Jump to content

Air power is much too strong....


Scorpion_sk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A few notes St. Lo and other historical devastating air attacks:

First, St. Lo and the British breakout had absolutely massive amounts of airpower assembled, at great cost. This was nothing anybody could do on a regular basic. The SC player doesn't pay that much, he just purchases the units and concentrating them is a much smaller problem than in history.

Second, friendly fire was a very serious problem and is not modeled in SC.

In addition to better air defense effects in SC I would like to see friendly fire modeled. If you bombard a hex there should be a decent change that adjacent hexes get part of the damage, including empty hexes and hexes occupied by friendly units.

Maybe the use of multiple air units in the same area in the same turn should be punished as well, but that doesn't see to fit the scale if SC too well.

I played SC for a day and think it's a fun game, but I also agree that this aspect needs tuning. Air power was and is less reliable and somewhat fragile and SC should model that.

[ September 18, 2002, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lars:

To ignore the current grog poo flinging contest and get back to the matter of game balance...

Ah, but we are using our grog powers for *good* instead of *evil*. ;)

This isn't an "are the #307 2.7cm Amperfield sprockets adequately modelled in SC?" type of debate. It's whether a particular game effect is far too powerful compared to its historical counterpart. I think the history matters.

As for game effects, the solution I'd currently favour is tone down the air firepower (fewer casualties but more hits on supply and readiness), and increase the damage done by ground units to still make breakthroughs possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree with you Brian Rock. People quickly lose sight of the point of these arguments and it turns into a mighty contest to determine who will be the alpha grog. Having established their mating dominance within the forum they look around for mates and realise there's none to be had. Pity them. ;)

I felt the need to rebut husky65 at some length because the argument he was using to defend air power as it currently stands did not bear close investigation.

Air power t present greatly affects the playability of the game for myself and many others who've posted here. It's been good to see so many positive suggestions in amongst the surprising amount of emotion in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Archibald:

I have just realised the true significance of this thread, Has anyone else noticed that we are now only a few posts away from overtaking Russ Bensing's record breaking 84-post "Game Play" thread?

If we all pitch together we can win this one guys. Go thread go!

In your dreams, homey. Keep in mind that one of the reasons for my "record-breaking 84-post thread" was that I wrote the first 15 or 20 posts myself.

At least, it seemed that way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my house rules (see my other thread) do a good enough job for now of limiting the strength of air power. Being only able to make operative moves (seems like the only sensible option, I find the regular move of the aircraft quite ridiculous : moving around an airfleet for a short distance at no cost. Firstly : why a short distance and secondly, why at no cost? Surely airbases are not free nor is the fuel?).

This severely limits the ability of the airfleets to concentrate due to range issues....or if not, makes you pay a heavy price for constantly re-basing your massive airfleets.

The second rule, one that only "bombers" can bomb ground units (and the bomber unit includes all tactical bombers as well) , seems like a great way to introduce a new element to the gameplay (balancing between fighters & bombers) and further limiting air power).

I wonder why I repeated all that.....oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lars:

To ignore the current grog poo flinging contest and get back to the matter of game balance...

Ah, but we are using our grog powers for *good* instead of *evil*. ;)

This isn't an "are the #307 2.7cm Amperfield sprockets adequately modelled in SC?" type of debate. It's whether a particular game effect is far too powerful compared to its historical counterpart. I think the history matters.

As for game effects, the solution I'd currently favour is tone down the air firepower (fewer casualties but more hits on supply and readiness), and increase the damage done by ground units to still make breakthroughs possible.</font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

[QB

What do people think about Hubert taking away (or seriously limiting) fighters' ground attack abilities?[/QB]

Note that these aren't strictly speaking "fighter"

units: the Germans had bombers, but have no

strategic bomber unit in the game. Hubert

named them "air fleets" for a reason [a mix of

fighters, dive bombers, and medium bombers].

That said, I am perturbed by all these reports of

massive airfleets combined with an anemic corps-

heavy army; that is just ridiculous, from both

historical, gameplay, and aesthetic perspectives.

Someone suggested tying the quantity of a given

type of unit to current MPP production. I think

I like this one the best. A simple formula could

be MPP/75 = the max number of air fleets [or

tanks, or bombers], rounded UP. You won't be

forced to disband if your MPPs drop though.

Corps could be free, and armies more numerous

[divide by 50 perhaps].

Now the Germans would start Barbarossa (typically

they have a production of ~350-400 MPPs by then)

with a max of 6 air fleets.

I like it.

John DiFool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to try and explain another view about the air power. I agree with Brian Rock. However to try to put it in game terms. The ground unit in question was so badly hit that for all intensive purposes it was removed from the map. To put it in other terms. If you ever played Third Reich. I remember playing the Allies and destoying the 4-6 DAK. Only to see the Axis player buy it back next turn and place it on the map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pretty good thread. A lot of good ideas and suggestions. Plenty of heated debate. A little bit of flaming. smile.gif ( At least no one was hurt ).

I guess its time for me to stop lurking and post my suggestion. Actually, its not mine. It's just a refinement of a previous post.

Here it is...

Ground units can only be reduced to X strength via air attacks.

Note: I'm leaving the strength number "X" open for debate.

Positives: Easy to understand. Should be easy to code. It would have desired effect of reducing ability to rely on air alone on attack.

Negatives: Possible gaminess. Ring coastline with X strength corps and stop invasion indefinitely ( Although you could finish off the unit with a naval bombardment ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that these aren't strictly speaking "fighter"

units: the Germans had bombers, but have no

strategic bomber unit in the game. Hubert

named them "air fleets" for a reason [a mix of

fighters, dive bombers, and medium bombers].

And therein lies the problem, I think : as it stands you are getting two units at the price of one with airfleets, and to top it off they support each other well:

Your air fleet fights in the air at full effectiveness ( all strength points) as if it only consisted of fighters, and bombs with full effectiveness.

Now I would understand this "mix of fighters and bombers" if only 5 half of the air fleets strength points could fight in the air and half could bomb effectively.

At the moment you´re doing both, and to make it all the sweeter you can rack up huge levels of experience by bombing which you can use to ensure your opponent will never contest the skies again.

Ridiculous, says I.

That´s why there needs to be one strictly fighter unit, and one strictly bomber unit.

It´s a small wonder few have ever purchased heavy bombers before this......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a problem with air fleets being able to attack ground units.

Historically, however, I *do* see a problem with heavy bombers attacking naval units. They were essentially useless in that role - if anything, even less effective than when used to attack ground units.

tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I didn´t say that it´s wrong for air fleets to be able to attack ground units in principle...

The point was that if air fleets contain a mix of fighters and bombers then the effects should be according to that mix. Having, say 50 fighters and 50 bombers does not mean you contest the skies as effectively as you would with 100 fighters , the way it is modelled into the game now is that all the aircraft in the air fleets are 100% effective fighters and 100% effective bombers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lars:

Level 5 aircraft are supposed to be better than what they had in WWII, which makes the grog arguement moot.

I'm raising hell with the air fleets in the demo.

Here's another thought - what about making air effectiveness vary by range?

So if effect the longer the distance the less ordinance that can be dropped. This would help to simulate the variety of different ranged aircraft, the fact that more sorties could be flown over shorter distances, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Scorpion_22:

I think my house rules do a good enough job for now of limiting the strength of air power. Being only able to make operative moves...

I almost agree with the op-moves rule but not the others. Unfortunately I play against the computer quite a bit and just can't make it understand. I am also not convinced that you should be limited to city hexes and surrounds. There are a lot of cities or potential supply points not shown on the map.

I wouldn't object to Hubert adding an additonal 'rebase' order for airfleets (and removing normal movement ability) and having an associated cost, probably less than the current op cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Mike Cocchiola:

Ground units can only be reduced to X strength via air attacks.

...

Negatives: Possible gaminess. Ring coastline with X strength corps and stop invasion indefinitely ( Although you could finish off the unit with a naval bombardment ).

That is a big negative, and why should ships be able to bombard a unit into oblivion but not airfleets/bombers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

In conjunction with ground forces, yes. Indeed airpower, in conjunction with ground forces, can destroy corps and armies. Not the issue.

{/QB]

You confuse destruction of units with occupation of ground, airpower is quite capable of destroying units - it cannot occupy ground.

[qb]

Scale: I can destroy a platoon with one well-placed bomb. It doesn't follow that I can just as easily take out a company with three well-placed bombs, a battallion with ten well-placed bombs, and so on.

Actually it does follow that you can.

A larger formation not only means more targets, it means a much larger footprint. They are vulnerable, but not to the same degree.

A battalion is more vulnerable to scaled up air attack than a platoon, it and its supporting echelon are easier to find than a platoon.

Also you seem to be of the opinion that you need to kill all the troops to destroy a unit, a destroyed unit is one that is combat ineffective.

Circumstances: All of the examples put forward have involved air in conjunction with ground forces:

[1]Cobra: air and ground forces

[2]Montelier: air and ground forces

[3]Falaise: air and ground forces

Again your confusion between unit destruction and occupation of land - infantry are of course needed to occupy ground, however airpower is quite capable of destroying units (as it did historically).

History: It never happened. I'm still waiting for an example of a corps or army destroyed by air power alone.

Examples have been provided already, the fact that you don't understand the difference between destroying a unit and occupying the ground it held does not change the fact that airpower did it.

The fact that entire columns of troops attempted to surrender to ground attack a/c in Falaise suggests that the airpower had destroyed the units.

I was conceded it was possible the first time you posted it. I'm still not sure it's correct.

Why?

1) We know there was ground fighting after the bombing.

The div was destroyed, the fact that sub units were able to fight does not suggest that it was not.

2) Elsewhere Bayerlein puts losses due to air at 50%:

Bayerlein to Wilmott 70%

It was sufficient to limit American advances until the following day.

ie it was not a significant force on a Div scale (and since SC runs on a minimum 1 week turn would not be noticeable in game) - the allies were renowned for their lack of boldness in advance, any opposition tended to make them halt.

]Husky65, the Panzer Lehr was not destroyed. It stayed in the line for almost two weeks before being reorganisation and refitting.

PL was destroyed, the fact that sub units remanined in the line just meant that the Germans were grabbing at straws, PL was combat ineffective - the Germans were still using Div names but the units deployed were not Divs in anything but name.

If I call a surviving Rifle Squad the 2nd SS 'Das Riech' Panzer Div that does not mean Das Reich survived, it just means I am kidding myself.

I am not, ever have, and probably never will argue airpower has no combat effect. The point I've been arguing since my first post is that airpower alone - note the "alone" bit - did not destroy corps or armies.

And you have been shown to be wrong - airpower has destroyed armies, what airpower cant do is occupy land - two very different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by husky65:

A battalion is more vulnerable to scaled up air attack than a platoon, it and its supporting echelon are easier to find than a platoon.

This is why I think it makes some sense for corps or depleted units to take less casualties from air attacks than full strength armies.

For example suppose that the damage inficted by air was 30% (example only and obviously this would actually be random to some degree) of the units strength rather than a flat rate.

So a unit would go from 10 to 7 to 4 to 2 to 1 to 0 strength after successive air attacks. If it were deemed necessary (amphib landing for example) by the player 5 air units could completely destroy (make combat ineffective) a unit. *But* in general a player would be more likely to only knock a unit down to 2-4 stength and then move the air strikes on to another unit, leaving the ground forces to finish them off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...