Solution for Bullying Airfleets.

[JerseyJohn]

Making abusive use of airfleets is part of the tactical makeup of the game. I do it, my opponents do it, we all buy far too many air units and whoever has the highest number usually wins the campaign.

A parrellel problem is underuse of Heavy Bombers.

The same players -- again, myself included -- who buy numerous airfleets might not buy bombers at all.

Various solutions have been put forward in an attempt to solve this problem, usually suggesting a rule that would limit the number of airfleets a player can possess.

As an alternative, why not make range more of a factor?

I suggest the following:

1) Airfleets fight at full stregnyth within three [3] hexes of their starting location.

2) They fight at 70% effectiveness four and five [4 and 5] hexes distant.

3) They fight at 50% effectiveness at any range six [6] hexes or more from their starting location.

4) Heavy Bombers have no range penalties. They function at 100% effectiveness for their entire range.

5) Airfleets that are half-stregnth or lower cannot intercept air attacks more than three hexes from their base.

Implementation of this rule will prevent Airfleets from dominating a front or entire sea zone -- the way they presently do. They will become more of a local dominator, as they were historically. It will also give Heavy Bombers additional value as long range weapons in addition to their strategic bombing role.

-- Additional Ideas Added from subsequent Entry.

The following ideas were presented in response to an entry by Valadictum and have been copied to this section to make the forum more organized. --

A more polished forumula taking into consideration range research advances might be:

Closest 40% from Base fights at 100% effectivenes.

Middle 30% distance from base fights at 70% effectiveness,

Furthest 30% from base fights at 50% effectiveness.

I think this would work well and keep airfleets from being overly dominant.

Also, someone posted an idea in one of the past forums to increase the cost of airfleets as a nation buys more of them. I'd like to second that idea and suggest it should be the following:

First six [6] airfleets a nation owns, normal buiding cost.

Next four [4] increase by 50% (150% original MPP cost).

Next five [5] increase by additional 50% (200% original MPP cost).

All additional airfleets 300% original MPP cost.

Heavy Bombers would not count in total. Airfleet tally is not altered by lost airfleets, it increases with the number that has been built, not the current number in service.

[ March 02, 2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[kurt88]

Good idea.

I can see it work everywhere on the map except in Russia.Just relocate your air-units right behind your frontline (two hexes from the enemy units) and they fight at full strenght.So whoever has the most...

However taking in account the weather-ideas from your other thread things might work out.

[JerseyJohn]

Kurt88

Good point and agreed. In Russia, as in other theaters, range was a limiting factor. Air units also have limited ground defense, so if a breakthrough occurs and an understregnth unit attacks them the airfleet usually survives to be moved further behind the lines in it's own turn.

[ March 01, 2003, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Night]

Not a bad idea

[Minotaur]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

As an alternative, why not make range more of a factor?

I suggest the following:

1) Airfleets fight at full stregnyth within three [3] hexes of their starting location.

2) They fight at 70% effectiveness four and five [4 and 5] hexes distant.

3) They fight at 50% effectiveness at any range six [6] hexes or more from their starting location.

4) Heavy Bombers have no range penalties. They function at 100% effectiveness for their entire range.

5) Airfleets that are half-stregnth or lower cannot intercept air attacks more than three hexes from their base.

Good idea... This will simulate the dogfighting that used a lot of fuel (and the obligation of dropping your external fuel tank)... The more you are close to your maximum range, the less longer you can fight before running out of fuel... A big problem for Germany in the Battle of Britain...

For your point #5... I prefer to have the choice if my Air Fleet will intercept or not... Sometime you may let enemy goes because you want to keep your Air Fleet intact (reinforcing an bombed Corps is cheaper than a Air Fleet )...

[JerseyJohn]

Night and Minotaur

Glad you guys like it.

Minotaur

On point #5 I originally wrote it where the player would have a choice, then reworded it to no choice because the usual voices will step in saying it's either impractical or impossible, etc., so I thought I'd head them off at the pass. I'd prefer having it as a choice also, but if it isn't possible I'd go for no interception for units 50% or weaker.

[Valadictum]

Nice ideas but how would further research effect things, especially in range?

If the current airfleets are very tactical in nature then generally I'd like to see their interception/escort abilities reduced and a new unit purely for escorting bombers and interception added.

[JerseyJohn]

Valadictum

Good point. At first I thought it would only be a matter of having airfleets fight at the reduced rate stated above regardless of range. A more polished forumula might be:

(Posting from here down was also copied to opening entry.)

Closest 40% from Base fights at 100% effectivenes.

Middle 30% distance from base fights at 70% effectiveness,

Furthest 30% from base fights at 50% effectiveness.

I think this would work well and keep airfleets from being overly dominant.

Also, someone posted an idea in one of the past forums to increase the cost of airfleets as a nation buys more of them. I'd like to second that idea and suggest it should be the following:

First six [6] airfleets a nation owns, normal buiding cost.

Next four [4] increase by 50% (150% original MPP cost).

Next five [5] increase by additional 50% (200% original MPP cost).

All additional airfleets 300% original MPP cost.

Heavy Bombers would not count in total. Airfleet tally is not altered by lost airfleets, it increases with the number that has been built, not the current number in service.

I am also moving the above ideas to the original post entry.

[ March 02, 2003, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

Well, as I said a long time ago. I'm not sure that any one unit was ever decisively killed in WW2 due to just Air Power. I don't recall reading or seeing anything too specific. I know #s may have been reduced to practically nill though besides that it's probably unrealistic to allow aircraft to deal the final blow to ground units Period.

There were too many places to entrench back then. Depending on the soil, terrain you could always hide the tanks, armored vehicles, troops, positions, etc... Especially with good camoflouge in Norther Europe. It would be Hell to find every infantrymen and kill them...

You must put some realism in here as far as that's concerned. It's quite redicilious that Fleets of airships make armies obsolete. Perhaps a price increase, or a greater Ack penalty when attacking units in cities would be appropiate. Cities like Berlin had MANY guns pointed at the skies and thousands of planes were downed by enemy ack. Though here you don't get that same feeling. Plus it's hard to ever hit a precise target with those old WW2 style Aircraft. You really didn't find full effectiveness of aircraft in bad weather or in bad terrain in WW2...

Even in Nam, it was all too obvious the terrain favoured the North and the US air was not at it's best in those conditions. Nam would be a 5, I would say parts of Europe to be the same... Almost

[KDG]

First, great ideas and good discussion. From a programming perspective, working with the existing software and interface, this is what I would do to keep the change very simple.

Here are some other simple solutions, in no particular order:

1) Range reduction by 1 for jets.

or

2) Drop Jets to 1 attack vs. ground units, bombers up to 2. Thus Jets will escort more often, while bombers will bomb.

or

3) Don't let planes (or ships) kill a unit. Requires combined arms to take hexes. The death of a unit also scores extra experience for planes, this is then reduced.

or

4) Make anti-aircraft radar good for cities, resources, and also the hexes around them. This would be a good counter research for jets then.

or

5) Bump the cost of Jets by 10-15%. Increases the buying cost, as well as the reinforcement costs.

Some easy to implement ideas. They can be combined. By the way, I thought that a plane below 5 won't intercept?

[JerseyJohn]

KDG

Great solutions, I think they're all pointed in the right direction.

Since originating this forum a very simple idea that I believe may help with this and similar problems is to allow players to determine the number of different types of units through the scenario editor.

I suggest this in the following forum:

Player Defined Unit Build Limits.

[KDG]

Since there is a limited number of HQ's, programming wise it would be possible to have a limited number of units(I don't think we need a tank, corps, or army limit, we are really only talking about Jets).

Each air unit could have a name. Germany might get 8 total to use or buy, with none being replaceable, much like the HQ's. Loss of one, gone forever.

[AndrewT]

I don't think tactical air units should be able to attack ground forces at all, in the scale of this game. They should automatically assist in ground combats within their range (similar to the automatic intercepts that happen now), that is all they should be able to do. Same with naval shore bombardment - it should only assist ground combats not be an independent action. That resolves the silly results got with entire armies being wiped out by a cruiser and a Luftflotte.

Direct ground attack could be done with strategic air units (eg the carpet bombings that happened in Normandy) thus restoring some use for them. Also they should take FAR less damage when they bomb undefended targets, as it is now it costs more MPPs to bomb undefended ports and factories than you cost the enemy.

I then think rockets should be dropped and replaced with artillery corps, and they should only ever get a range of 2. Art would turn into tactical rockets (Katyushkas) at Tech 4, say.

[JerseyJohn]

KDG

Without a unit cap the number of armies available could reach absurd proportions. Aside from which, the method I'm suggesting would be a scenario editor option. The default setting for every type of unit for every major country would be unlimited. From there individual players would be free to alter it to suit their own preferences.

Andrew T.

Very good idea about reassessing airfleets and heavy bombers. I'd definitely like to see a change along those lines implemented.

Along with assisting in ground attacks [a new role in this game] I'd like to see them retain their independent attack ability but have it become a softening up process, something along the lines of reducing a unit's preparedness or supply level. Heavy Bombers would cause troop stregnth reductions, as you say, through carpet bombing.

The Rocket ideas were expressed a long while back by Bill Macon and others.

I'm against that approach. Multiple rocket launchers, etc. are tactical weapons and should be part of the infantry research -- confusingly listed as anti-tank gun research now, but what does that mean if it results in higher army/corps capabilities?

Artillery corps are a fine idea but a range of two hexes would give them 100 miles (approximatly five times that of Battleships) -- awfully heavy artillery by anyone's standards!

Rocket research is fine as it is; V-1 and V-2 were never much of a weapon and required a lot of research and expense. Instead of being dropped they should be redifined. According to the 1944 scenario V-2s are L=4 Rockets , making V-1s L=3.

Rockets should be augmented. V-1 = L2, V-2 = L3, L4 should be something much heavier than the V-2's one ton warhead, say a much larger rocket doing 50% more damage than the current L=4 and L-5 should be something very, very potent, let's say double the present L=5. At those increased levels rocket research and production would take on some importance.

[ March 03, 2003, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[USGrant]

A very simple tweak that I've previously suggested that would help greatly would be to reduce the tech level 0 strike range of airfleets to 3 (or 2 or 4 depending on playtesting) instead of 6 while leaving bombers as they are.

This would:

Force players to spend more on Long Range research early (reducing MPPs available to purchase air fleets). BTW, does longer range increase the cost of airplanes, or just Jet Tech? I've never noticed.

Encourage players to use bombers for longer range duties, with less chance of interception early on.

Force players to move airfleets more often, hence taking them out of action for some turns and reducing their value.

Force fighters to be closer to the front, and hence riskier, early in the war.

Prevent figters in western Europe from covering the Atlantic coast of North America.

I think the cumulative effect would be to cause players to think twice about going 100% airfleet, and would increase the usefulness of bombers. This would probably require a few scenario tweaks, like giving the US Long Range 3 or something when they enter. This suggestion has a similar effect to the original posting in this thread, but would be trivial to program. It, like all other tweaks, would require playtesting.

[JerseyJohn]

USGrant

Your ideas sound very promising. I either didn't read them earlier or didn't understand the point.

If your suggesion is adapted it might do the trick. At this point I'd like to see anything that brings some real play balance to this thing.

Buiding twenty airfleets and floating armies around looking for good landing opportunities isn't much of a game. If that's what defines a strong player in this thing then the game is extremely flawed. I don't think it is, but I think the flaws that now exist make it a much worse game than it ought to be.

After a while you get tired of hearing about gamy players. They're good players adapting gamy tactics because the game rewards it. Play should be conducted within realistic parameters; while SC is fun to play, it loses much of it's value to players who want something a little more historically responsible. Which is not the same as saying the game should be locked into the historical paths, it means the game should offer choices that were actually viable. I'm sure that was, and hopefully still is, Hubert's intention.

[Shaka of Carthage]

The current strike range of Air units starts at six (6). Most of the WWII fighters worked within a 400 mile range (8 hexes). Gave them about 200 miles worth of fuel for combat. SC is well within that. Not until 1944 did those ranges increase and we have that ability thru Long Range tech. It would be nice to have them be more effective, the shorter the range they operated, as was suggested.

The only problem with Air units is that they have a game effect that is not accurate. They should only be reducing the readiness of a unit. While they should have the ability to reduce the supply levels of a area, I don't belive there is a easy way for that to be done in SC. Never should they be able to reduce a units Strength points or eliminate it.

The ability to have huge numbers of them is a problem with all of the units. Either thru a house rule or some system fix (manpower or counter limits) will this be solved.

[ March 04, 2003, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Exactly the conclusions I've come to as well.

Can't complain much about aircraft range because Hubert's been a bit conservative in these department, especially with regard to Heavy Bombers. In 1940 the British were sending theirs to make raids on Berlin from bases in the British Isles!

House Rules are only of use when both players are human and even then they can be intentionally or unintentionally violated.

The solution ultimately is in a game fix which will probably affect SC 2 only.

Meantime, the related topic we've been discussing with Bill Macon of allowing players to find their own answers through an expanded game/map editor (limiting unit totals, etc.) seems an acceptable SC 1 solution. [sorry for the editor plug ]

[KDG]

Shaka, not quite sure I understand. You state that:

"Most of the WWII fighters worked within a 400 mile range (8 hexes) Gave them about 200 miles worth of fuel for combat. SC is well within that."

Does this mean they could go 200 miles in any direction, giving them a 400 mile range, or they could go 400 miles out one direction, then 400 miles back, giving 800 miles as the total distance traveled.

Was this in 1939 or 1944 that these distances applied?

Thanks.

[Shaka of Carthage]

KDG

Sorry I wasn't clear. Applies to 1939 thru 1943.

They would go out about 400 miles (8 hexes).

Perform combat (burning in the process enough fuel that could take them another 200 miles).

Then go home (about 400 miles away), still having that little bit extra for emergencies.

Hence, a combat radius of 400 miles.

[ March 04, 2003, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[AndrewT]

I'm not sure I agree with your numbers. In the battle of Britian ME109s based on the Channel coast of France could get to London, have maybe 10-20 minutes of combat then had to go home. I don't have the game in front of me so I can't express that in hexes but it's a lot less than 8, I think about 4 from memory.

[arby]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Making abusive use of airfleets is part of the tactical makeup of the game. I do it, my opponents do it, we all buy far too many air units and whoever has the highest number usually wins the campaign.

You don't buy "far too many air units," nor do you make "abusive use of airfleets." You buy a lot of them because that's the most successful strategy. And the reason it's the most successful strategy is because of the combat system. Given that in the majority of cases you can only concentrate two ground units against a single hex, that they do not combine their attacks, that a defending unit will not retreat, but has to be completely eliminated, and that if it is not it can fully reinforce itself in the next turn, the only method of breaking through a front is to concentrate air power on a particular unit. That's what we all do, and the reason we do it is because it's the only thing that works.

Your suggestions are quite sound. The current air model is completely unrealistic. It grossly overrates the effect of tactical air; the complete elimination of a ground unit by air alone has no historical basis, at least not in WWII. With a couple of advances in LR air, the German player can control the entire breadth of the Russian front. Having air fleets near Smolensk attacking ground units around Rostov is ridiculous. Having Germany build fifteen or twenty airfleets is similarly absurd. It couldn't have done so if it wanted to, and if it did, it wouldn't have had the fuel to fly them.

The problem is that unless you do something to the ground combat model, changing the air model is going to make the game even more of a WWI trench fight than it already is. If you limit the effective range and reduce the attack values of planes, how are the Germans ever going to break through the French lines? How are the Allies ever going to invade Western Europe? How are the Germans ever going to break through the "Russian corps" defense? The answer to all three questions is "They're not."

You've made some good suggestions and they deserve serious consideration. I think what you have to do, though, is look at how those changes might affect other aspects of the game. If the combat model more accurately simulated WWII ground combat, the "abusive" use of air would probably take care of itself. People aren't going to build twenty airfleets if there are cheaper and more effective ways of achieving the same result.

[ March 04, 2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: arby ]

[Minotaur]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Rocket research is fine as it is; V-1 and V-2 were never much of a weapon and required a lot of research and expense. Instead of being dropped they should be redifined. According to the 1944 scenario V-2s are L=4 Rockets , making V-1s L=3.

I like it the way it is... Costly, slow and not too much punch... In other word a gadget...

But with enough researches it became the only free long-ranged hit-without-retal available...

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Rockets should be augmented. V-1 = L2, V-2 = L3, L4 should be something much heavier than the V-2's one ton warhead, say a much larger rocket doing 50% more damage than the current L=4 and L-5 should be something very, very potent, let's say double the present L=5. At those increased levels rocket research and production would take on some importance.

Keep in mind that rockets are powerful, but not very useful as a battlefield weapon... Not enough precision... A Corps can't and shouldn't be destroyed by one rocket volley... But it can damage it and reduce it's entrenchement and readiness, because people will duck in cover when they see it!...

Oh!... and BTW... Should we add a Nuke Research technology?... (everybody ready?... NOOOOOOO!... )...

[Liam]

From what I understand the V-1s and 2s were highly inaccurate. You basically just pointed them in a general direction. Chances of hitting ground troops being next to impossible. Not only that but the early Models were hunted down by Prop aircraft. I have a picture on my wall where a British Pilot Beaumont, shot down his first V1 in a Tempest.5 June 22nd 1944.

Aircraft are overrated in this game. The problem is that armor doesn't carry enough of a sting. There is no true unentrenching tool like artillery or divebombers. So they're including it all in Air units. Making highly inaccurate.

We should have artillery, highly mobile units, and more hexes on the map for flanking possiblities. Many of the historical cities<major cities> are not represented on the Game map that should be there. Thus more space to cover for Advancing Armies. I would say that Rockets do not belong in the Game at all, for all they did...amounted to killing mostly civilians not unlike Scuds in the Gulf War. Not Precise enough to matter

Even rockets attached to fighters were no good unless at very close range.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Arby

In regards to your statement about the ground combat needing to be fixed, what exactly do you feel is wrong with it?

I tend to believe that one of the problems we have is that there is not enough of a experience bar variance to reflect the superior combat power that the Germans had over the Allies.

I know you mentioned lack of a retreat option and the ability to reinforce a unit in place is a problem.

I'm wondering if what you said about reinforcing a unit in place may be the key. Perhaps it should not be allowed if you are in contact with a enemy unit. Then again, the US gave front line units in contact with the enemy reinforcements all the time. What should be happening is that if a unit is pulled from a front line and given reinforcements, the units experience level does not drop as fast as it does currently. Leave them in the line, and the experience should drop like it does now.

As far as multiple attacks on a unit, one of the keys to a successful defense is the ability to limit the number of enemy units that assault you at one time. Extreme example of this is the French Maginot line. If you had enough units, you could build a defensive line that did make the enemy perform costly frontal assaults. Where SC has the problem is that we can go "poof" and voila, we have instant units.

The combat system as it is now would work fine if we could not create units as fast as we spent the MPP's and at a certain point you ran out of those units (ie manpower used up).