Shaka of Carthage

arby The information you provided is what I was looking for. </font> Relatively little combat effect.</font>Unit can take more damage.</font>Increases unit costs.</font> One conclusion to draw from this, is that your MPPs are better spent elsewhere, once a unit gets to strength of 10. Especially once you factor in the effect that replacement MPPs have on the experience factor of your unit. While I am not trying to advocate a change, one negative aspect of this, is the fact that if you do increase a units strength points, it becomes much more difficult to eliminate it. Understanding the above just helps give a clear appreciation of why it requires so many offensive attacks to eliminate a unit. seamonkey Not sure if I agree with you, since if it related to effectivness, it would have a much greater effect on the offensive aspect of combat. [ April 08, 2003, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Thank you, the specific numbers are useful.

SeaMonkey The ability to move and attack depends on the scale you are talking about. At the level that SC is representing, not being able to move and attack is a abstraction of other variables as well. Later tonight I will post some of the movement rates I have once I get home. SeaWolf_48 I agree that Armored units were powerful weapons. Tanks and airplanes (ie combustion engine) in WWII created a "revolution in military affairs" (ie RMA). But I don't think the fix you suggessted will solve the problem. As you mentioned, breakthroughs are stopped because you can put units next to the ones that have broken thru, in effect, re-establishing your units lines of supply and cutting off the unit that broke thru. Its incidental that those new units are sometimes created that turn. Anyone who has played SC against a Human has experienced this. [ April 08, 2003, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

That question has come up again, so I'd like to explain why I think the answer is no. (Hmmm... after I finished this, I think I may have already written this once before. O well) Soft Factor in my opinion represents the Artillery and Infantry combat factors of a division and non-divisional units. While it is a Infantry weapon, the larger mortars (81mm and up) are considered as Artillery combat factors. Summary Artillery Advances </font> Growth of standard artillery pieces.</font>Fire Direction Control</font>Proximity fuse</font> I don't see a way to justify five (5) tech level advances, even after you include the US advances. Mortars and Rockets were a replacement and/or a supplement for normal artillery. But not a tech advance in itself. Everything else is in the technique of its use, not a technology advance. The direct fire effect of the Artillery is compensated for by the loss of the Infantry combat power. Detail Eve of WWII Artillery could be used two ways ... Direct fire and Indirect fire. Direct fire is based on the Mark One Eyeball. You can see them, so you point your weapon at them. Of course, they can see you, and you in effect are basically engaged in Infantry level combat now (which means bad things for the Artillery guys). This is the method by which anti-tank weapons (37mm thru 88mm) and the "infantry guns" (ie artillery pieces) were used. Indirect fire is basically the Artillery shooting based on a map. Requires Forward Observers (FO's) who are up there with the Infantry and in contact (by radio or telephone) with one (1) group of artillery tubes (be it a battery, artillery battalion or artillery brigade). Problems with this is that you are now dealing with the technical aspects of artillery, in that you need to use trigonometry along with your map (hope its accurate!), not to mention the weather, etc to get the rounds on target. So if you had the chance, you would register the guns before hand. Even so, because of the differences in guns, shells, chemicals, etc you could still be off by hundreds of meters. And you are still only talking to that one group of guns. Counter-battery fire was when artillery tried to silence the enemy artillery. Since artillery guns were almost always several miles behind your infantry, the only weapon that could reach them was enemy artillery or aircraft. So you either sent commandos, aircraft or used the "flash and sound" method to find the enemy artillery. Flash and sound is when you see the enemy artillery flash at night, count the seconds before the boom, then calculate the distance. Then you fired whatever you had into that area. Standard artillery pieces were the 75/76mm weapon and the 100/105mm weapon. Fuses Standard fuses were contact fuses, so when it hit something, it exploded. Delay fuses were also available (hit something then exploded fraction of seconds later), but were mainly for the naval and fortification/bunker busting. Timed fuses (which exploded after a certain amount of time went by) were used mainly for anti-aircraft. You kinda hoped when it went off, enemy aircraft would be there. During WWII Standard artillery pieces started to grow, with 75/76mm being replaced by the 100/105mm and the 150/155mm being the new heavy standard. Remember, these artillery pieces were being towed by horse teams. Russians, because of the problems they had, started to develop and use mortars in place of field artillery (easier to make and train people to use). Also explains there development of rockets (ie necessity being the mother of invention), since mortars were terrible at counter-battery fire. Soviet rocket artillery was the ideal weapon for this, since you could put alot of rockets into a area in a short amount of time, and not worry about sustained rate of fire. "Infantry Guns" started to disappear, since 81mm mortars could take the place of the 75/76mm pieces and the 120mm mortars the place of the 100/105mm tubes. US Advances By the eve of WWII, the US artillery had developed a Fire Direction Control system. Basically your FO's sent information to the FDC, which using computers, calculated the differences for the various guns it had under its control. These guns could be in widely different locations. This is why in the typical four (4) battalions of artillery assigned to a division, you faced two (2) battalions of artillery at one time. But against an American division, you faced all four (4) battalions, plus whatever else happened to be in range at the time. And rounds could be corrected as soon as they landed. But there were drawbacks. You needed lots of telephones, radios and computers. You also needed lots of artillery ammo supply. If you didn't have the logistical tail, then the ability to fire those artillery tubes meant nothing. This also leads to fuse development, in an effort to make the ammo more effective. Time fuses were designed to allow for exploding in the air, but they were difficult to use. Eventual solution was the radar fuse (ie proximity fuse). It was expensive, required electronics and was bulky (only fit in 127mm or larger shells). But this now turned the 5" naval pieces into excellent anti-artillery weapons. The US Army could only use them in the 155mm weapons.

I am confused about certain general SC concepts. Since some of you have worked out the answer from a different perspective, I'd like to hear what you believe the answer is. What does the Strength Point in an SC ground unit represent? What is the anti-tank tech trying to reflect? Germany Army represents 137,600 men in eight (8) combat divisions and nondivisional support units. German Corp represents 68,800 men in four (4) combat divisions and nondivisional support units. For each Anti-Tank tech increase, that strength point value increases by one (1), as well as the tank defense value (but not tank attack value). SA = soft attack SD = soft defense TA = tank attack TD = tank defense Anti-Tank Tech Level 0 German Army = 10 str points; SA 4, SD 2, TA 4, TD 2 German Corp = 10 str points; SA 2, SD 1, TA 2, TD 1 Anti-Tank Tech Level 3 German Army = 13 str points; SA 4, SD 2, TA 4, TD 5 German Corp = 13 str points; SA 2, SD 1, TA 4, TD 4 (edited the SA, SD for Corp, initially had wrong values) What effect do these extra strength points have in combat? My confusion is that since the Anti-tank tech represents anti-tank weapons, why does the ground unit now have the ability to take more damage? Manual refers to bazooka/panzerfaust, thats logical, but those weapons didn't add more men. Anti-tank weapons size increase (ie 37mm to 57mm)? Thats fine, but again, not more additional men. Or did we attach dedicated anti-tank sub-units to the Corp/Army, which increased the manpower as well as the number of anti-tank weapons? Other than the relative inbalance between the Corp/Army increases (ie Corp tech advance should be 1/2 that of the Army), the anti-tank weapons only help the Infantry units if they are attacked by Armor. Has no effect when the Infantry attacks the Armor. So what is the Strength Point in SC and what is the increase it receives from the Anti-Tank tech trying to reflect? [ April 08, 2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Tanks versus Infantry I'm confused on some of the SC concept issues. As was mentioned, I don't think any of the suggested tweaks should be considered until things are alot clearer. Probably best for me to think out loud in another topic. Air Unit Range Rule of thumb has always been for the combat radius of an aircraft to be 1/3rd of its total range. Maybe someone who has the numbers can post the WWII ranges of the aircraft we are discussing. Corp vs Army This one I think has become pretty clear. Corp is suppossed to be half an Army. Initial values reflect that. Hence any tech increase for a Corp should be half that of a Army to retain that relationship. Ability to move and attack Don't think anyone will disagree that the Armor unit should have that ability. After all, the manual refers to it as a "blitzkreig" attack. On the other hand, I don't think the Corp / Army unit should be able to move and attack also. That, along with a reduction in the action points, would properly reflect how the Infantry dominated units operated.

JerseyJohn You got it. "All are created equal but some are more equal than others". For reasons you have stated and others, I truly believe that citizenship should be earned in service to the country. santabear Power is a "zero sum game". That is correct. Gaining national power. Control of resources yes. Control of seas no. Sea control is a limited concept. More appropriate to refer to it as Power Projection. Terrorism is only conducted by those who cannot perform guerrilla or civil war. Highly unlikely by itself, to force those in power to give it up. Strong EU will do as you pessamistically said... lead to conflict with the US. It will start off as (if it already isn't) economic warfare. May or may not lead to military conflict... too many variables to say one way or the other. US "bloc": "Finlandized" Canada (if it had its preference, it would be EU). "Finlandized" Mexico, Central America cause they have no other choices. UK for sure. Turkey is a whole nother discussion. South America is interesting, but depends totally on Brazil (who is trying to gain economic power from the Amazon). Pacific Rim depends on the relationship between China, Japan and Australia. And possibly Russia. But the real issue will be if China can get its hands on Australia (problematic now, since no ability to project its power). Either way, South America, Pac Rim (Turkey?) even if side with US, will always have its own agenda. EU "bloc": Russia. Most of the rest will be those who are antagonistic to US bloc allies. That includes Turkey. Universal peace will occur only under the conditions you stated... which are almost impossible to achieve. Hence, there will always be some sort of conflict. Either that, or someone who acts as the policeman and clamps down on it. And that will only last until we start to colonize other planets... then the whole cycle will repeat itself.

These are the one's I believe should NOT be in a patch. 3) Russia should lose the forces along the border, unless Axis screws up and lets them get away. Current deployment and Axis DoW allows recreation of the historical strategic surprise. 4) If Finns are entrenched, so should all the other neutrals. 5) Initial Egypt setup is more or less correct. Real problem is that the additional forces (that represent the buildup into the 8th Army) did not come from England, they came from the Commonwealth. Fixing that requires different changes. 6) Don't believe the "effect" of Sealion should occur unless the cities are threatened. Simply landing on the British Isles is not good enough. 7) All units need the representation of anti-air defenses, not just the HQ's. 8 and 9) Problem is the initial and relative values that a Corp and Army has. 10) Doesn't solve the problem of Air being the "golden bullet". 12) Doesn't solve the problem with Strategic Bombers. 13) Doesn't solve the problem with Air units.

That assumes you believe it ever existed.

You have just summarized the Diplomatic stance and Geopolitical posture of a Great Nation to others. Sadly, due to the finite amount of resources, you've also summarized why the United Nations cannot succeed in its present form. Which is also why there is such a push to form a EU.

Adding +1 action points for each tech advance, isn't that a little bit too much? Thats' a potential +5 action points.

Negative on supply by sea. The supply rules don't work that way. "Every City that can trace a continuous line of land hexes back to that Capitol will have a supply level of ten (10)." The usual "solution" for the Axis is to put a German HQ unit in Finland.

Skinner Finns... Axis capital is Berlin. Berlin does not have a continuous line of land hexes to the Finnish city. Hence, max supply of five (5) for the Finnish City. Start subtracting because of the hexes between the city and the units, and you get the unit supply values you have. How much supply is reduced by terrain? Max distance a HQ can be from city or HQ to still be in supply? I don't remember if it is in the manual. You can always start a hotseat game and just move the units around to see when the values change.

KDG Then something is wrong somewhere. Since we don't have access to the internals, we can only assume. And what you say does agree more with the odds the computer shows than with what I believed they should be. But it is not logical. I don't have the time to figure it out now, but it makes no sense that SC does not give an increase in combat power to a Pz I/II compared to a Pz IV/V.

Santabear I read your other topic back when you created it. Nothing other than the obvious came to my mind when I read it. I'll repeat the obvious in case there is something there. Axis capture a Russian city, it will be reduced to supply level 0 (ie Scorched earth option). Each turn, it regains one (1) point. Soviet Partisans will reduce the level of supply available to Axis units. This can result in your HQ's dropping from eight or ten to five. That causes bad things to happen to the Axis they are supplying. Soviet Partisans change the control of a hex. Especially if they are allowed to move. Even after they are destroyed or moved out of the area, you need to make sure they have not left Soviet controlled hexes in your rear. If so, they could possibly interrupt the continuous line of land hexes that you need to keep your cities/HQ's in supply. Even in full supply, the Soviet occupied cities do not exceed supply level of eight (8).

Your Capitol has a supply of ten (10). Every City that can trace a continuous line of land hexes back to that Capitol will have a supply level of ten (10). If you conquered the nation, those cities will not go higher than a supply level of eight (8). Cannot trace a continuous line of land hexes back to the Capitol, your supply max is five (5). Units are supplied from cities or HQ's. HQ's are supplied from cities or HQ's. The level of HQ supply is determined by the supply level of the city or HQ that is supporting it. Hence, HQ SUPPLY CALCULATIONS supply = 0 -> HQ supply = 5 supply <= 5 -> HQ Supply = 8 supply > 5 -> HQ supply = 10 Note: Friendly HQ's can now be linked to supply each other over extended distan As was pointed out, each hex between the unit and its supplier has an effect on the supply level of the unit. The above are the basics. There are some other conditions and exceptions, but the above covers the majority.

KDG and Zappsweden Neither one of you have addressed what I am saying. When Armor attacks a Infantry (ie Corp/Army) unit, what factors does it use? Both of you are saying it is a soft attack; Armor Soft attack versus Infantry Tank defense. I'm saying it is the Armor Tank attack versus the Infantry Tank defense. Hence at tech level 0: Armor vs Corp ..... 5 : 1 Armor vs Army ..... 5 : 2 As I alluded to in my other post, maybe this is the point I was missing. Not that I have spent alot of time looking for it, but I don't remember anywhere in the manual that explains when the unit type determines the type of combat.

JerseyJohn I was lumping the SS and Nazi Party together.

If Hitler dies, doesn't it amount to which of two groups gains control afterwards? SS or Military. The path Germany would take would then depend on which group was in power and if France had been conquered yet. If France had not fallen, there is a possiblity that UK/France alliance could have come to terms with Germany (though it would have meant abandonment of Poland). After all, what the UK/France alliance really wanted was for the Germans and Russians to turn on each other. Current World While it is much more complicated than this, part of the reason why the European Govt's are "anti-american" is due to the birthing process of the EU. National Governments will not give up control unless there is a greater threat that they alone cannot handle. I believe the people who want to see a EU are the same one's who are using the actions of the US as a reason why the EU should exist. If Japan ever found an alternative way of solving its economic problems, then you would see it cutting its ties to the US. But they have no reason to do so now.

Maybe I am missing something. These are the values at tech level 0. Unit.......Attk......Def.....Mvmt Corp Soft....2........1.......4 Corp Tank....2........1.......4 Army Soft....4........2.......3 Army Tank....4........2.......3 Armor Soft...4........4.......5 Armor Tank...5........5.......5 Heavy Tank Tech will increase the Armor Tank Attk/Def values by 1 for each level. Anti-Tank Tech will increase the Corp/Army Tank Def value by 1 for each level. My first point was that the R&D chit you invest does not give an equal return, since the base numbers are different. Level 3 increase for Anti-Tank Corp yields a 4 value versus an Armor units 8 value. Anti-Tank gets a larger percentage increase since its initial number is much lower. These are the attk:def ratios. Armor vs Corp ...... 5 : 1 Armor vs Army ...... 5 : 2 Army vs Armor ...... 4 : 4 Corp vs Armor ...... 2 : 4 Investing in Anti-Tank allows the 5:1/5:2 ratios to decrease. Investing in Heavy Tank allows those ratios to increase. Anti-Tank level 3 equals the Armor vs Army ratio, while level 4 equals the Armor vs Corp ratio. Maybe the unequal return (ie different base numbers) is intentional to represent the fact that the anti-tank weapons neutralized the armor quicker. Armor unit has three advantgeous. Ignores enemy zone of control, attack ratios (ie uses armor values to attack) and additional action points. Back to the original question. Investment in Heavy Tank is necessary to maintain or increase the favorable Armor attack ratios. Otherwise, once the Anti-Tech catches up, your armor losses one of its advantages. [ April 04, 2003, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Before we look at the proposed solution, lets take another look at the "problem". Isn't the problem really the relative effective that the tech increase has? Since the Armor starts at 4, and the Anti-Tank starts at 1, the tech increase of 1 is more advantegous for the Anti-Tank factor. I don't believe these are proper solutions, since it does not address the real problem. I would suggest that an Armor tech increase of 4 per level would be a more appropriate solution to balancing these two techs. Regardless of the solution, I would like to thank KDG for illustrating the numbers, since I do believe he has pointed out why the Armor vs Anti-Tank techs appear to be a problem. I'd also like to point out that the ability to have unlimited number of units also skews the effect of armor in SC. German motorized units were what, 20% of the total German military? I have yet to see an German player that has 20% of military in Panzer units. A commerically successful wargame sells around 50,000 or so units. Major success if it goes over the 100,000 unit number. This was back in the days of retail outlets. The ability to market it over the Internet has lowered the numbers required for "success" (ie it is making you money). Wonder what that new "success" number is and how it compares to what SC has sold? Could it be as low as Liam's 10,000? KDG's analysis on the bombers vs fighters effects is also very interesting. Maybe another simple "fix" for the Carrier problem, is to have the Carrier air act as a Bomber unit, not a Air unit. As brought up somewhere in this thread, Air is used to eliminate the deadlock between units, since equal units cannot eliminate each other. Even if attacked a second time by another equal unit. SC does have a mechanism to break that deadlock, unit experience. But its overshadowed by the ease of purchasing more units that can appear that turn and by the use of Air as a "golden bullet" unit. Try playing a game with a cap on the number of units a nation can have. You'll notice the strategical differences right away. And as Immer Etwas rightly points out, one of the strengths of SC is the variable effects that tech have on the game, making each game a different experience. But even so, some of the tech advances do not appear to be balanced relative to the others, especially the ones that are suppossed to balance each other. [ April 03, 2003, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Reepicheep Land Combat Why not? One of the basic concepts in wargames, is that for you to win a combat, you need a 3:1 ratio in combat power. Different nations accomplish that different ways, either thru superior numbers, superior tech or a combination. Finding "three corners" is no different then trying to cut off enemies line of supply or attacking the flanks and rear. Two things... Strength of an SC unit is a representation of the combat power of a unit, not the total strength of the unit. People don't like to get shot. It hurts, and sometimes can actually kill you. The guys in combat don't have any clue as to the location or strength of the enemy they are facing. So they take some time to prepare an assault. Send out patrols (ground or air), bring up additional ammunition, etc. Then, ideally, launch artillery or armor attacks that reduce the defender to the point where you can walk in and take prisoners. Ok, thats why the Corp/Army units don't get an overrun attack, but what about the Armor? Lets not confuse an overrun attack with a close assault attack. Overrun attack being one where the attacker just rolls over your position because you cannot hurt them. Tanks ignore artillery and small arms fire, but are vulnerable to attacks from above ground, below ground and the flanks and rear. You need ideal conditions for an overrun attack. Flat, open terrain. Tanks that are invulnerable to anti-tank weapons or an opponent who has no effective anti-tank weapons. No threat of air attacks. And no threat from land mines. If not, guess what? You send Infantry in either ahead or with the Armor and we are now back to the above situation. Those conditions are very rare, justifying the movement delay for a unit once it attacks. Now we come to how the designer interpets the results of his combat system. That interpetation determines wheter there is an "advance after combat" or if a unit "retreats". It also can help understand why the "stacking" concept is the wayt it is. I can't speak for Hubert, so I'll just outline some of the things that have to be considered. WWII infantry combat division attacked on a frontage of roughly two (2) to four (4) miles. Defended roughly twice that frontage. And they occupy alot of space (ie depth). Most nations operated within a triangular concept, the "two up" and "one back" concept. So you have defense in depth, attacking with reserves, mobile defense, etc. Again, taking up alot of space. Once you reach a certain point, adding more combat units to an attack adds very little combat power. I forget the military term for this. However, the losses you take don't drop off, and may even increase, since you have more men and equipment packed into the same area (ie not dispersed). So while a SC unit is not occupying all of the 50 mile hex they are in, they are taking up quite a bit of space. And the defending hex does have a front, flanks and rear. So your frontal assault is limited to a max of about three (3) hex sides. Attack gets launched. Defenders no longer there. Attackers advance until the find the next defensive line (if any) and repeat the process. They are not aware that they have "eliminated" the enemy unit. After advancing about 20 or so miles into that hex however, with no further resistance, they realize they have gained control of the hex. Now the combat support elements start to move to a different location. Hence, the SC unit "moves" into the new hex. Can all of this occur within one turn? Designers interpetation. Generally speaking though, nonmotorized units could not but motorized ones could. That also brings up the issue of the defender retreating. What I think SC is trying to do, is thru the combat results (ie unit destroyed) represent the fact that the attackers attacked fast enough to "overrun" the Infantry/Armor and are now wracking havoc among the Artillery and Combat Support. Hence, you no longer have a unit to withdraw. But, by some chance, if you still have a couple of strength points left (ie Infantry/Armor people), you can pull the unit from the front (ie withdraw/retreat). Casualties ... please see below. Amphib problem I believe is different. Too many units, no proper representation of amphib supply, lead many to believe that a combat result where the defender "retreats" is correct. Also leads to the belief by many that the amphib units (ie Marines) have a greater combat power than normal units. You would like to make a distinction between "consecutive" and "simultaneous" attacks. And that assumes our nations have to ability to coordinate simultaneous attacks among multiple Armies. Another level of complexity and open to various interpetations of how WWII Armies operated. Remember the unit scale we are operating at. These are not company or battalion assaults. These are multi-division assaults spread out among 150 miles, that occur over a one-week time frame. Not going help the Russians much. Casualties ... You made a reference to this, and I figured this was as good a time as any to address it. I would refer you to the posts arby has made regarding the combat model. While I don't agree with everything he said, I do believe that he is correct in that the attacker is not suffering enough combat losses (ie casualties). Maybe its because SC has "abstracted" the rate of return (ie casualties returning to duty). Maybe not. [ March 29, 2003, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Reepicheep I wonder, if the future SC has systems that are totally different than current SC, then is it really SC? Air units suppress Ground units ... Agree. Air units effected by range ... Agree, but conditional. This would be alot easier if there was a Fighter, Bomber, Attack and possibly Air Transport units instead of one generic Air unit. Attacking an airbase ... This one is difficult. How do you represent "surprise" at the grand strategy scale? There has been some discussion of this, especially in regards to the surprise Axis attack on Russia. Basically what you want is the ability to attack an Air unit, without that air unit being able to respond. I think the answer lies in the difference between a "formal" DoW versus a "suprise" attack. As for a turn by turn effect, I think that is something that should be reflected in the readiness value of the air unit. Maybe someone should start a new topic on this. Moving an air unit ... you suggest that it should cost MPPs. What costs are you trying to reflect? Moving the immobile Air Force infrastructure to a new location? As far as limiting the distance per turn, we already have that. If you are referring to the fact that you can "operate" the unit halfway around the world in one turn, then, yes, you do have a point. But thats true for all the units performing an operate move. Manpower and Oil ... agree. While I won't go into detail (since I already have wrote a couple of topics regarding this), I will mention that the military manpower pool would increase as nations were conquered. It just wouldn't be as large an increase as one obtained from a "willing" ally. Supplies ... Are you referring to a maintenance cost in MPPs per unit? Or are you referring to actually having to purchase supply points that units consume? Could you elaborate on this point please? Unit build time ... Agree. Destroying the fighting strength of a unit ... You are correct that the combat power of a unit is a small percentage of the total strength of that unit. But the SC model is fairly accurate, if we accept the fact that the strength points represent the combat power of the unit, not the total manpower of the unit. Land combat ... I'd like to respond to that one in a seperate post. "wacky" proposal ... Basically the argument against Turn based movement and Real Time movement. The simulatenous movement concept is the way to go, but you are talking about a whole different game system now. Let me make sure we are clear though... simulatenous movement would consist of me entering my orders for my units, you or the AI would enter your orders for your units, then we both would "watch" our units execute those orders at the same time. As has been mentioned, most, if not all of these topics have been discussed at one time or another. Whats even funnier, is that these same discussions and topics occur repeatdly in different games that are similar.

KDG Very well presented argument. You're right. Air attacks reduce combat support, armor and artillery, not infantry. Since I don't believe our SC Corp/Army was designed around those categories, I can't really get the effect I want. And if I read your post correctly, I think we disagree on a basic concept. Can two units attacking a enemy unit, all things being equal, destroy the enemy unit? The answer is no. Those two attackers, have to have an advantage which increases thier combat power to allow them to eliminate the enemy unit. Right now, in SC, that advantage is Command and/or Experience. While having air reduce the readiness of a ground unit does not truely reflect what air does, it is still more accurate than an air unit that has a lethal bombardment effect, even if that lethal bombardment effect is reduced.

The Air unit in SC is generally agreed that it is too strong. But fixing it by allowing it to reduce a unit to one (1), is that really the correct solution? By removing the "lethal bombardment" effect, it still allows an Air unit to basically destroy a ground unit. I don't believe Air should have that effect. Air units do not destroy units. They reduce the ability of a unit to function.