Interceptors (yes again - sorry)

[Brian Rock]

I finally got my copy of SC today - no more demo for me, nosiree!

Lovely little game, even though I'm getting my butt stomped as the Allies.

Anyhow, I know the fact that interceptors take more casualties than attackers has been discussed to death - I'm curious what the rationale for this is. It seems very odd that the Brits can only win the Battle of Britain if they attack the continent.

Hubert - can you shed any light on this?

[Hubert Cater]

The loss values for interceptors vs. attackers is simply based on the combat values and is not favoured one way or the other. Combat values are affected by supply, readiness, exprience, tech levels etc. so there are many variables to be accounted for, try a few tests with the Campaign Editor and you'll see what I mean.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

[Brian Rock]

Test? Nah - I trust you.

Thanks for answering.

[dougmangin]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

The loss values for interceptors vs. attackers is simply based on the combat values and is not favoured one way or the other. Combat values are affected by supply, readiness, exprience, tech levels etc. so there are many variables to be accounted for, try a few tests with the Campaign Editor and you'll see what I mean.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

I would like to believe you, and I realize you are the one who designed the game - but in my experience the damage done to the intercepting units is ALWAYS more than the damage to the attacking units. On many occations I have has british air units, with hq support, same supply levels, very similar experience, and a HIGHER tech level - and they consistantly take more damage than they give. The only remedy is to attack your opponent as often as he does you, thus evening out the damage.

I have experienced a unit being destroyed or coming very close to it after a turn where it attacked and took damage, then on the opposing players turn it was forced (even though not at a high strenght level)to intercept.

It just seems reasonable that you should have the option of intercepting or not. Or at least being able to choose WHERE to intercept - not necessarily the first attack. It is a bit frustrating to have one critical hex not have the air support you intended it to have simply because the other side attacked another hex first. Shouldnt the british be able to provide support over antwerp and not over another less important hex?

I dont want you to think this is bitter critisim. I sincerely enjoy the game and think you have done a remarkable job in designing it. It is worth far more than the cost you are charging for it and I have recommended it to several friends. But this is one area I wish you would take a look at - optional interception or being able to choose your fights.

[Hubert Cater]

I would like to believe you, and I realize you are the one who designed the game - but in my experience the damage done to the intercepting units is ALWAYS more than the damage to the attacking units.

Fair enough and it won't be the first time I've been proven wrong despite my own tests. If you can set up a test campaign with the skewed results you encounter I'll be more than happy to take a look to see what is going on.

It just seems reasonable that you should have the option of intercepting or not.

This is true and something I am considering for the future.

Hubert

[dougmangin]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Fair enough and it won't be the first time I've been proven wrong despite my own tests. If you can set up a test campaign with the skewed results you encounter I'll be more than happy to take a look to see what is going on.

I will try to recreate a few situations and see what kind of results I get to determine if there is a bias against the interceptor. I will let you know what I find - providing I can recall anything I learned from statistical analysis in college.

[Cortes]

I think it's only at Battlefront when developers will answer you without: a. diverting the point or b. acting mighty offended that a lowly gamer may just differ in opinion.

I'm never going back.

[82ndReady]

dougmangin

I agree 100% that you should be given the option to choose which Air battles you wish to fight and not to fight! One Air battle may be worth fighting than another and being able to pick and choose your Air battles is important to most players. This is a well designed game and this change could add just that much more flavor to an already Great game! Even if you do not include this in your next Mod to SC, in my opinion I believe we all can live with this as is!

Hubert, I want to thank you for making this game and hope to see more from you and this company in the near future!

[JimR]

The responsiveness of the game's designer and developers is truly remarkable. Soon (next patch) it appears we will have sea travel around the Cape; a less arbitrary tech system; and a new port at Suez. And now, in this thread, Hubert has said he will look at optional air interception sometime too.

Great game, great attitude, great team.

[dougmangin]

Originally posted by JimR:

The responsiveness of the game's designer and developers is truly remarkable. Soon (next patch) it appears we will have sea travel around the Cape; a less arbitrary tech system; and a new port at Suez. And now, in this thread, Hubert has said he will look at optional air interception sometime too.

Great game, great attitude, great team.

I completely agree. I do not know of any other software, let alone computer game, company which has done a better job in taking user ideas and opinions into consideration in making updates and improvements than the folks at battlefront have with this game.

Again I say HUBERT FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004!

[RevJack]

I totally agree with the posts here on both the interceptors and how responsive Hubert is to questions about SC. I have asked a couple of questions here and have recieved a reply almost immediatly. Great support and a great game. Cant wait for SC2. Thanks Hubert!

Adrian

[ev]

Should the development of Radar help your Interceptors?

During WWII, I believe the British mainly used radar as an alert sistem to scramble interceptors.

Maybe I misread something, but the radar sistem in SC increases the airdefense of cities, but does not do much for Interceptors.

On the other hand, in SC Inteceptors always attack bombers before they bomb the target. In WWII, sometimes the Interceptors reached the bombers only after they hit target. Brithish Radar made a difference mainly because it allowed the interceptors to scramble before the German bombers hit target.

I think there should be a random chance that interceptors arive "late", meaning after the target city or unit was bombed. Advances in Radar should then increase the probability that "intercepting" occurs prior to the bombing raid.

Note: I would not extend the benefits of Radar to field units since WWII radar was not very mobile. I would limit the benefic of radar to cities and ports, and, maybe forts, which are also static. I would also consider extending the benefit of radar to Cariers, Battleships and perhaps Cruisers.

The chace of Interception occuring prior to the bombing raid should be affected by the following variables:

1. By Radar Technology, if target of the bombing raid is a city, port, fort, carier, battleship or cruiser.

2. By the proximity of Interceptors to the target of the bombing raid.

3. By the readiness level of Interceptors.

4. By the speed of Interceptors (Jet Aircraft Tech Level).

When the above conditions are very unfavorable I would make it very difficult for Interceptors to arrive in time... before the target raid takes place.

[dougmangin]

Should the development of Radar help your Interceptors?

I think this may be another area that can level out the field between attacker and defender, but I dont think the effect should be very significant, perhaps a bonus to readiness of 10% per tech level.

During WWII, I believe the British mainly used radar as an alert sistem to scramble interceptors.

This is true, and it greatly increase the effectiveness of british air power. They could use what they had, when they wanted, and where they most needed it. Without radar it would have taken a great deal more resources to provide the same degree of air defence.

radar sistem in SC increases the airdefense of cities, but does not do much for Interceptors

As far as I can tell you are right - to be honest that tech catagory is one I dont know if the benefit warrants the high cost of investing in that research catagory. Especially considering how that same investement can bring tremendous advantages if applied in other areas (industrial tec, jet fighters, heavy tanks, sonar)

I think there should be a random chance that interceptors arive "late", meaning after the target city or unit was bombed. Advances in Radar should then increase the probability that "intercepting" occurs prior to the bombing raid

My only concern with this is considering the time scale of the game. An air fleet attacking a unit, or port, or whatever is not a single sortie covering one trip there and back. The time scale on the game changes, but it is at least a week. So an air unit attacking is really a weeks worth of bombing. In that case I dont really think the intercepting air units would "miss" the incoming attackers. I would suggest that radar research raise the readiness of air units, or give some kind of statistical boost to their strenght.

[ev]

Originally posted by dougmangin:

(Regarding my previous comment: "I think there should be a random chance that interceptors arive "late", meaning after the target city or unit was bombed. Advances in Radar should then increase the probability that "intercepting" occurs prior to the bombing raid")

My only concern with this is considering the time scale of the game. An air fleet attacking a unit, or port, or whatever is not a single sortie covering one trip there and back. The time scale on the game changes, but it is at least a week. So an air unit attacking is really a weeks worth of bombing. In that case I dont really think the intercepting air units would "miss" the incoming attackers. I would suggest that radar research raise the readiness of air units, or give some kind of statistical boost to their strenght.

You are right. I just did not think about this before, but you are quite right.

Still, I think something should be done to make radar more useful. As you said before, right now it is just not worth it to invest in it.

What about my idea of radar helping Sea Units? Is it realistic for WWII era? How would you implement it?

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by ev:

Still, I think something should be done to make radar more useful. As you said before, right now it is just not worth it to invest in it.

It's not worth investing in because what it's intended to protect against -- strategic bombing -- isn't worth doing. The Allies can't afford to invest much in bombers -- they have other needs more pressing -- and the game mechanics don't really allow much in the way of strategic bombing. There are a limited number of hexes to attack, you suffer more losses than you inflict, and your opponent can avoid the infliction of any losses by the simple technique of sticking a corps on top of the resource.

I think you could go a long way toward solving this problem in three steps:

1. Increase the initial Strat Bomber level of the UK to 1, and give the Americans a Strat Bomber when they enter the war.

2. Allow strat bombers to bomb the resource rather than any garrison on it.

3. Reduce air defense strengths of all resources to 0 (right now, cities are at 2, ports are at 1, and mines and oil fields are at 0), and increase it by 1 for each level of anti-air research. Having the Western Allies blow away about 30 or 40 points of MPP's a turn, without suffering any losses, will give you ample reason to invest in radar.

[Piumarcobaleno]

Did anyone noticed that the war in the skies was won not with the radar, but with the decoding of the secret communication languages? UK and USA decripted both german and japanese secret comms system, thus obtaining the weapon needed to crush them (i speak of the battle for britain, and a couple of air blitz usa made against japan "secret" operations..)..

War isn't only a matter of equipment, instead, a matter of infos...

[Flash Gordon]

Originally posted by Piumarcobaleno:

Did anyone noticed that the war in the skies was won not with the radar, but with the decoding of the secret communication languages? UK and USA decripted both german and japanese secret comms system, thus obtaining the weapon needed to crush them (i speak of the battle for britain, and a couple of air blitz usa made against japan "secret" operations..)..

War isn't only a matter of equipment, instead, a matter of infos...

Er, no...

...the Battle of Britain was won by radar which acted as a force multiplier for the British. Basically, they were able to put their planes where and when they were the most needed. It was also won by the fact that the Luftwaffe switched from striking airfields to London, itself. Had they continued their attacks on the airfields, they would have achieved air superiority over Southern England.

However, all that would have been moot because Germany did not have the naval resources at the time to pull off a cross-channel invasion.

Flash

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Flash Gordon:

...the Battle of Britain was won by radar which acted as a force multiplier for the British. Basically, they were able to put their planes where and when they were the most needed. It was also won by the fact that the Luftwaffe switched from striking airfields to London, itself. Had they continued their attacks on the airfields, they would have achieved air superiority over Southern England.

However, all that would have been moot because Germany did not have the naval resources at the time to pull off a cross-channel invasion.

Flash[/QB]

Amen to that.

[dougmangin]

Originally posted by Russ Bensing:

[QB]

I am in total agreement with you here. Parts of the game are so balanced and fun - and yet others are so imbalanced that they are virtually irrelevant. I honestly dont know why ANYONE would invest in strategic bombers. They are more expensive than fighters, and fighters can do everything bombers can do and then some. Plus we all pour tons or research into fighters anyway, so to get bombers up to that level you would have to move that research from somewhere else. And I really really dont see the need for it.

If you buy a strat bomber for 400 - you hit a german or british port. you are going to do, what 2mpps of damage? 5 perhaps? and in the meantime you are going to take a point or two in damage - and those cost 20MPPS each to repair! What is the sense in that?

The only only only use I have found for strat bombers is in attacking naval units - which they do a great job of. You can sacrifice one or two corps, load them up, transport them to the southern coast of england (within range of your bombers) and watch britians fleet come to defend. Providing you have air cover you can proceed to nail the fleet - and if you do have that air cover when britains air tries to intercetp THEY take damage too. And the interceptor always takes more damage - so you win by hitting naval and air units at once.

But other than that I havent found any way to effectively use strat bombers in a way that has a meaningful impact on the economics of the game - which is what I think their main goal was in reality.

The same can be said for uboats - they become nothing more than another kind of surface vessel - only one that cannot defend itself. I only use them if I have tons of mpps to spare (never) and if you can create a pack of them so you can take a unit out entirely - because they cannot defend - and the most I have ever, EVER had damage done to britains mpps was with four uboats, tech 2, and they did 32 mpps of damage. It cost me nearly 1000 to build the things, is 32 a turn going to be a good investment?

So I guess the point I am making is in game play there are things that just dont seem right. But as this is the game we do have you find those and try to use them to your advantage.

I would like to see optional and selective interception. Why should a british air unit fly interception of a german bomber hitting a french port just because that was the first move made by the germans - wouldnt it be more effective to choose what and where you intercepted? Or not at all if you dont think it is a fight you can win, or the losses dont justify the risk.

Great game - but I am looking forward to either the next patch or the future versions to address this aspect of game play.

[dougmangin]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

The loss values for interceptors vs. attackers is simply based on the combat values and is not favoured one way or the other. Combat values are affected by supply, readiness, exprience, tech levels etc. so there are many variables to be accounted for, try a few tests with the Campaign Editor and you'll see what I mean.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

Hubert I have run a few trials with german v russian or british air units. I will keep going till I have a representative sample. The first round had 22 interceptions on the russian front, all tech level 0, all experience level 0, all attached to a hq. The only discrepancy is the germans lowest hq was 6, the russians had some 7, some 5, some 4. I am sure that has an effect but I dont know how to force that to be equal all the way around. Anyway I have this so far - 22 interceptions, total attacker (german) 42 - total interceptor (russian) damage 68

Now I am thinking this is skewed because of the hq levels - so I am going to re run it some with british hqs and units with the exact rating for each. I also ran just a few examples of equal hq ratings and varying experience levels - and I can say there is probably no rating that has a greater impact than experience. Even one bar had a tremendous impact.

It has really changed the way I look at units. I think many of us make the mistake of confusing strenght level (6, 8, whatever) with a units capability. What I am seeing is that the strength means nothing other than the degree of damage a unit can take. A strenght 5 units with level 3 experience is FAR FAR FAR stronger in attack and defence than a strength 8 unit with no experience.

It would be interesting to see how that relationship breaks down - how much strenght are you willing to loose before you reinforce and loose experience? Any thoughts on that? And as I get any other results I will pass them along. But the conclusion as of now is if your HQ is weak - stay the heck away from intercepting air attacks.

[Piumarcobaleno]

I don't want to disappoint you guys, but can't you catch the "propaganda" difference between saying "we won with the radar" and "we won sneaky hearing their orders" ?

So please, just 'consider' the chance that allied have enjoyed better spying than the axis..

I'm not saying that radar was useless, just don't be so tied to "war winners report".

I mean, if i win a war, i won't say "i killed war prisoners", instead i'll say "they killed war prisoners", not "we won with the luck of having discovered their secret comms code" but "we won because of our superior technology" and so on.. WWII is NOT the one we see on the tv (or we read in history books, maybe..). I try to take every info in account when speaking of history, just think of how a single man can "diverse" an happening with a personal point of view, and you'll see how WWII might have 'changed' with good post-war propaganda..

Just don't eat the "radar-concentration of force" pill and sit on their words...

[Flash Gordon]

There were several decisive campaigns in which the Allies "won sneaky" - the BoB just wasn't one of them.

[Russ Bensing]

Doug,

Thanks for your comments. I think there's pretty close to unanimous agreement that the strategic warfare aspects of this game need a serious overhaul. One of the things you mentioned -- the fact that the air fleets are a substantially superior investment than bombers -- is quite true, largely because fleets perform almost as well against strategic resources as bombers do: they have an attack value against resources of 2, while bombers have 3. Another suggestion would be to drop fleet attack value to 1 and raise bomber value to 4. (One advantage of bombers: their attack value against strategic resources goes up 1 for each level of research, while the attack of value of fleets on resources never increases.) A level 2 or 3 bomber could easily reduce an 8-value resource to 0, making it a much more desirable investment for the Allies, and investment in counter-strategies -- anti-air and planes -- much more necessary for the Axis player.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Piumarcobaleno:

I don't want to disappoint you guys, but can't you catch the "propaganda" difference between saying "we won with the radar" and "we won sneaky hearing their orders" ?

So please, just 'consider' the chance that allied have enjoyed better spying than the axis..

I'm not saying that radar was useless, just don't be so tied to "war winners report".

I mean, if i win a war, i won't say "i killed war prisoners", instead i'll say "they killed war prisoners", not "we won with the luck of having discovered their secret comms code" but "we won because of our superior technology" and so on.. WWII is NOT the one we see on the tv (or we read in history books, maybe..). I try to take every info in account when speaking of history, just think of how a single man can "diverse" an happening with a personal point of view, and you'll see how WWII might have 'changed' with good post-war propaganda..

Just don't eat the "radar-concentration of force" pill and sit on their words...

Depends on which litterature you read. I try to read as much as possible about WW2(done so for 15 years) from diffrent views and this is my conclusion: The Battle of Britain was primary decided by use of radar, and a bad handling of the luftwaffe.

I agree that ww2 history in some parts still today is blurred in what really happened. However I find the Battle of britain to be well studied and analyzed. If you look beside english propaganda which was needed due to one year of set backs you will find that my statement above very much sums it up.

Please show me something that can verify your theory.

regards

/ Andreas

[Brian Rock]

Another musing on air power I came up with while walking to work: lower the casualties air inflicts and receives.

For example, suppose casualties were 50% of what they are now. Instead of your interceptors getting blasted from a 10 point to a 2 point they drop to 6 points. Conversely the enemy attack that cam through and hit your corps for 6 points of damage only does 3 points of damage.

Dunno if this is better, but figured people who know the game better than me would have some interesting comments.