ev

Yes, I think we are in the same page. But, I am afraid the game designers are thinking of several tech levels, (probably 5). Please check the following quote: Notice he speaks of "Players probably won't want to push for more mechanization because of the cost." This sounds to me like you could have higher levels of motorization, i.e. faster units with higher AP increases. Also notice they speak of 20% increase per tech level. If you have 5 tech levels, that gives you a total of 100% increase. Still assuming SC1 AP's that would make both al level 5 Infantry Army and level 5 Infantry Corps faster than the Tank Group. L5 I.A. 6 AP's L5 I.C. 8 AP's. Now, again, there is more than one way to skin a cat. But my point remains that L5 motorized (trucked) infantry should not be able to outmaneuver armor when advancing through no man's land or into enemy territory.

This is precisely my concern. Under these circumstances it would not be politically feasable to evacuate a full army. Now say we are in France 1940, do you propose the week before the Armistice to ship to England three or four armies, a tank group of 50 - 100,000 men, two air fleet, four fleets, and an HQ? Try to imagine the situation in France a few days before the armistice. Your whole country is in utter panic. Those who want to fight, if any, are thinking of a counter attack. The high command is lossing control over the army and the country. Even if you could give such and order, and somehow coordinate such a major shipping effort, the mere fact of giving the order would only add to the panic and defeatism. It would be paramount to the captain yelling hte order to "abandon ship". This in turn, would only accelerate capitulation. In evacuate of entire armies, any warring country would have to disguise these troop movement as something else: say you pretend you are going to invade Norway, or attack Italy. This would take some time; definetly not a last minute "abandon ship" type of order.

Those which oppose a free for all on free units are concerned with last minute massive evacuation of all fighting units. So, for example, the Benelux armies could move to France instead of defending their countries. This is a serious concern. Good common sense does not always make good politics. I propose the following compromise: Units that left the "fallen" country within the two turns immediately preceeding the fall of that country will be lost, but units that left the country at least three turns ago will become free units. Any comments?

Do you want enough troops to cover the whole front? Do you need to man a 1,000 mile front? Or, can you rely solely on counter attacks, and strong point defense of key cities? The answer to this questions will depend on how supply works. This in turn will determine what happens to your troops when encircled in Stalingrad. Large scale units could operate behind enemy lines for some limited amount of time. The amount of time varied. In North Afrika, lack of water could kill you in days. And Winter, particularly in Russia, also reduced the amount of time a unit could remain behind enemy lines. On the other hand, a unit occupying a city could hold on longer than a unit out in the open. If the game allows units occupying cities to hold on for several turns, you could entrench your unit in key cities and use a mobile counterattacking force to repel enemy units encircling that city. I have the feeling the new, expanded Russia will be almost unconquerable. This won't be a game of Total Annihilation. Both the Axis and Allied player will have to devise effective ways to defend such a wide front.

I also like the idea of having a "Dive Bomber" and "Anti Air Gun" techs. I would not use the term SAM (Surface to Air Missles) to refer to Anti Air Gun Tech. Most of WWII Anti Air design had to do with: 1. making guns that fired more rounds per second. 2. making guns that fired higher (which means faster muzzle speed). 3. doing the above in a gun that is easily transported. 4. for mobile formations, putting that gun in an armored vehicle, always ready to shoot, but prottected from enemy fire. 5. and, in order to hit mediun altitude level bombers, you also needed a gun with enough caliber to shoot a fragmentation bomb. Terminology aside, prior to WWII none of the warring parties had armored vehicles with anti air guns mounted on top, always ready to shoot. By the end of the war, all major powers had seceral of those weapon systems. Definitely this was an area in which there was substantial technological advance.

I agree with your comments, and, particularly with your reference regarding the importance of relative movement rates. In fact, that is exactly where I am coming from. Hubert is incorporating a Motorization Tech that will make infantry faster. This is a good idea. But no matter how many trucks you give to an infantry unit, they cannot drive their trucks all the way up to the front line. Only armor can do that. So armored units should be able to move faster through no man's land and through enemy territory. Trucked infantry could move as fast as armored units when moving behind the lines along secured paths. But, SC does not draw the distinction between movement behind the lines and movement entering enemy territory. Unfortunately, SC only has one movement capability which I understand roughly represents movement entering enemy territory. And, here armored units should clearly outperform motorized (trucked) infantry. In SC1, Infantry Corps moved 4 hexes while an Armored Group moved 5 hexes. Motorization will increase the speed of Infantry Corps. I would guess that each motirization tech level would increase movement capability by one AP per tech level. If so a Motorized Infantry Corps Level 5 would have 10 AP's vs. 5 AP's for the Tank Groups. Likewise an Infantry Army would have 9 AP's vs. 5 AP's for the Tank Groups. Now, quite frankly, I don't see how infantry mounted on trucks could outmaneuver armored formations in the open steppes of Russia. Each time one of those truck columns bumped into an enemy possition you would have a major slaughter. Of course, there are alternative ways to address this problem. One alternative is to give Armored Groups an initial movement capability of 10 AP's. This way, even the fastest Motorized Infantry Corps would still be 1 AP slower than the Armored Groups. Another alternative is to give the Armored Groups an initial movement capability of 5 AP's but provide some technology to make them faster as the game progress. ...and, there may be other alternatives I haven't thought off. To sum up: I agree that trucked infantry should move faster than foot infantry. And, I am glad Hubert is allowing for the motorization of infantry. I also the game should not allow level 5 motorized infantry to outmaneuver armored groups. The game designers should find a way to make armored groups faster than trucked infantry when advancing into enemy territory. There are many ways to skin a cat... Others may find better ways to address this concern. But, I feel it is very important we all give some thought to this problem and provide Hubert with some alternative solutions from which he can pick and chose.

I agree with your comments, and, particularly with your reference regarding the importance of relative movement rates. In fact, that is exactly where I am coming from. Hubert is incorporating a Motorization Tech that will make infantry faster. This is a good idea. But no matter how many trucks you give to an infantry unit, they cannot drive their trucks all the way up to the front line. Only armor can do that. So armored units should be able to move faster through enemy territory, or whenever there is a chance of bumping into enemy units. Trucked infantry could move as fast as armored units when moving behind the lines along secured paths. But, SC does not draw the distinction between movement behind the lines and movement entering enemy territory. Unfortunately, SC only has one movement capability which I understand roughly represents movement entering enemy territory. And, here armored units should clearly outperform motorized (trucked) infantry. In SC1, Infantry Corps moved 4 hexes while an Armored Group moved 5 hexes. Motorization will increase the spead of Infantry Corps. I would guess that each tech level would increase movement capability by one AP per tech level. If so a Motorized Infantry Corps Level 5 would have 10 AP's vs. 5 AP's for the Tank Groups. Likewise an Infantry Army would have 9 AP's vs. 5 AP's for the Tank Groups. Now, quite frankly, I don't see how infantry mounted on trucks could outmaneuver armored formations in the open steppes of Russia. Each time one of those truck columns bumped into an enemy possition you would have a major slaughter. Of course, there are alternative ways to address this problem. One alternative is to give Armored Groups an initial movement capability of 10 AP's. This way, even the fastest Motorized Infantry Corps would still be 1 AP slower than the Armored Groups. Another alternative is to give the Armored Groups an initial movement capability of 5 AP's but provide some technology to make them faster as the game progress. ...and, there may be other alternatives I haven't thought off. To sum up: I agree that trucked infantry should move faster than foot infantry. And, I am glad Huber is allowing for the motorization of infantry. I also the game should not allow level 5 motorized infantry to outmaneuver armored groups. The game designers should find a way to make armored groups faster than trucked infantry when advancing into enemy territory. There are many ways to skin a cat... Others may find better ways to address this concern. But, I feel it is very importan we all give some thought to this problem and provide Hubert with some alternative solutions.

Please include the following: </font> C3 Tech (Command, Control and Communications) to improve combat multiplier of HQ's.</font>A tech to make Armored (Tank) Groups faster. Ideally, it could be a new tech that solely affects Armored Groups. But, it could be the same Mechanization Tech already cited above.</font>Anti Air Weapons Tech for Tanks and Infantry.</font>Tactical Air Combat Tech which would improve the effectivnes of air-to-ground attack and counterbalance Anti Air Weapons.</font>

For the sake of convenience, we speak of Tank and Infantry units in SC. But "Tank Groups" and "Infantry Armies" were not made solely of Tanks and Infantry. Particularly with regards to Tank Groups (or rather Armored Groups), this can be very misleading. A German Panzer Group (which translates into English as Armored Group) was made of 2-3 Panzer or Armored Corps. Each armored Corp was a mixture of 1-2 Panzer and one 1-2 PanzerGrenadier Divisions. A Panzer Division was made of: One recon batallion mounted in either motorcycles, halftracks, or armored cars, or a combination of these. A panzer regiment made of 1-2 tank batalions +1 mech infantry batallion (after 1940). A panzer grenadier regiment made of 1 mech infantry batallion and 2 motorized infantry batallions. A batallion of combat engineers. Several companies of anti air, anti aircraft, panzerjaggers, and/or self propelled guns. And several batteries of Divisional Artillery. One such panzer division could have in excess of 15,000 men and in excess of 1,200 vehicles; but, only 100 tanks. PanzerGrenedier Divisions had even fewer tanks. Instead of having on Panzer and one PanzerGrenedier Regiment, they had two Panzer Grenedier Regiments. At most they would have one tank company. But most often they only had a couple of PanzerJagger or Self Proppelled Gun companies. SS division usually had more of everything. But normally did not have more than to tank batallions. A large full-strength Panzer Corps made of two Panzer and One PanzerGrenedier Division could have 50,000 men, 60,000 vehicles, but only 200 tanks. That same Panzer Corps would have 3 Recon Battalions and 6 Mech Infantry Battalions. These nine batallions could muster 900 Armored Fighting Vehicles viz a viz the 200 tanks mentioned above. Allied tank formations had more tanks and a smaller number of the other AFV's. Nevertheless a typical Allied Armored Division would have two tank batallions and 6 infantry batallions. Such an Armored Division would also have a large contingent of Artillery, Anti-Tank, Anti-Air, Recon and other combat detachments. The Tank was the most important weapon of the Armored Formations. Heavier tanks capable of surviving enemy anti-tank were critical to overcome infantry possitions and breakthrough enemy lines. But Armored Formations are much more than just Tanks. And, different elements of the Armored formation were responsible for other tasks. Anti-air guns were responsible for anti air cover. Anti-tank guns were responsible to cover the flanks of the advancing formation from armored counterattacks. Recon batalions were responsible for inspecting alternative avenues of advance and finding enemby possitions. And, so forth. The SC research engine can be used effectively to represent each of the different parts of the Armored Formations. Such a comprehensive view of the Armored Formations would better represent the tradeoffs faced by the warring nations: should I spend more on heavier tanks? or do i need to improve my air defense? or, perhapps I need better recon so my tank formation can find the weak spots in the enemy line faster, and improve their reaction time to changing circumstances? Do I need to put longer cannons in my tanks with faster velocity munition so they can fight off enemy tanks, or am I only concerned about soft targets, so I only need a heavy armor to withstand the first shot from a hidden anti-tank gun. It is worth noting that Guderian, and his followers within the German high command, believed tank formations should alway be organized around two types of tanks: a heavy tank whose role was to breach through infantry and anti-tank gun lines, and a light tank whose role was to fend off enemy tanks. The Panzer III and Panzer IV were designed to work as a couple, where the Panzer III was the light tank to be used in more fluid situations, and the Panzer IV was the heavier, slower tank to be used against entrenched infantry possitions. Under the original (Guderian Scheme) each Panzer Division would have a batallion of heavy tanks and a batallion of light tanks. The lighter tanks had to meet several important requirements: They had to be faster, of course. They had to be lower, so they would be harder to hit. Their turrets had to traverse faster. Their guns had to reload faster. Their ammo had to travel faster through the air. Meanwhile, the heavier tanks were designed to fight infantry. That is why the original Panzer IV were armed with slow velocity guns which were not very good in the anti-armor role. Under this scheme The Tigger was to be the replacement of the Panzer IV. While the Panther was meant to replace the Panzer III. Many in the U.S. camp also shared this dichotomy of labor between anti-tank and soft-target roles. When the U.S. started the war, the notion was that the main role of the tank was for attacking infantry. Meanwhile, anti-tank work would be the job of Tank Destroyers and anti-tank guns. Anyway, I digress. My point is that the research that lead to tanks that were better suited to attack soft targets was different from the research that lead to better anti-tank weapons, whether those weapons were specialzed tanks, tank destroyers, anti-tank guns, or whatever. Furthermore, there was a division of labor between the different elements of the Armored Formations, where specialized units were oriented towards performing different tasks: recon, anti-air, anti-tank, etc. Thus, research of different combat system was necessary to improve upon the performance on each of these areas. In my posts above, I propose a way in which the SC research engine could be used to model this fact.

Hi guys. It is very important not to confuse the speed of the tank with the AP's represented in the game. If I understand the above info, even the Tigger could travel at 24 mph. If you assume 8 hours of driving per day at 24 mph, a Tigger could cover 1344 miles in a week. Which translated into 26.88 tiles per turn in SC. Even if we assume that the Tigger could only run for five hours a day, we still have 840 miles or 16.8 tiles per turn. The game limits the movement of tank units to 5 tiles per turn. The movement capabilities represented in SC represent the speed of advance when entering enemy territory. Units are spread out, checking every corner for possible enemy possitions. And they are advancing cautiously, expecting enemy fire at any time. In the tank units, most recon work was done by recon and mech infantry detachments. The speed (or lack there of) of this recon activity was the main limiting factor when advancing into largely undefended enemy territory. And, this is the speed I believe is represented by SC Action Points. Now, the speed of recon activity was in part related to the speed of recon vehicles, but, there was much more to it than just speed. Motorcycles, for example were fast, but they were too vulnerable, so cyclist had to be very careful (dismount) when approaching suspected enemy possitions. Furthermore, to the extent that the recon units were capable of suppressing an enemy rearguard, the whole army could continue their advance without commiting slower more cumbersome heavy tanks and equipment. So better armed armored cars like the German Pumma, greatly contributed to the speed at which Panzer Divisions advanced through enemy territory. An interesting note, the German Panzer Divisions usually had a full recon batallion where the allies had only a recon company. And, not only they had more men, but the recon batallions had heavier equipment, like the Pumma. I believe one of the reasons the German Panzer Divisions performed so well was due to better recon.

Yes, perfect. I think your message came in as I was typing my last entry. But, any way, as far as air-to-ground, this is exactly what I mean.

I like the rock, scissors, paper syndrome. In infantry we have a tech that makes infantry better against other infantry (IW) and we have a tech that makes infantry better against tanks (AT). I would like to see the same dichotomy carry forward to tanks. One tech making tanks better against units of its own kind and another tech makes tanks more effective against infantry. Likewise, in infantry we have a tech that makes infantry move faster, and, I would like a corresponding tech that makes tanks faster. A lot of techs? Not quite. It may seem that way at first glance. But, most of what I did was rearranging old techs. When you look at it carefully, I only added to new techs: Take first, anti-tank tech. I am only extending anti tank tech from infantry into tank strength. It used to be that Heavy Tanks acted as an all in one tech for tanks. I am changing that, but only through sharing borrowing from preexisting antitank tech.. So I did not add a new tech there. Now look at anti-air tech. This would be the same tech both for infantry and tank units. When you look closely at it, I am only adding two new techs: Amored Recon and Anti-Air. The other stuff was already there. I merely rearranged things a bit following Hubert's goal that: (quoted from Hubert's diary, see above.) I am building on Hubert's insight, but taking it a step further...

Earlier today I read this great quote from Hubert: This quote is from: http://www.experiencegaming.com/content.php?gameID=3506&contentID=426&PHPSESSID=ca1a3c0b880443aed396ff8c19daa32c Well, this made my day. If I understand this correctly, tanks will be affected by at least two separate techs: 1. Heavy Tank Tech will increase tanks's Soft Attack and Soft Defense (SA/SD). 2. Anti Tank will improve Hard Attack and Hard Defense (HA/HD) for both tanks and infantry I agree 100% on this choice. I would like to suggest two more techs that should affect Tank Units: Armored Recon Tech would improve the speed at which tank units moved (higher AP's in SC jargon). The speed or AP's of SC units represent their tactical speed. By this I mean, SC movement capacity represent the speed at which the unit would advance when enterring enemy territory. Of course, tactical speed is substantially below "cruising speed". And, tactical speed is mostly limited by the speed at which recon detachments can advance. Hence a tank unit with better armored recon tech would have higher tactical speed. Armored Recon Tech would be for Tanks as Motorization Tech would be for infantry. Anti Air Tech would improve the Air Attack and Air Defense (AA/AD) for both infantry and tank units. Putting all of the above together, , tanks would benefit from four techs: Heavy Tank Tech for SA/SD Anti Tank Tech for HA/HD Anti Air Tech for AA/AD Armored Recon for AP's Infantry units would also benefit from 4 research areas: Infantry Weapons for SA/SD Anti Tank Tech for HA/HD Anti Air Tech for AA/AD Motorization for AP's So each tech improvement in tank would have a counter part in infantry. Finally, the Anti Air Tech should have a counterbalance in the Air Units. ...some tech that would make tactical air bombing more effective and help planes better survive anti air fire. ...not sure what to call it. ...and, it coud be one or several technologies. But, I digrees. Back to Tank Tech. Any comments on the four tank tech's I listed above, individually or as a group?

Yes, this is certainly an improvement. Thanks for the info.

...did not know this. Nevertheless, I remember reading historical accounts of German tank crews whose tank was flipped upside down by the bombing.

There are some remarkable instances of WWII bombings: First, there is Normandy. As Blashy pointed out earlier in this thread, well entrenched German infantry remained fully effective despite very heavy air bombing. Then, there is the carpet bombing of the Panzer Lehr Division which one of you pointed out earlier. U.S. troops achieved a mayor breakthrough. There were several important differences between the D Day and Cobra bombings. First, D Day bombings were against fully entrenched troops; Cobra bombings were against partially entrenched troops. Second, D Day bombings were against infantry units; Cobra bombings were against armored units. Third, D-Day bombings were against fresh troops; Cobra bombings were against a unit that had already seen heavy fighting for many days. Fourth, D-Day bombings were against a unit whose actual possitions were only guessed since there was no ground contact with the enemy prior to the bombing; U.S. troops had full contact with the German units prior to the operation Cobra bombings and had much better info on their whereabouts. A third example of a major allied bombing on German troops was during the Allied couterattack in the Battle of the Buldge. This is a significant example because the allies did not need 5 air wings to put the German Armor on the run. Advancing tank units are extremely vulnerable to air attack - as oppossed to entrenched infantry. I am sorry I do not have that more info on the Russian Front. Given the enormity of that conflict, I am sure there were plenty good examples there. One interesting annecdote from operation Cobra. After the bombing ceased, and land troops started to advvance, they found the bombing had made most of the roads impassable. So the allied armored advance was actually hindered by the huge craters made by the allied bombing. Another interesting anecdote from operation Cobra, German tanks were stuck in craters and even turned upside down by the allied carpet bombing, but the tanks and their crews survived. Of course, they could not operate the machines. But, if not immediately attacked by land troops, they could have recovered their vehicles and returned to combat. (This goes to show that dive bombing with 37mm guns was more effective against tanks than carpet bombing.)

There are separate threads on Spotting and on Air Attacks elswhere in this site. However, I feel there is a need to focus on the relationship between spotting and air attacks of units behind the lines. Air attacks on land units behind the lines caused delays and disruptions, but seldomely caused substantial combat losses of the kind that would be reflected in SC. There were several reasons for that. One reason was that they could take possitions where AA guns could offer them best protection, instead of chosing their possition based on the needs of the frontline. Another reason is that they could find better cover. But the most important reason was that it was very difficult to spot them. Pilots could infer the presence of an army behind the lines. They could see tracks on the ground, supply trucks moving around, perhaps some units in the process of relocating, etc. But the bulk of the troop normally remained undetected to air units. Hence an air attack on such a unit would cause limmited damage. I propose there should be four types of spotting: 1. Ground Concact occurs when land units are adjacent to each other and provides the highest level of information. 2. Troop Movement Contact occurs when a enemy land unit moves within sight range of a friendly air or land unit but without establishing direct contact. Troop Movement Contact applies also to units that are not entrenched since a unit that did not move in the last turn would have some entrenchement level. Hence untrenched units are units that just arrived to their location and are subject to this kind of spotting. This is the second highest level of spotting. The spotter can tell whether this is an armored formation, and, may also guess some other info about it, but, missinformation can randomly occur. 3. Detection of Partially Camouflaged and Entrenched unit. This applies to units behind enemy lines, with entrenchment levels 1 or 2. We see entrenchement work and supply movement. We know something is there, but camouflage does not allow us to get precise info on the type of unit located there. 4. Fully Camouflaged unit. This applies to units behind the lines with entrenchment leves 3 or above. There is a good chance that such a unit will not be spotted at all. If detected, it is treated as #3. The effectiveness of air attacks on enemy units should be linked to the spotting level of the target unit. An air attack on a target with Spotting Level #1 should be much more effective than an air attack on a unit that is not quite well spotted as in #3. An attack on a camouflaged, partially detected unit (spotting level #3) should only cause a reduction in readiness level. An attack on detected troop movement behind the lines (spotting level #2) would cause some combat loss and a somewhat larger readiness level reduction. An attack on a fully spotted unit (spotting level #1) under contact would cause the most damage and disruption. ...of course, no attacks would be possible in an "unspotted" unit. What happenned to carpet bombing? Well there is no way you can carpet bomb a tile of 250 square miles. So you need some information about where exactly is a unit located within the tile before you carpet bomb that section of the tile. Also note, that the "Spotting Levels" I propose apply to spotting by all units. In SC1, land units could spot several hexes away. In fact, land units could spot behind enemy lines. Comments in the SC1 site explained this was suppose to account for the presence of small recon airplanes directly attached to the army or corps. To the extend that SC2 also allows land units to spot far away units, I would apply to such spotting the same "Spotting Levels" I described above.

Retributar, I appreciate your comments, but I am afraid you missed part of my point. I propose reducing the air defense of tanks and increasing the air defense of infantry to account for the fact that tanks are more vulnerable to air attacks. I agree with you that players should strive for at least local air parity in the vicinity of their armored units. That's exactly my point: tank's air defense should be very low to account for a tanks vulnerability to air attack. This, in turn, would force players to provide air cover for their tanks. On the other hand, infantry should have a higher air defense, since Infantry can survive air attacks much better than tanks (see my previous posts). A competent player should hold most of the frontline with infantry, but, concentrate air cover near his tank formations, which should be most vulnerable to air attack. A competent player should also make sure he keeps enough fighters to cover his tanks. Many of us have complained that airpower was overdone in SC1. I agree with those comments insofar as air vs. infantry is concerned. SC1 overplayed the effect of airpower on infantry. In real life, infantry survived very well air attacks. I would rearrange things in SC2 so that infantry (only infantry) fairs better against air attacks. ...but, only infantry. Tanks should continue to be very vulnerable to air attacks. To achive this, I propose increasing the air defense of infantry units, but, leaving tank's air defense as it was in SC1 or perhaps even decreasing it a little. Regarding anti-air defense tech, I am not sure if AT/AD Tech would benefit tanks in SC2. Something I read earlier in this site suggested AT/AD research would only benefit Infantry. I would like to hear from Hubert & Co. on this...

D-Day is a very good example well entrenched infantry resisting an air attack. The Battle of the Bulge in 1944 is a good example of exposed (German) armored formations routed by an air attack. The contrast between these two examples is further dramatized when you consider that the D-day air attacks were much larger and the German units targeted were smaller, less equipped, less experienced, and generally speaking less combat worthy than the German units in the Ardennes. Nevertheless, the German Panzer Formations in the Ardennes were routed as soon as the weather cleared and the Allied planes were able to attack them. Entrenched Infantry could resist an air attack in WWII. But, exposed armored was slaughtered by air attacks. The game should draw that distinction.

...one more thought I would like to share with you all. Many of you probably know that the battle of Kursk is the largest tank battle ever fought. While the battle of Kursk was raging in the ground, a battle just as big was raging in the air. Hundreds of German and Russian pilots were battling it out for air superiority. Witness account speak of huge air armadas fighting it out as far as the eye could see. It probably is was one of the largest air battles in history, perhaps the largest, overshadowed only by the enormity of the armored battle below. The enormous air effort put up by Russians and Germans speak volumes as to the need to achieve air superiority over the battlefield, or, at the very least, the need deny air superiority to the enemy. Loosing air superiority to an enemy in the middle of an armored combat would be disastrous.

And, if we look at the other side of the coin, we may find some interesting results: Say we give infantry a pretty good air defense, but give tanks a pretty week air defense. Players will try to form most of the frontline with infantry - unless they have air superiority. When preparing an armored push, players would concentrate available air fleets to escort their armor. Furthermore, if your tanks have very low air defense (as they should), a player mounting an armored push will be hard pressed to spare his airfleets to provide air cover for his tanks. It would be foolhardy for that to weaken your air units against Infantry with strong Air Defense, when the player knows those air fleets have to defend the Tank Speaheads from enemy air attacks. There are very many good ideas that can be brought in to improve on the Air-to-Ground game mechanics. However. simply strengthening Infantry's Air Defense while weakening Tank's Air Defense would go a long way into changing the manner Air Power is used in SC.

I like this idea. I would add that tanks should suffer heavier losses from air attacks than infantryy. Tanks and other vehicles make good fat targets. So I would apply a higher loss percentage to tanks, a lower loss percentage to infantry. Infantry should have a better survival rate than tanks. And, I insist, infantry should have a higher Air Defense than Tanks. Infantry was pretty good at surviving air attacks. Tanks only fared well against air attacks when they were camouflaged (hidden), covered by trees, buildings or other terrain features, or off the frontline. Advancing tanks out in the open were dead meat if the enemy gained local air superiority. SC2 game mechanics should punnish a player that does not provide air cover for his advancing armor.

On the devastating capabilities of dive bombers on tanks, check this out: This is a quote from: http://www.2worldwar2.com/stuka.htm

The gun used by the Stuka Tank busters was a 37 mm. Check this out: This is a quote from: http://www.2worldwar2.com/stuka.htm

Dive bombers like the German Stukas were modified to carry 50mm guns (could have been 30mm, not sure). The Allies and Russians had dive bombers modified along the same lines. Because tanks have less armor on top, these guns were devastating. Tanks are big targets, and these guns were sort of like machine guns, shooting off a whole stream of cannon bullets. It was easier to shoot at a tank with a 50 mm machine gun, than at a foxhole with a single 500 pound bomb. As a matter of fact, once a tank buster zeroed on a tank, it was dead meat. Only the second generation King Tiggers had enough armor on top to survive such an attack. We don't hear much from this birds in our history books, because the U.S. had air superiority. But, stuka tank busters in the Russian front counted their kills in the hundreds (per pilot). Not bad for a low tech dive bomber.