Scorpion_22

The allies won 5/6 of the in the last tourney? (With the Rambo thing being a bit fuzzy)....interesting. Still, you could provide a slight readiness increase to the U.S. - 10% is about correct imho (to put the entry to Christmas 1941), some more chits for the U.S. to start with, and perhaps some M.P.P.s (say in the region of 1000) while the soviet may have their initial mpps and tech levels looked at (say anti-tank and heavy armour research, for historical and gameplay reasons). Then just distribute this very slightly modified scenario as the official tournament scenario. With it, the U.S. will have an earlier and more meaningful entry, and the U.S.S.R. might hold a bit better.

Fine. Forget about the idea of making air units more expensive and less omnipotent. Hubert says that the Air Fleets include tac bombers, yes, I know that, but I can just as well say that the Strat bomber unit includes ALL bombers, not just strat ones. Anyways, most of you are just happy with the way things are. That´s good. That means you should never experiment, I guess. At least there´s an option to walk away to, now....... (Walks away....) Seriously, I need to test this out. Perhaps I´ll put up some sort of an AAR with this rule (played against myself, of course, since no-one will want to play with this rule besides me) and my soon-to-be-ready historical 1939 OOB scenario.

What rules? Must it be the original scenario?

Great movie, but the battle of the Helm´s Deep was a bit ridiculous because I looked at it with the "strategic eye". Neither side practised any castle attack tactics and only the orcs used (very, very little) equipment (to erect ladders, but forget siege machines). Still, a very enjoyable and enthralling experience. It´s just that the strategist in me was screaming at the onset of the Battle

Eh? What exactly is a "high enough level" bomber or rocket to use? The level 0 ones serve you perfectly well. They are cheaper anyway. I guarantee you that two bombers and rockets (artillery) should cause trouble to any unfortified soft unit.

....Remember that the Luftwaffe, for example, had seven Luftflotten at most (four to start with in 1939). Aircraft are EXPENSIVE. This rule keeps the air fleet counts in check.... So it isn´t as easy to field 18 air fleets unless you skimp out on the bombers.

The gameplay seems very good to me when you rule that ONLY bomber units can attack ground units. Having a huge air force that is all-inclusive and almighty, and can get better in air-to-air operations by performing air-to-ground operations and vice versa, is simly not possible. Essentially it adds another strategic layer into the game. IF you need both bombers and fighters, it is twice as expensive (research included) and you cannot exploit the experience system to rule the skies forevermore (by gaining exp to the fighters by bombing poor defenseless corps). In this case, the fighter unit represents only fighters, and the bomber unit represents both strategic and tactical bombers. Thus one balanced Luftflotte/airfleet consists of one fighter and one bomber unit. Of course, the french, for example, neglected their bombers. This makes sense both gameplay-wise and historically to me. Try it out and see how you like it, perhaps you´ll find that the game play out differently in a positive way?

Get real, folks. He only said that: Note the PAST TENSE. I think all of us HAVE been twelve at one point;) For what it´s worth, I didn´t really take Rambo all that seriously and considered it fun. I guess you could have waited with this revelation until a defeat, would have made a grand prize

So, it WAS a joke, eh? Ha ha, very funny.

Yes, this would fix most of our problems at once. However, a web search yielded no results....nor did any post on this forum have info on it, so is this just some October Fools´ Joke?

No, no and no. The finns were hard pressed to hold on during the end of the winter war, and the armistice was a relief. All in all the Winter War lasted 109 days, and then there was a period of "peace" and building up, until Barbarossa came, and the Finns got bombed. Then, Finland attacked (foolishly, some would say, but you don´t really bomb someone´s capital unless you have hostile intentions and it was pretty clear what Stalin´s intentions for Finland were) and reclaimed the areas lost in the Winter War (in the peace treaty), and pushed into Russian territory. At the end Mannerheim ordered the troops to halt the advance and dig in, rather than join in the siege of Leningrad and cut it off. Similarly, the Murmansk rail was NOT cut off (guess which rail was critical to the transportation of the lend-lease equipment?)

No, no and no. The finns were hard pressed to hold on during the end of the winter war, and the armistice was a relief. All in all the Winter War lasted 109 days, and then there was a period of "peace" and building up, until Barbarossa came, and the Finns got bombed. Then, Finland attacked (foolishly, some would say, but you don´t really bomb someone´s capital unless you have hostile intentions and it was pretty clear what Stalin´s intentions for Finland were) and reclaimed the areas lost in the Winter War (in the peace treaty), and pushed into Russian territory. At the end Mannerheim ordered the troops to halt the advance and dig in, rather than join in the siege of Leningrad and cut it off. Similarly, the Murmansk rail was NOT cut off (guess which rail was critical to the transportation of the lend-lease equipment?)

I would make 1940 the year for level 1. 1939 can hardly be counted as a full year anyway. Otherwise, sounds good.

The massive airfleets start popping up at a rate of 1 unit per turn as soon as the East Front develops into the trench war it usually develops into. You wouldn´t be swamped by other units if there weren´t dozens of airfleets since you cannot stack units. Also, limiting the tech levels of airfleets only makes the problem worse. How so? Well, advances to jets don´t increase the air fleets´ ground attack values, do they not? So, by limiting the tech levels, the air fleets will be even cheaper than before, since their tech level (and cost) isn´t so high. Of course, the industrial tech won´t be as high either, but that´s a different matter.

Brian: Yep, so instead 3-4 of your best units receiving the attention of 4-6 air fleets each turn, you´d receive the attention of 4-6 air fleets in total. That´d be satisfactory. However, we´d still need some kind of a way to advance in AA weapons for units.

Well, the ability to build 20 air fleets is a much, much more ridiculous notion that that of a unit being wiped from the face of the map with attacks by 5 air fleets and no ground support, but I still think the effects of the air fleets should be closer to CoS (ie. major readiness drops) with increased casualties for panzer units. (I do think they´re vulnerable to being chopped up)

Sogard, I do assume that you mean "I wouldn´t object to the idea of putting a maintenance costs on the airfleets with this house rule, but as an ultimate solution I´d want to see realistic production limits", aye? Bruce, agreed that the idea of allowing only operational moves is a good one, but still think that units should be able to rebase anywhere on the map. I do admit to forgetting the "slight detail" of units only being allowed to operationally move to hexes next to a city. Bummer for a faulty memory As for someone saying that if you keep on building airfleets, you would be lacking in other departments, allowing your opponent to take advantage of that. While this might be true in principle, it unfortunately does not apply to SC. That´s just one of the problems of a game with the realism of SC and one of the several reasons why some of the people here want to make it more realistic. Real world logic doesn´t apply in the game as it is. For example, if your opponent had lots of corps and a zillion airfleets, what´d you do then? Decide that now is the best time to start investing in more powerful panzer and Army units to crush the weak corps? Well, as soon as those first Armies or tanks hit the front, they will receive the attention of 4-6 veteran airfleets, leaving that veteran unit in ashes instantly. Without ground assault, without preparation, without "buildup for a major operation". Fresh, elite units (usually with no entrenchment since they´re just transported in) are the most juicy targets for air attacks, since it´s just as easy (well nearly as easy) to destroy an army (air defense 2) as a corps (AD 1). Or, you might decide to build large numbers of troops behind the lines and ship a lot of them at once to the front. Well, good luck with sending no replacement corps for the airfleets to chew, then. You´ll be back in Poland or Moscow (depending on the side you play) in no time. You might decide to build rockets: well they are even moer juicier as targets provided the airfleets can reach them with Long Range advances. But you need a lot of luck and skill to use them, and once they have done their attack, their location is known.....requiring you to operate it elsewhere etc. Might be worth a shot, but it isn´t easy to pull off. You might decide to rule the seas now that the enemy is probably lacking in that department. Well, unless the enemy needs to use the Mediterranean to capture Iraq, I don´t know what good will that do. Naval units get chopped to pieces and sunk if spotted by the super-air units. That´s just the way it is....can someone prove it to be otherwise? Hubert, you claim to be a master of your own game, why not enlighten the masses to your methods of stopping the "Air assault"?

About the argument that a "good opponent wouldn´t let you build 18 or more airfleets"....this is, unfortunately untrue. Achieving superiority in the ground is nothing compared to achieving air superiority in the game, my piss-poor inexperienced russian corps had no problems against the elite (experienced 2-3 medals) axis armies once I (very luckily) wrested the skies from the Luftwaffe. The airfleets massed and destroyed the elite units with impunity with the corps just moving to occupy their spaces. I do think that the first house rule we should start trying in our pbem games would be to allow airfleets to make only operational moves. There´s your maintenance costs, plus the costs for fuel and for building new airbases. Plus, the normal move for airfleets is ridiculous. Why can an airfleet rebase itself for free, if it only moves say 300 km, but not if it moves from one front to the other?

Husky, I decided to read up one of your posts for the sheer hell of it. Basically, you´re calling every argument by others "plain wrong" and the posters "stupid" in such a manner that it seems to me you´re trying to influence the "casual reader" to think *you´re* the only person in the right in here and everyone else is "wrong and stupid". What a basis for an intelligent, mature discussion..... A question: if a full-strength veteran-level Army (numbering say 100 000 combat troops) becomes the target of a bombing campaign by 5-6 Air Fleets. Let´s say every one of them make an effort like in Operation Cobra (and do this for every week of the War thereafter). Let´s imagine there´s no ground assault at all this turn, the target being behind the lines or out of reach. Is it the best solution for the entire unit to disappear after its C&C, supply etc. have been bombed to oblivion (lets´assume they are)? What about all the veteran combat troops, which are obviously shaken up and naturally cannot present a combat effective force at all? Are they irredeemably lost, and the unit disappears from the face of the earth....? Or, if the battered troops of the former Army can be prevented from being assaulted, can the troops be recovered at a later date, and the army rebuilt? Gameplay-wise, should the unit drop from str 10 to 0 and disappear, or should it drop to 4-6 str, together with its readiness and supply dropping to 0, rendering the remains of the unit immobile and easily wiped out by an assault? (Readiness at 0)? Let´s think about something else besides the "capability of massed air attacks of destroying an army" : do you think the game plays out well at the moment, and do you enjoy the games where one side buys eighteen to two dozen air fleets, is able to rebase and operate them for free, is able to concentrate as many as he wants on a single point with impunity, and THEN do it with the results of these extreme examples we´ve talked about ?(Like Falaise, where I believe the target was completely pocketed) At the same time the opponent cannot invest in developing improved anti-air units at all, and the fact that the bombers of the attacking airfleet greatly increases the air-to-air combat skills of the fighters at the same time (without them facing a single enemy aircraft during the operation), making it unable for him to resist your air power any more? I don´t know if you´ve played multiple games of SC lately or whether you´re just an armchair general, but I do wonder that if you had played 6 games where your every battle consisted of you buying two dozen airfleets and demolishing the enemy, you might not argue so vigorously that "The game is perfect as it is and air power is not at all too strong".

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.

Ah, nicely pointed out about the anti-ship strikes! The way I thought it, the definition "ground units" would include naval units as well. So only bombers would be able to attack them from the air. And this leads me to one final rule : air attacks shouldn´t really be possible against subs. I do admit that I don´t know everything about WWII, but the bombers didn´t carry depth charges, right? Plus, how on earth would you spot the subs from the air...? This should add quite a new level of functionality to the already improved submarines. This only leaves us with the question of carriers. The air unit is contain is obviously an "air fleet" (=fighters) and benefits from jet technology. I do think it´d be best to allow them to attack naval units, but not regular ground units. Consider them "specially equipped" for naval attacks. However, they still shouldn´t be able to attack subs, except maybe at range 1. I´ve seen myself ratcheting up huge levels of experience with carriers simply by constantly bombing garrisoned cities....it seems gamey.

Yeah, I think the best idea so far (from the others, of course;) is to disallow the switching, ie each press of the "down" button would instantly reclaim the chit. This is actually my suggestion number 4, if you look at my post, so there

Husky, whatever useful things you might want to say are ignored because you have proven yourself to be a complete dolt by adopting a hostile posture from the word go. Here I am trying to create a sensible discussion out of it, and out of the blue comes some "historically learned person" to attack the initial poster with insults. You, sir, must be a very sad individual. Because I do not spend my time doing things that I don´t like ie. talking to people like you, this is my final post on the subject. All because it is a fruitless discussion anyway as nothing will ever be done about it. Some of your arguments do make good sense, some of them don´t. The way I envisioned the airfleets : 1.Their "hard attack" value could stay at about the same while soft attack should drop a bit. (If you think that armies are just as vulnerable to troop loss than tanks....well.....oh and demolishing a unit´s supply, organic transports and some command sections would make that same, formerly veteran unit a green unit when reorganised?) Sure, massive casualties to infantry (tens of thousands of combat troops) are possible in the time frame you described but the conditions it requires are a bit special, don´t you think? However, like I originally said, and like you confirmed multiple times, tanks are vulnerable to air units. 2. Readiness should be affected for the ongoing and the following turn. Currently air attacks cause no damage to readiness & supply. This is probably because they cause so great casualties that if they caused readiness damage they´d be even more powerful! This is why I think it´d be best to tone down the casualties and implement readiness damage. I just think this´d be the best method of representing losses to supply, organic transport and command units. A low-readiness and supply unit would be crippled in combat effectiveness and would not be nearly as mobile. Just causing strength losses does nothing to mobility.... 3. Casualties caused to (especially "soft" units) rise too sharply with airfleet experience. This is one of the major gripes for me....if the casualties stayed at the "inexperienced" level, all would seem to be fine. Of course some improvement would be expected (especially against armor)....it just seems too dramatic. 4. There should be a way to research anti-aircraft technology (beyond for those units who are on top of strategic objectives) One poster said that airpower can be countered by investing in AA radar.....well...that is unfortunately untrue. Air effectiveness would be more tolerable IF There was a way for ground troops to concentrate an attack on one spot ie. to stack units. Husky, you calling me a poor strategist is again the mark of a small mind. I did not come here to gripe at this because of having lost all of my games to opponents using these tactics! Quite the contrary, 4 times out of 5 I have been the one winning the air war and demolishing the opponent after that, regardless of his industrial capacity or ground troops, and found that this kind of conclusion to the games became boring. Inexperienced air units of similar tech level simply cannot and will not compete with airfleets of superior experience. You can rant all you want here, but I won´t be here to read ´em, Husky. I would similarly suggest that you do some reading on social interaction before you engage in "civilized" conversation again.

Kuniworth, you are an ignorant fool! (Hehe just kidding, don´t take offense please) Anyways, putting any "nationalist pride" for events that happened 60 years ago, the finnish troops really were much, much superior to the Russians. Even the SS that were sent to Finland did not make it in the Finnish conditions and terrain. I do agree that a major part of Finnish superiority (and thus survival) in WW2 had to do with the conditions and the terrain which the Russians could not cope with, except for the elite Siberian troops (even they were not enough to do the trick!) but much of it had to do with the tenacity and the desire to prevail too along with the generally superior condition of the troops (enabling them to keep on fighting for inhumane periods of time against hopeless odds) and sound tactics. Oh well, enough of that. Just to show that my argument is not just some nationalistic finn´s rant, I´m going to say that the general quality of the finnish troops today is rubbish, and I do believe it´d be best to create a small, truly professional army instead of this large one (we do not need it at the moment or in the foreseeable future : the only threat I can come up with is Russia breaking into multiple rogue states, and one of them say the "Leningrad protectorate" attacks Finland for resources Pretty far-fetched

All in favor say "aye"..... "Aye"... You might want to include his e-mail addy though. But....this is not at the top of my "most wanted list"