Jump to content


Col. Kurtz

Recommended Posts

I have a newbie question concerning airpower. Does the distance of the air unit from its intended target have a bearing on the combat effectiveness of the attacking air unit and the defensive power of the defending unit. In other words, should air units be placed as close to the front lines as possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, strike range for aircraft allows full attack values at max range. Rockets, however, have their attack values decrease with range. For

example, Level 1 Rocket Detachments have a soft attack value of two at a range of one hex, but only an attack value of one at two hexes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we're on the topic of airpower, what is the thinking behind house rules limiting the number of airfleets? I know they're effective when used en masse, but they are also expensive. Instead of 8 airfleets you could build 9-10 armor, or 2 HQ's and 9 armies. If it forces the other side to build a lot more airfleets and invest in jets, isn't this realistic? Military history is full of arms and technology races with specific types of weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Cheesehead,

you are right with the AFs. The most effecive is a balanced mix of AFs, armies, tanks, corps..etc. You need a certain amount of AFs to support your ground forces to achieve breakthroughs and for other tasks. AFs are multirole units, too much AFs are pretty ineffective (and expensive both to buy and reinforce). For the same mpps you could buy much more effective specialised units. E.g. an army is more than 3 times as good as an airfleet in anti ground combat (mpp compared).

If someone produces too one sided (e.g. a lot of AFs), he will most likely loose the war against an equal opponent.

Some of the reasons why a few players use house rules with limits on AFs (and ground units): to create a more historical game (or what they think it would/should be) + they dont like air to dominate their games and prefer a ground warfare. Thats what house rules are for: to change the gameplay according to your own needs and wishes. And if both players want it this way, why not.

[ March 11, 2004, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing with air units, is they are perhaps the only unit that can effectively usurp the one real reality of the game, the inability to hit a fortified line with a concentrated hit.

Several air can repeatedly hammer a ground unit such that when it is finally hit by a ground unit, it gets battered and pushed aside.

But as has been mentioned, the only way to get a lot of air units, is normally by ignoring some other valuable sector of the game.

Most veteran players seem to favour houserules to keep the gamey nature possible in the game down to tolerable levels. It is a benefit that swings both ways, and as such is usually wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it isn't so much the unequal numbers of Air Fleets per contesting side, as it is...

The unequal VALUE that is attached once you achieve tech advances.

True that balanced and aptly combined attacks are far better than merely a narrowly go-for-broke focus, no matter how well gamed or honed.

But, perhaps, a better house-rule, by far, is to prevent ANY tech advances for AFs at all... at least until SC2 arrives...

... SOON!! We seriously hope and deliriously pray! :cool:

That way, you are actually and truly depending on tactical and strategic wit, as opposed to mostly random good fortune.

ANYBODY can be King of the SC Hill when they have L4 jets and the other poor plodding soul only has L1 to... make do or die, to sky-high! fight with, eh? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fact is despite all that's been said.

I can get upwards of 10-12 airfleets in a game. that is 2 HQs entirely devoted to Air. Generally if you do not fumble the ground units losing 2 or 3 is a major loss. 4-6 which will usually be half will end the game...

Air with experience, high rated HQs and LR is sooooooooooooo evil and dangerous! Almost like Nazis if you don't have a counter. Let's not forget to mention if the Air is using an AA bug and has 3 Carriers backing it up. They can create a KillZone which on unit can enter without being sacrificed. Then again interceptions and MPPs then come into play... Which Jet4 is reached usually MPPs and whether you lose or win the air war is the decision for who wins

The only tactic I've noticed to counter massive air is using entrenched Tanks on Cities with the Anti Air helps some too if you can ever achieve a breakthrough for cheap. Also is avoiding Fighting enemy Air Altogether Whenever possible

[ March 12, 2004, 07:26 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An air strategy is a strategy that some players love, but its not a cost effective one. If you dont like it, then make a house rule against it.

Sure, a player can win against a weaker one with a pure air strategy - or with other ineffective strategies. But if an equally skilled opponent chooses a more balanced approach he has much better chances to win - and most likely will.

Air is expensive to buy and reinforce - even high experienced AFs with expected losses of 0 loose 1 point every 3 attacks in average (and 1 AF point is much more expensive than 1 Corps point..). Each jet level increases these costs by 10% making them even more inefficient in anti-ground warfare. One simple strategy is: if you cant compete in the air - at one front - then go for the ground, put a lot of corps in place and let them kill by the air if he wants to. This often costs the enemy air more mpps than you by loosing the corps...

Yes, if one side has air superiority and enough ground units at all fronts, he will win. But thats the point in SC: you cant afford everything at the same time as long as the game is not already won, you have to decide which way to go and where to spend your mpps.

If someone buys only air, then you can crush him on the ground and its simply not possible to achieve air superiority both in the west and the east - at least not permanent - without neglecting your ground forces and even then...

Naturally when both players follow an air only strategy the one with the most/better air will win - if both players choose the same strategy, then Liams description is correct ;) .

BTW: after loosing some AFs you have only lost the war if you surrender. Better is to retreat, reorganize and rebuilt your forces and let the enemy bleed in the next battle smile.gif .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a Houserule to truly work with Air limits, you also need to limit the number of Ground units and limit the Borg economics (ie Axis ability to take any neutral with no negative side effect). If done right, you will be faced with the same type of strategical decisions that the nation you represent was faced with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find AF can be a game breaker.

But their Jet Tech sure can.

We all know everyone races for that.

All Techs should be of equal value, not the case.

I always prefer to play with no AF tech. Turns the game into more of a chess match IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As originally posted by Liam:

Air with experience, high rated HQs and LR is sooooooooooooo evil and dangerous!

Very true.

It's that EXPERIENCE (... along with high-rated and experienced HQ, AND long-range as well) that will tend to "break the game."

**An interesting thing to try, especially if you playing Axis against the AI:


Invest in ANY Industrial Technology.

You MAY invest in anything else.

That way, you may well get those super uber weapons BEFORE the Allies... BUT,

They will cost you an arm and a leg and a bit of yer hair follicles too.

This seems a pretty decent way to replicate the limited Axis Economy.

Fewer units, of high quality that cost a lot.

Meanwhile, the beserkers are swarming you! with all them low-rent Corps.

And here, you can also challenge yourself... by giving Russia IT level 2 at start, AND anti-tank level one.

Those Panzers will not be quite so murderous marauding. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were times when air decided it more often than now. BUT, the recent bidding system where Russia and also USA get alot of MPP enabled UK to be more agressive and made long-range a luxuary that Germany not often can afford. To win with air, u need Long-Range L3 because they can then cover the map with focused air support effectively. Ofcourse, you need air superiority to be able to use it.

Long-Range L3 enable Germany to shoot entire UK into flames or if they decide to use them east to make the life for Russian commanders a hell. Come on guys, who here has never blown up an HQ with massed air attack...? ;):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the trouble with air unit is that they can actually destroy unit. In a lot of WWII wargame only a huge fleet of Heavy bomber can acheive that. Even in Iraq the US had to send ground troops to destroy the badly air bombed iraqi unit. I dare say that the fire power display was far more than most bombing in WWII.

A real improvement would be to have Airfleet (not heavy bomber) unable to actually destroy a unit. May be the last point or two should be undestructible by airfleet attack.

Another approcach would be to have airfleet attack the readiness level of a unit and not its strength point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tech is the chance.

Tech is the variable.

Too many investments in AF, without getting some tech improvs, makes it a waste.

Exploiting if you do get them, makes it wise (like me, Brian the Wise).

That's called playing the game.

This is not chess, people.

This is random.

Think. You buy five AF. Your opponent gets luck and has level 3. Your investment is, hmmm, reduced.

That's the game and the game is good. you take your chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...