Air power is much too strong....

[Scorpion_sk]

Air power, as it is, is partly ruining the game for me.

It is much too powerful.

Sure, air support was vital in WW2. But not because it could cause horrendous casualties, but rather because it disrupted the enemy´s operations. Air attacks causing "casualties" against armies seems strange. Yes, I know strength points represent unit cohesion & readiness too, but why is there a readiness value then?

The fact that several - as many as you want - air units can attack a single unit, when usually only a few land units can, leads to the fact that the most effective strategy in the game is to invest heavily in a LARGE airforce, demolish the opposition´s air force (and this usually means that the Luftwaffe will be taking its jets against russian biplanes.....) and then just keep on buying more and more air fleets to bomb the opponent´s units.

Land units become secondary in value, being used to "soften up" or "finish up" units being demolished by air power, but of course primarily for taking ground.

This has happened in enough PBEM games that I know what I´m talking about....

It just seems a damn shame.

It´d be a bit better if only the heavy bombers had such devastating anti-army properties, but as it is they are not worth it at all compared to the regular air fleets (which I agree could cause losses to tank formations, but not really to corps and armies, at least in the way they currently do....)

Why couldn´t air forces do damage primarily to readiness and supply? That´d fit the bill perfectly.

However, strategic bombing against strategic targets should be made more effective, and you should still be able to bomb a strategic objective regardless of whether a corps sits on it or not! (This is another one of those ridiculous things)....

Not to mention the compulsory interception when facing certain defeat......

[Amy Aemilius]

If the other side strength is air power, can that strength be neutralized by increasing research in anti-aircraft radar?

[Sol Invictus]

Agreed, the Russians always melt in the withering furnace of the Luftwaffe jet assault. The only thing they can do with their airforce is hide it in the rear to use against the Finns later or sell it for scrap so as to by more fodder for the Luftwaffe. I wish the Russians had some hope of having a fairly good airforce around mid '43 but it usually doesnt work out that way. They are usually just cranking out corps for self preservasion.

[ September 10, 2002, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Sol Invictus ]

[Scorpion_22]

If the other side strength is air power, can that strength be neutralized by increasing research in anti-aircraft radar?

Unfortunately, that does JACK to remedy the situation. AA advances are only of any use when the air forces are attacking a hex containing strategic resources, or a unit on a strategic resource.

This is, obviously, of very limited use.

Now, IF Anti-air advances would apply to ALL units......what a great improvement it would be!

Although that might possibly have the reverse effect at level 5 : it might become too costly to use the air units....

However they´d still be immensely useful in "wiping out" weakened armies (although it´s a very silly concept to "weaken" armies with land units and "finish them off" with air units....LOL

I´d rather see the units suffering less casualties with advances in AA (radar).

Of course AA radar might in this case include advances in anti-air technology, and level 5 anti-aircraft units could be frightening things indeed....

I still think readiness and supply should be the main assets damaged in air attacks, not strength points.

[husky65]

Originally posted by Scorpion_sk:

Air power, as it is, is partly ruining the game for me.

It is much too powerful.

Sure, air support was vital in WW2. But not because it could cause horrendous casualties, but rather because it disrupted the enemy´s operations. Air attacks causing "casualties" against armies seems strange. Yes, I know strength points represent unit cohesion & readiness too, but why is there a readiness value then?

Yet again someone forgets the scale of the game, your unit under attack is not representing a Jager with a Panzerfaust in the frontline it is an entire army or corps deployed in depth.

The airforce is running amok in a 50 mile area, shooting up supply units, comms, transport and combat vehicles for a week to a month, you don't think that would reduce combat power?

The fact that several - as many as you want - air units can attack a single unit, when usually only a few land units can, leads to the fact that the most effective strategy in the game is to invest heavily in a LARGE airforce, demolish the opposition´s air force (and this usually means that the Luftwaffe will be taking its jets against russian biplanes.....) and then just keep on buying more and more air fleets to bomb the opponent´s units.

You have pretty much described the western allies strategy in WW2 - why is this a problem?

Land units become secondary in value, being used to "soften up" or "finish up" units being demolished by air power, but of course primarily for taking ground.

You have pretty much described the western allies strategy in WW2 - why is this a problem?

[Kuniworth]

I agree with the last post. Airpower maybe should be even more powerful. Yes the simplicity of simulating airpower is a problem but to remain having a playable game this is the way to go.

Give me stukas or give me death!!!

[aku_djinn]

I think the game is balanced in regards to airpower. The devastating effectiveness of air support was best demonstrated at the launch of Operation Cobra when over 1,000 sorties of tactical and strategic airpower literally wiped out the enemy units that lay before bradley's forces for the breakout. Rommel attributed the main reason for their failure to hold in western France to the enemy's total control of the air over the battlefield. It was not decisive by itself, but as we all know, in combined arms it was the critical element.

[ September 11, 2002, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: aku_djinn30 ]

[Sol Invictus]

I dont think anyone is arguing that the side that has complete air superiority shouldn't run wild. My problem is that the Germans can run wild with only a moderate supperiority in the air. At L1 jets, the German Luftwaffe completely outclasses other airforces that only lag by one level. The worst example is the American airforce that seems to take a beating from the Germans even with equal numbers and tech level. Maybe I have had a very unlucky string of roles but I do sense a pattern. This is all probably just a matter of degrees and can never be perfectly equalized with a patch; suffice it to say that the current system is workable in the abstract.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Scorpion_sk:

Air power, as it is, is partly ruining the game for me.

It is much too powerful.

On which side, and when?

There are times when this could be said for EITHER side.

Once upon a time in a thread long ago, it was supposed that the best play for the Germans would be to NOT contest any early British bombing raids, but now we understand that this mostly provides valuable experience to the Spitfires, yes?

So just maybe it IS better to keep 2 or 3 Air Fleets behind (with HQ) to insure that the Brits are not developing unhindered experience. Maybe not, it is a strategic choice.

(... this is why those Royal Navy ships attack Bergen or Brest -- to gain experience; next time notice how this vital category changes even when there has been no apparent casualties)

I am beginning to appreciate that EXPERIENCE matters -- maybe even MORE than the much dreaded Hydra-headed monster, Tech Luck. Try this -- play a game on Expert +0, then play an identical game on Expert +2 and notice the difference in all aspects, not just air power.

For the Russians, how about this -- when they have no experience, pull them back out of range, and ONLY attack targets of great opportunity (without chance of interception if possible, say, against Finn units or those Wehrmacht that have been mortally wounded or have blitzed too far out ahead), and that way you will slowly build up... experience.

Not much to invest with? Well, surely you can squeeze one or two points (as the Russian, you get two for free, yes?) and so use that for Jets. As with other aspects of grand strategy, this is a matter of personal choice.

Strategic Bombers can be very effective in reducing entrenchment, usually with little or no cost. Once again, pick your spots and build up experience. Tactical bombers are considered, in this version of SC anyway, as an integral part of the Air Fleets.

Compulsory interception? This depends upon where you place your Air Fleets. Find the hexes where your planes will be most effective, AND not be decimated in the early stages (... or late, of EITHER side). It matters very much WHERE you position units, as is true in chess.

And, as in all else, Real Life included, there are surely ways around every single strategem or affliction or threat, regardless of who or what borrowed or conjured them up.

It takes patience, observation, practice, patience, learning, appreciating and finally -- accepting what CAN be done without worrying about what cannot.

[Norse]

Originally posted by Sol Invictus:

I dont think anyone is arguing that the side that has complete air superiority shouldn't run wild. My problem is that the Germans can run wild with only a moderate supperiority in the air. At L1 jets, the German Luftwaffe completely outclasses other airforces that only lag by one level. The worst example is the American airforce that seems to take a beating from the Germans even with equal numbers and tech level. Maybe I have had a very unlucky string of roles but I do sense a pattern. This is all probably just a matter of degrees and can never be perfectly equalized with a patch; suffice it to say that the current system is workable in the abstract.

Are you sending new green US airunits with no experience points, against veteran Luftwaffe units, that are directed by a HQ? That could make all the difference. I don't think Hubert have programmed an Ûbermensch factor into this game, so it's probably all about readiness factor and that.

[Sol Invictus]

The Americans did have HQ support but they were'nt very battle hardened so that might account for it. I am only now beginning to appreciate the importance of experience with my first game against an organic opponent. And who are you kidding, we all know that Hubert has a secret fondness for the Axis.

[Tony Reale]

The problem with air units and gaining experience is that as they take losses and are built back up they lose that experience.

[J Wagner]

You can say that about all unit rebuilding Tony. It's like taking two steps forward, one step back in experience when you rebuild any unit. I may be accused of trying to turn the game into Panzer General, but I did like the ability to purchase either "green" or "veteran" troops during rebuilding. At an extra cost you can maintain your experience by purchasing vets. Perhaps this can be implemented if a future version of SC.

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Tony Reale:

The problem with air units and gaining experience is that as they take losses and are built back up they lose that experience.

That is why it is important for green units to attack low-risk targets.

Originally posted by J Wagner:

I may be accused of trying to turn the game into Panzer General, but I did like the ability to purchase either "green" or "veteran" troops during rebuilding. At an extra cost you can maintain your experience by purchasing vets.

The only possible justification for this would be the transfer of troops from the pacific theatre and I don't think that happened often enough (but I am prepared to be corrected) to bother implementing. No amount of training or expenditure can produce veteran troops. The ability to join understrength units would be a better solution to the 'problem' I think.

[Gregory Barnard]

IMO AA research points should apply to ground units as it implies an investment into virtual "air cover" as well as AA guns. This would enrich that category's value, as well as further perplex the supreme commander when allocating production...

[BriantheWise]

I think the whole concept of air/infantry/armor, for this kind of game works. Consider air as, sometimes elite armor, or versatile bombers, whatever. Punching holes in the defense is what, for the most part, The aircraft intended to do.

The primary issue here, and in most of the posts, is in trying to make a fair time line, and so in many ways, the realism you are hoping for, will not work. So you have to abstract. I think I will start a post on this.

[Scorpion_22]

Listen, maybe I set off on the wrong foot.

I don´t mean to whine. It´s not like I´m saying that everything is ruined for me, or that SC is not a good game.

In fact, it is a very good game and I´m grateful for its existence and continued development.

What I should have said is : SC is a great game, BUT I think that it could be made to play out better if.....etc.

I know that many of you love the game and will instantly adopt a defensive posture when a post like mine comes up. And like we´ve all seen, it´s very easy to "prove" whatever point of view you have, like people in this thread have.

However, I am not going to give up on my argument:

I think that SC would be an even better game if airfleets did damage primarily to readiness and supply instead of strength points.

Husky :

Yet again someone forgets the scale of the game, your unit under attack is not representing a Jager with a Panzerfaust in the frontline it is an entire army or corps deployed in depth.

Who are you to tell me whether I have forgotten the scale of the game or not? Your whole post immediately becomes aggravating when

you start off with something like that.

I know very well the scale of the game, regardless of what you may think!

The airforce is running amok in a 50 mile area, shooting up supply units, comms, transport and combat vehicles for a week to a month, you don't think that would reduce combat power?

.....Am I reading this right? Read my suggestion again : I suggested that air power should damage primarily READINESS and SUPPLY.

So you agree with me after all? For what else does readiness (or the lack of it) represent other than disrupted supply, comms, transport, plus things like weariness and morale? Do you mean to say that strength points represent these things? Well what does readiness stand for, then?

The problem with strength points representing these things is that strength points cost EXPERIENCE as well as MPP´s to restore.

Surely disrupting supply, comms etc. does not mean that you have to replace the combat troops with green recruits?

I do agree that air units should cause some casualties against armoured and naval units.

This is a given when you look at the kill numbers of the Luftwaffe Panzerknackers.

The difficulties and importances of destroying an infantry unit and a tank unit are totally different.

You have pretty much described the western allies strategy in WW2 - why is this a problem?

(the first one)

The problem I have is that you don´t really need combined arms anymore when you have 16 air fleets bombing the enemy. You just bomb several key units to oblivion with the air units only - then, after the unit has been completely destroyed by air attacks only, the inexperienced corps moves into its place. Rinse and repeat.

The way I´d like it to be is that first, air units bomb the enemy unit, crippling its readiness, followed by attacks by land units against an enemy with a much reduced combat capability, but not necessarily unit strength.

As it is, you´re better off buying new airfleets to destroy the enemy rather than tanks and armies.

And since air units are required to destroy the opponents´ air units...

As to the second identical reply of yours, Husky, do you think that the western allies´ strategy in WWII really was to have some weak land units attack the enemy just to lower its entrenchment values and maybe cause some casualties (it´s best to attack with land units first in some cases since they´re not as indispensable as the air units - and are cheaper to reinforce), followed by massive air attacks that completely destroy the opposing army as a fighting force?

I admit I´m not the most learned person on WWII but I do not remember occasions where air power by itself has destroyed an opposing ARMY?

The main problem I have ís that when the one side or the other (yes, this has happened to me playing as both sides, and against both sides) gains this dominance of the skies, and the tech level is at 5 (leaving no chance to "get lucky" and suddenly get a huge boost in jet technology like I once did as the Russians), there´s nothing you can really do anymore.

Some of you are going to say "Well, you just need to change your strategy then!"

Well.....the only remaining strategy available is to keep on buying more corps, so that the enemy´s air forces take as much time destroying your units as possible.

More expensive troops are just as easy to destroy and WILL get destroyed if you deploy them....

You might suggest keeping on buying new air units and keeping them in the rear until you have amassed a sufficient airforce, perhaps even a numerically larger one? Been there, done that.

And the moment I deployed all those airfleets which were at level 5 too, they were all shot up to bits in the following german turn as they intercepted his attacks.

When the enemy air forces have amassed 2-3 medals apiece, you will never really contest the skies again, unless you can find someplace where you can keep on building EXP for your airfleets WITHOUT the enemy bringing any of his airfleets there (fat chance) and WITH him co-operating and constantly buying reinforcements for that corps you are bombing for experience.

Not to mention that all of this takes the time and resources you don´t really have....

Immer Etwas, all your suggestions are sound ones, but unfortunately they´re ones that most decent players know of (at least I hope so).

And, as in all else, Real Life included, there are surely ways around every single strategem or affliction or threat, regardless of who or what borrowed or conjured them up.

That is to be hoped, unfortunately I do not believe so.

Life is not "designed to be fair and balanced" in all aspects (of course, if you do believe it is then that´s your prerogative, I´m not going to start a religious discussion here) and neither is a wargame, unless it´s *perfect*. And game designers are all human.....

I just know that nearly all of my games so far have been decided when the other side has wrested air superiority for itself, when there is no chance for the other side to make a comeback with superior tech (ie. tech levels are already at 5)

Of course, there is the one exception to the rule, when my opponent ruled the skies but did so gross mistakes that I was able to trounce him with my allies....But that was his first game.

If there was such a research category as "Anti-Aircraft ARTILLERY" or that AA Radar would apply to all ground units (armies that don´t have AA units? What are those?) then it´d make a world of difference....I can imagine that large numbers of highly lethal AA units (Ostwinds were good, but they wouldn´t represent level 5 AA units now would they?) would make the low-altitude ground attacks much more dangerous....

Isn´t this what you would do in real life if the opposition had air supremacy, build lots and LOTS of Flak and SPAA units....as well as develop new ones.

Maybe it would be a problem if air units couldn´t do the demolishing work by themselves anymore:you might not be able to make a hole in the enemy´s line so easily because you cannot stack ground units to concentrate (and wipe out) a portion of the line....because if you don´t destroy it, it´s instantly going to bounce back with full strength (another gripe for another thread, I think....)....

Well, it´s a long post, hopefully it wasn´t for nothing.....

[veki]

Well, I belong to group where are players who think that is air power to strong but I don’t wish radical changes to this issue. My suggestions are:

1. Air fleet or Strategic bombers should never destroy land units entirely. Maybe it will be better to use rule from Civilization 3 game – You can with air bombardment reduce land units strength to minimum but never destroy it entirely.

Or

2. SC should have new units – Anti aircraft guns.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Scorpion_22:

I know that many of you love the game and will instantly adopt a defensive posture when a post like mine comes up. And like we´ve all seen, it´s very easy to "prove" whatever point of view you have, like people in this thread have.

However, I am not going to give up on my argument:

And you shouldn't, since you are enlarging the scope of this discussion, and that is always helpful. Thesis, antithesis -- synthesis, this is the ideal.

But, it is not necessarily being "defensive" to argue your own point as best you are able. And we each have a certain style and manner of expression, which need not be linear-logical, but it is what we do best so we stick with it.

Most, if not all of the ones who defend their POV on a particular topic, have also made suggestions or even been critical of other aspects of the game.

Is your concern valid? Yes indeed. And you make some very good points. And I agree that is arduous and painstaking to try to accumulate experience for the units -- perhaps it WOULD be better to have a method to introduce trained troops instead of green?

Given the rules, one thing I try to do is not max-out when I reinforce, so that I am maintaining the highest level of experience -- say, stop at 8 or 9 instead of going to 10 or 11.

[SeaMonkey]

It's this simple? With 2 able opponents the one with the most experienced/numbers/first to level 5 air fleets wins, GAME OVER!

[Scorpion_sk]

Immer Etwas, we think alike. (Not unlike great minds,

What I meant by that "defensive" posture is that

usually when someone loves the game despite its flaws, and feels that it is the best it can be just as it is (a mild form of conservatism, which I don´t say is a bad thing here) their "neck-hair rises up" when they see someone complaining on the forums.

Then they either largely ignore whatever point the complainer made and "defend the game" with something like "it is a game so it shouldn´t be realistic" or "it´s not realistic anyway so why bother"

So, people should try to bring express their ideas as diplomatically as possible , and not complain (and people do not like complaining in general, just like I don´t).

And, your suggestion of not reinforcing to the max is indeed a very good and valid strategy and for me applies to all units.

Much better to be 9 and 1 exp than 10 and 0 exp.....

[Scorpion_sk]

It's this simple? With 2 able opponents the one with the most experienced/numbers/first to level 5 air fleets wins, GAME OVER!

SeaMonkey, this is the way it´s been with 5 of the six games I played, (again in the one exception the opponent did very very gross mistakes especially with Sea Lion), and both me and my opponent have both agreed that the situation is hopeless (no matter which side had the air power) and called the game quits (usually in late 1942-early 1943).

Air supremacy has happened to the Axis 5 times in these games, and once (for me) with the Russians, where I totally lucked out on research, and was able to trounce the experienced Luftwaffe by virtue of numbers and technology.....(Of course I did what Immer Etwas suggested here then : used the budding air forces against the Finns and the Iraqi, and even the Italians at Tobruk to gain some experience) and unleashed them at an opportune time when the Luftwaffe was at level 1 and I at level 4.....though he got l 2 soon after it was too little too late.

So it was a case of extreme luck for me and bad luck for him (I even got industrial tech from 2 to 5 before I boosted my jets, and during all this his planes didn´t improve!)

Experience is a MAJOR factor.

[arby]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

Given the rules, one thing I try to do is not max-out when I reinforce, so that I am maintaining the highest level of experience -- say, stop at 8 or 9 instead of going to 10 or 11.

One of the things I'd like to do if I wasn't math-challenged is figure out the break-even point. I'm relatively sure that a unit at 9 with 1 experience is better than a unit at 10 with none. How about 8? 7? Am I better off reinforcing a unit with experience once it gets to a certain point, even if I lose that experience? And what is that point?

[husky65]

Originally posted by Scorpion_22:

Husky : "Yet again someone forgets the scale of the game, your unit under attack is not representing a Jager with a Panzerfaust in the frontline it is an entire army or corps deployed in depth."

I am someone with fairly detailed historical subject knowledge.

If you haven't forgotten the scale of the game and continue to push the idea that a 1 week (to one month) concentrated air campaign would have no effect on the combat strength of the unit then you are simply ignorant of the subject matter, I apologise for suggesting that you were only forgetful.

Then you need to do some study, I would suggest almost anything written by a German who served on the Western front from 44 onwards.

"The airforce is running amok in a 50 mile area, shooting up supply units, comms, transport and combat vehicles for a week to a month, you don't think that would reduce combat power?"

No, some reading comprehension work might not go astray whilst you study the works of Germans in Normandy too.

I never suggested that supply shouldn't be impacted on, just that combat strength is also diminished, read up on the move of Panzers towards the front line in Normandy (any unit actually), they were butchered from the air.

I don't agree with you at all.

You seem to have clutched at a straw and run with it, in spite of the fact that its based on nonsense - simple fact - Tanks moving towards the front were destroyed in large numbers from the air.

You will also note in the game the strength points also represent the NUMBER of supply troops, vehicles as well (they are an intrinsic part of an army level unit) - if you blow them up then combat power reduces regardless of the readiness level or morale of those that remain.

This is really basic, commonsense stuff.

Still clutching at that straw.

If you kill experienced supply troops, you get inexperienced supply troops in place of them - lowering the actual effectiveness of the unit.

You don't think that on an army scale combat that supply troops don't actually fight?

See Battle of Bulge, almost every withdrawal the Germans conducted for examples.

Or that having Green rear echelons Army level (and lower) HQs, Comms staff, arty etc doesn't lower the actual combat power?

You also seem to be focussing on the support staff, Combat troops also take casualties from air attack, see almost anything written by a German in Normandy.

Sorry, but the above is nonsense.

I would recommend you find out exactly how many soft skinned vehicles (or horse drawn vehicles in some cases) an infantry unit actually has, they are very vulnerable to attack by air, columns of marching troops are also vulnerable, as are unit HQs, Q stores, field kitchens etc etc.

You really need to read some subject matter.

"You have pretty much described the western allies strategy in WW2 - why is this a problem?"

Snipped for brevity.

I notice you don't suggest that it wasn't the way the western allies actually did it IRL, just that you don't like it.

What response do you want? Sorry that historical reality does not live up to your expectations?

Snipped for brevity.

Yes - quite often pinning attacks were used and FOs were then used to call in CAS whilst deeper ranging fighter bombers shot up the rear echelons.

Then perhaps you need to read a bit more BEFORE you try to argue these points.

You seem to be of the absurd opinion that you destroy an ARMY by killing every man in it.

Snipped a whole heap of complaining about your own poor strategy and/or historical realities.

Well Gee, airpower is effective, massed airpower is a good idea and experienced, massed airpower is very effective.

Who'd have thought it...

Throw in the idea that when the enemy is on a roll its difficult to stop him and we are really seeing some fresh info here.

To quote Basil Fawlty, "Your special subject, the bleedin obvious".

[Brian Rock]

Disclaimer: my comments are based on the demo. I'm still waiting for my SC/CMBB/T4 combined order to arrive!

My early impressions are that air power is too powerful.

For example Operation Cobra, the heaviest concentrated application of airpower in WWII I can think of, produced perhaps 50% casualties. I'm basing this on comments from the CO of the Panzer-Lehr Division, Gen. Bayerlein http://home.swipnet.se/normandy/gerob/pzdiv/lehr.html

I am not aware of any units that were destroyed (by which I mean made combat incapable, as opposed to annihilated) by air power alone.