rudel also claimed to have destroyed more than 800 vehicles of all types, over 150 artillery, anti-tank or anti-aircraft positions, 4 armored trains, as well as numerous bridges and supply lines. Rudel was also credited with 9 aerial victories, 7 of which were fighter aircraft and 2 Ilyushin Il-2s. He was shot down or forced to land 30 times due to anti-aircraft artillery, was wounded five times and rescued six stranded aircrew from enemy-held territory"

Those are definitely exaggerated heavily, as almost every war hero's kill counts always are. That is extremely common for soldiers stories for any country and this has been said especially for pilots in ww2 from both sides

They all often exaggerated their numbers and no one could really contradict what they were saying, they were much more alone than soldiers on the ground

My point is that when going after vehicles, direct fire is a good option for airplanes.

That is why airplanes likes Stuka G and Henschel Hs 129 where developed in WWII and why A10 was developed after the war.

A war hero's stories is not good evidence of that. The stuka was super successful with dive bombing against just about everything, it's direct fire effectiveness was much more debatable

And on the other side American and UK AT rockets were very inaccurate and really hard to land well even on the largest German tanks. It was exaggerated on both sides

I'm aware none of this matters to game balance, just think it's interesting

Those are definitely exaggerated heavily, as almost every war hero's kill counts always are. That is extremely common for soldiers stories for any country and this has been said especially for pilots in ww2 from both sides

They all often exaggerated their numbers and no one could really contradict what they were saying, they were much more alone than soldiers on the ground


A war hero's stories is not good evidence of that. The stuka was super successful with dive bombing against just about everything, it's direct fire effectiveness was much more debatable

And on the other side American and UK AT rockets were very inaccurate and really hard to land well even on the largest German tanks. It was exaggerated on both sides

I'm aware none of this matters to game balance, just think it's interesting

Rudel's record is not the point.

The effectiveness of stuka in the antitank role increased drastically with the version G equipped with 2 37mm guns. Diving bombing vs tanks is not actually effective for a number of reasons.

The AT rockets where inaccurate that is correct but not the guns.

That was also the case with Hurricane IID armed with 2 40mm guns.

You can imagine what nub mode 4v4 is like with these offmaps / skill planes. Just 8 players constantly throwing one click hugely powerful abilities at the other team. Any push is immediately responded to by one or two rocket loiters, any flanking move is ripped apart with one click etc.

I'd go as far as to say the flow of the game is primarily being controlled by cheap offmaps: it feels like players casting powerful spells and constantly throwing them at each other rather than anything to do with WW2 RTS.

Coh2 had that Typhoon loiter, but most air abilities were strafes / bombing runs that could be dodged.

Rudel's record is not the point.

Then why mention it?

The effectiveness of stuka in the antitank role increased drastically with the version G equipped with 2 37mm guns. Diving bombing vs tanks is not actually effective for a number of reasons.

The AT rockets where inaccurate that is correct but not the guns.

That was also the case with Hurricane IID armed with 2 40mm guns.

The weapons were effective in tests, but in practice it was still extremely difficult to do. AA got better as the war went on too and the Ju-87 was highly vulnerable to AA. More than pretty much anything else the Germans made

It wasn't impossible to do, just way more difficult than the numbers suggest

Dive bombing wasn't directly effective against tanks, but it was very effective at killing or scaring away any of it's support. Which could force the tank to retreat anyway

Then why mention it?


The weapons were effective in tests, but in practice it was still extremely difficult to do. AA got better as the war went on too and the Ju-87 was highly vulnerable to AA. More than pretty much anything else the Germans made

It wasn't impossible to do, just way more difficult than the numbers suggest

Dive bombing wasn't directly effective against tanks, but it was very effective at killing or scaring away any of it's support. Which could force the tank to retreat anyway

Direct fire was an effective way for planes to destroy armored vehicles in WWII it even today.

Mental gymnastics will not change that.

(edited)

Just seen this on Reddit:

DAK 225 ammo AT Loiter vs UKF 120 ammo AT Loiter

Direct fire was an effective way for planes to destroy armored vehicles in WWII it even today.

That is very debatable and not at all confirmed. It was nowhere near as effective as the numbers suggest

Today is irrelevant to the discussion

Mental gymnastics will change that.

?

That is very debatable and not at all confirmed. It was nowhere near as effective as the numbers suggest

Today is irrelevant to the discussion

?

Just let him be, Vipper just derailing an entire thread for no reason again. He cant quit until he has the last word.

Just let him be, Vipper just derailing an entire thread for no reason again. He cant quit until he has the last word.

I am not the one continuing the debate about airplanes guns. I have provided the facts that demonstrate that stuka become more effective in the AT role when they started using guns instead of bombs and I have moved on.

On the other hand you are the one posting about me instead of skill planes. Now pls move on also because currently you are actively derailing this thread.

I have provided the facts that demonstrate that stuka become more effective in the AT role when they started using guns instead of bombs and I have moved on.

You provided your opinion, and I disagreed. Happy to move on

Yes, lets, this is the CoH3 forum not the history forum... so getting back on the topic of skillplanes.

They are obviously completely broken and game-breaking. I don't use those phrases lightly but it reminds me of playing high school soccer, and being up by 7 goals, then suddenly the coach says "next goal's the winner". It's an Uno reverse card that renders the entire game up to that point irrelevant and a waste of 30 minutes.

I propose that we rename them "winplanes", because they are the closest thing the CoH series has seen to an automatic 1-button win, ever since the original CoH2 loiters, which were game-breaking on release but were patched and nerfed 9 years ago. Relic also promised in pre-release interviews not to include ANY loiters. Whichever middle-manager went against the entire serious playerbase and balance team, and insisted that these come back into the game, should be fired.

You provided your opinion, and I disagreed. Happy to move on

That is simply a misrepresentation of what has happened.

You provided an opinion on post 41 :

IRL it was extremely difficult for planes to reliably hit tanks with direct fire...

I provided historic fact that paint a different picture.

WWII planes could reliably hit other planes that moved 400 KM, so hitting a Tank which by comparison was sitting duck was much easier.

Further proof of that is that when the RAF decided to use Hurricanes vs Tank they equipped them with Guns and when Luftwaffe decided decided to use Stuka vs tanks they also equipped it with guns and they even designed a plane for that role which also carried guns.

Reliability for hitting tanks with guns can be easily seen in Rudel record who is credited with 519 tank destroyed. (Even if the number is inflated half the number 259 or even 1/3 173 is still impressive and strong indication of airplane had little trouble hitting tanks).

The fact that after the was the US force decided to develop a CAS airplane and decided to build it around a gun further supports the theory that airplanes can hit tank reliably.

Now you are entitled to your opinion but I have the fact do not agree with that opinion. In sort you expressed an opinion I provided theory based on documented facts.

If you disagree with the facts I have pointed out feel free to do so but I have not interest in being involved in "forum fight " with people who disagree with me as person and use ad hominem arguments.

Now you are entitled to your opinion but I have the fact do not agree with that opinion. In sort you expressed an opinion I provided theory based on documented facts.

So where do you think I'm getting this from? Just pulling it out of the air? The british operational research sections discovered that their own pilots were heavily exaggerating their on-ground kill counts. Sometimes even saying that they killed more vehicles than were even present in an engagement

If you disagree with the facts I have pointed out feel free to do so but I have not interest in being involved in "forum fight " with people who disagree with me as person and use ad hominem arguments.

Where do you see me using ad hominem against you? I said it's your opinion (and mine, respectively) because neither one of us was there, and historians themselves disagree about this exact topic. Don't lump other people's comments against you in with mine

Thisarticle has some of what I'm talking about. I can't find my history of ww2 aircraft book which mentioned other pieces including Britain's white panther test where pilots struggled to hit a disabled panther that was painted bright white and left out in the open. And they had no AA to worry about

The article doesn't at all suggest that it was impossible, and neither am I. But it was way more difficult than pilots acted. Rudel was a "war hero" for a reason. Even though it was exaggerated, his feats were incredibly impressive and far from the norm

If you want to continue this, DM me. We have both derailed this thread enough

Just seen this on Reddit:

DAK 225 ammo AT Loiter vs UKF 120 ammo AT Loiter

The dak loiter also targets infantry hence the increased price.

I have not been to this forumn years; the skill planes brought me back. I wanted to know I am not alone in my frustration ( I have lost many games I should have won because these things can kill an almost full hp Tiger/ Black Prince in two strafes)

Wait, the UKF one is only 120 munitions?
Lol, no wonder my opponent last night was able to upgrade his army and call these in a bunch of times and delete my full-health and moving medium tanks.