Air assets too brittle

[dumrox]

Liking what I'm seeing so far, but I feel that the air assets aren't cost effective. Specifically, I feel that air units (fighters, spy planes and tactical bombers, haven't built any strategic bombers yet) are shot down too frequently. I'd like to see their chances of being hit go way down. I'd be fine with their "To hit" percentages dropping as well. I'd just like to see them survive multiple turns in combat. That way, you could at least use them for keeping tabs (and harrassment) on enemy warships. As it is now, if they fly over a battleship, they rarely survive. They even suffer at the hands of the lowly transports.

Same thing with spy planes. Bringing one down should be the exception, not the rule.

[dieseltaylor]

Earlier type Empire rules were similar. One or other dies thats it. Not being able to play on either of my computers the frustration with following this ... : (

[rich12545]

This is something that imo could be handled in a ruleset. You can make shorter build times, more hit points or whatever. It would be easy to mod and each person could set it to his own tastes.

[dumrox]

I will say that once I got my spy planes to level 3 (graphic looks like the SR-71 Blackbird), I haven't lost one. Either I was way behind on my tech vs the OpFor when I made my original post or there's a big jump in survivability between Level's 2 & 3.

Still think naval units swat the planes out of the air too frequently.

[N3rull]

I think ships should defend themselves against aircraft to some extent.

Tranports should have a miserable chance of downing an aircraft, Destroyers only a little better (so they have a counter), but Cruisers and Battleships should be floating SAM sites (as they are in reality).

I wanted to add another question to this thread - don't you think that bombers and tac bombers get... laughably better with each upgrade? I mean, their speed goes up significantly, but their combat effectiveness is more or less unchanged (very small increases in the vital combat stats). It's a bit unnerving to see two UAV Tac bombers take 3 turns to down a tank class 5 and lose one plane in due course ;s.

[dieseltaylor]

N3rull - your knowledge of UAV tac bombers effectiveness versus Class 5 tank formations [regiment/division] is obviously far superior to mine : )

[N3rull]

What was that supposed to mean? I don't understand.

Tactical bombers aka attack aircraft were designed to eliminate things like artillery and tanks. I would expect that the second best tac bomber in the game wouldn't have too much trouble against a technologically inferior tank, but it's exactly the opposite.

What is the point of tactical bombers anyway if everything is a problem for them?

[dieseltaylor]

I am trying to make the point that UAV aircraft are figments of the imagination, as is a Class 5 tank. I have no idea whether aircraft are on an individual basis and tanks are on an platoon/regiment/division/corps basis - or even vice versa.

Therefore to assert that your experience proves that UAV aircraft are not potent enough is a point of view. I might suggest that you used insufficient aircraft to accomplish the mission AND that the build costs etc are irrelevant because it is the ability to move aircraft more rapidly than tanks is actually the important aspect of building them.

I think it is unfortunately easy to identify the names with with current representatives of that weapons class. However if we look at aircraft versus tank formations in 1939 they were lethal only in respect of dive bombers - Stuka's. And the lack of adequate mobile AA units. By 1944 Typhoons and Theunderbolts and Sturmoviks were dangerous though by not as much as flyboys would like to believe. However with the advent of AAM's and shoulder fired AAM's the aircraft threat was reduced.

Generally speaking air assets have never been devastating to armoured units. However that does not mean this game designer has to side with one period or the other for "realism". He has to balance the combat benefits and weaknesses/costs/Movement etc to make a cohesive whole.

You may be correct a tweak is needed overall but citing a single incident of two mythical aircraft against a "tank" seemed to me to be a weak case to argue for change.

I am rather from the school that says give me more data:

two UAV's have a 10% chance of instant KO against a Class 5 tank

10% chance of complete fail

etc etc.

If I attack with three UAV's my success rate is 50% in one turn

etc etc

Rather boring but , for me , a necessary approach to tinkering with a game.

[N3rull]

UAV tac bomber is not some completely imaginative unit. It's just the Class 5 tactical bomber. Its name got changed cause Brit correctly assumed that future aircraft are likely to be unmanned. Just as Class 5 tank is just a class 5 tank and jet fighter class 1 is just a fighter class 3.

Secondly - what is the tac bomber supposed to be good against, then?

Aircraft? Come on.

Cities? It's the strat bomber's job. I don't think you have any doubt about it?

Ground units? Just look into the unit analysis chart.

Tanks are a fair match for tac bombers of equal class.

Infantry just as well.

Artillery is supposedly well countered by tac bombers due to the chart, but that does not include the range advantage the artillery has. A UAV c2 tac bomber has to fly over an enemy arty unit to deal damage to it, artillery has 85 range against air units. Also look at the to-hit ratios. UAV c2 tac bomber against Soft targets has 1.3 to-hit. Artillery class 6 has 5.5 to-hit against aircraft. From my experience, getting anywhere near enemy artillery is a death sentence to aircraft.

So it's not ground units either.

Ships? Destroyers and transports, maybe. We all know a battleship/cruiser just screws tac bombers. So no, tac bombers are not to be used against ships either.

Conclusion - tac bombers don't really have any good use. They are fast and they die fast, that's it. I think it's wrong.

[dieseltaylor]

You seem to avoid my point that perhaps it is a numbers game. Do 5 Atc bombers overwhelm a tank unit? Is this how they should be deployed?

Well known fact in WW2 that Tigers were deadly and that it was a 5 to 1 proposition for Shermans to stand a chance to take it out. Sending a Typhoon to take out a Tiger was also risky as other than pretty much a direct hit it would be untouched so to make sure you would have many Typhoons line up for the task and dependent on terrain and smoke and AA fire they may be successful.

I am sorry to use specifics to argue a case but I am trying to make the point that this may well be a numbers game and one on one is not the only statistic to look at.

You do say from "my experience" this and that happens. I don't know if that is one incident or ten incidents. Or if like many people you remember the bad results rather than the good. I see many people are saying this sucks and that sucks but without numbers for examples how seriously can the complaints be taken. I know one WeboBer complained he lost a BB to a destroyer - but you say they are uber!

Perhaps you could arrange 5 tac against a tank and let everyone know if volume does make a difference.

[dumrox]

There's a good question for the dev's buried in this little exchange. Actually, I guess dt's last sentence nails it. Is there any advantage to mass attacks against a single unit? Does the targeted unit get it's "to hit" roll against each attacker, only against the first or something in between? I'm guessing it gets to target each threat with it's full firepower.

If so, perhaps the to-hit % could drop slightly with each successive attack.

[N3rull]

I know one WeboBer complained he lost a BB to a destroyer - but you say they are uber!

Perhaps you could arrange 5 tac against a tank and let everyone know if volume does make a difference.

1. I lost a battleship class 3, a destroyer, a sub and two tac bombers to a docked class2 battleship. I know battles are very random.

What I'm saying is because I've seen it happen consistently. I won't give you the exact numbers cause I haven't programmed this game.

2. I have sent three or four tac bombers against tanks and arty throughout the number of games I have played and yeah, the tank goes down most of the time, but usually taking one or two tac bombers with him.

Tactical bombers go down en masse in this game and aren't really dangerous to anything, maybe except naval transports. It's much more cost-effective to get one-two fighters for escort, a transport and two tanks.

Enough said that in the last 3 games that I can recall I have seen the AI build a total of 5 Flak cannons and 5 fighters (from upgraded zeppelins). These never scored a single kill on my aircraft. And still I have usually lost a third of the tac bombers I built, always attacking in favourable conditions.

You don't need sam sites or fighters in this game cause tactical bombers die fast to anything. Ain't that wrong?

[dieseltaylor]

Thanks for the extra information. It helps . You may well be right then.

In relation to the docked BB I can only assume that dockyards come with an intrinsic defences like torpedo nets, AA, anti-submarine defences, shore based guns etc. After all Scapa Flow was pretty well defended and it was not even a dockyard.

Interestingly the TAC therefore can do its job but takes losses - is this to stop them being uber-effective and unbalancing the game in other ways? You know Tac always gets through would mean planes would rule the roost and invasions would be infinitely stupid. My own feeling is that Brit should have covered the 1900-1940 only and for that I think the aircraft may ring true. To encompass the odd 100 years is too much for the base system.

[jjwillett]

N3rull is right. Something definitely seems amiss in regards to airpower. It's pretty annoying when you build about 5 tac bombers and send them up against a lone tank or artillery piece and they all get shot down. The other thing I noticed is that battleships are can knock out everything in no time. Park one next to a city with 10 units and they'll all be dust in 2 turns. Also lower level transports knocking out top tier destroyers. Game is a lot of fun though and I'm hopeful that this beta stage will sort out all this stuff.

[N3rull]

In relation to the docked BB I can only assume that dockyards come with an intrinsic defences like torpedo nets, AA, anti-submarine defences, shore based guns etc. After all Scapa Flow was pretty well defended and it was not even a dockyard.

Interestingly the TAC therefore can do its job but takes losses - is this to stop them being uber-effective and unbalancing the game in other ways? You know Tac always gets through would mean planes would rule the roost and invasions would be infinitely stupid. My own feeling is that Brit should have covered the 1900-1940 only and for that I think the aircraft may ring true. To encompass the odd 100 years is too much for the base system.

Ad.1 - no, it was just an unlucky roll on my part and I'm aware of that. War doesn't always go as odds dictate and some stuff is pretty random, which this game reflects very well. This time, the docked BB might have scored a lucky shot against the incoming BB (like Bismarck did against HMS Hood - the shell landed in an extremely unlikely manner and hit the munitions depot, blowing Hood up instantly). Some things are not just about unlucky rolls, because they just almost always happen. Tac bombers almost always die.

Ad.2 - no, tac bombers would not be uber. If anything, upgrading TAC bombers would make building fighters and SAM sites less pointless.

Another thing that came to my mind that could sort out the artillery-aircraft imbalance: I believe that infantry should be separated from artillery. Right now, they're both "Soft" target type. They shouldn't. And artillery emplacement is a very good target for aircraft, infantry is not. Infantry can hide, take cover and is spread over an area. Artillery is static and hitting it from air is no big deal.

I suggest a new unit type for artillery and missile launchers.

A slow moving (or immobile), large and clumsy vehicle/cannon is a very good target for aircraft. Tactical bombers should have their effectiveness increased by 50% against Armored and this new unit type. Artillery should have its effectiveness reduced against aircraft by 15-20%.

SAM sites and Infantry should stay "Soft" and tac bombers effectiveness against these should be unchanged (as in - relatively sucky).

That would put tac bombers in their place and make SAM sites/fighters necessary for defense against airborne assaults, as they should be.

I think the biggest problem with fixing the ruleset imbalance is that Brit would like to devote his time for stuff like fixing crashes and killing bugs rather than tweaking a ruleset which any of us could do on his own with the full game's ruleset editor.

Brit - maybe you could give some trustd person access to the ruleset editor and let him tweak it for you? Someone from the beta testers maybe.

[Brit]

Hey.

I think I'll run some tests and see how often unit X kills unit Y.

Also, as far as grouping: I tried to avoid having groups that are extra powerful. I tried to set it up so that the power of a unit increases geometrically with more units, rather than exponentially. When the power scales exponentially, it skews the game-strategy towards "build, build, build, one large battle, and one nation comes out the loser". (Case in point: I remember years ago playing Total Annihilation with a friend. His method of play was to create massive numbers of aircraft and destroy enemy players with airpower alone. Things like that can become a problem when the power of a group increases exponentially with more units.) If you keep the value of grouping lower, then it promotes more skirmish play.

Realtime strategy games tend to have systems where the power of a group increases exponentially with more units, and strategy games tend to have geometric power increases as more units are added to a group.

I can talk more about this if you're interested in the game effects of grouping.

[N3rull]

Thanks for responding, boss. As I think of it, you're right. Flying blobs would screw the game up by quite a bit.

As you're doing that, please run some test on missiles (V2 -> drone, nukes and nuke bombers) because they seem to be somewhat messed up, always running out of fuel, never really hurting anything. I haven't seen them hurt anything yet anyway, and I fired quite a few.

[hoolaman]

I think the biggest problem with fixing the ruleset imbalance is that Brit would like to devote his time for stuff like fixing crashes and killing bugs rather than tweaking a ruleset which any of us could do on his own with the full game's ruleset editor.

Brit - maybe you could give some trustd person access to the ruleset editor and let him tweak it for you? Someone from the beta testers maybe.

Actually I posted this in another thread before reading this.

I'll definitely second this request, to the point of putting the ruleset editor in the beta and allowing us to post and trade rulesets.

[N3rull]

I think it might not help if suddenly everyone would try to make everyone else play their own ruleset. It might, in fact, completely screw up the whole beta process, cause Brit would likely be flooded with bug reports caused by someone's faulty Ruleset. It would also be hard to find a sensible game.

I think that one person should tweak the ruleset. Only that it doesn't really have to be Brit, since it's just about sitting over the Ruleset editor for a few hours, which is a tool we are going to be given anyway (soooo it ought to be usable without 230 IQ and a PhD in IT, right?)