Jump to content

Air Fleets: comments by the Legend


Recommended Posts

Comments by the Legend regarding AFs:

1) One of the ways to slow down the German Air power & make the game more realistic is to create new "docking" rules for Air Fleets. Currently, AF (Air Fleets) can operand all over the planet for 40 MMPs (starting operand values). It doesn't make sense to me. Where is the fuel & engineering support? How good are those captured air fields? Ground units can capture a city, & immediately the city is usuable for air, doesn't make sense. Even in the pretzel & beer game "Axis & Allies", you can't land air on newly taken land.

2) Double the Operand prices. Instead of costing 40, charge 80. Everytime the UK trys something (invade Norway, attack Brest, something in Egypt, whatever), the next turn you'll have the entire Luftwaffen on your ass in the "HotSpot". With a charge of 80, it will have an economic impact for fuel & engineering. It will require Germany to think a little bit before moving their Air Fleets like God moves his angels.

3) Restrict the physical placement of AF. It's crazy to have AF in rivers, mountains, & out in the middle of nowhere. How can an AF move into a river & immediately fight like "world-beaters"? How can an AF fight out of the mountains? There's no roads, no landing strips, no Burger Kings, nothing. The hex West of Copehagen is a laugher...ground units, ships, & air can call this hex theirs. Luftwaffen Air are operanded there too & can reach Oslo immediately? Dumb.

4) Give AF absolutely no ground defense. Ground units should be able to walk right thru & destory AFs. These AF right behind the front lines should be scared out in the open if they are considered "on the ground."

5) Option to turn off the intercepts. Malta is a joke.

6) Experience for beating up Ports, Mines, & waxing lame-o corps does not signify experience. Remember...the Germans were OVERATED. In football terms, it's called "strength of schedule". In boxing, you're fighting bums. In love, you're dating fat ugly chicks, not getting the babes. It's horse-do-do that the Luftwaffen gets 3-star world-beater experience trashing unarmed farmers, then, they can outfight the RAF & America aces? The Luftwaffen goes thru the RAF like butter. Just because you attacked some weak ground unit, doesn't give your pilots dogfighting experience against the Americans. Ever heard of "Top Gun", are dudes deserve some experience. Where is Ben Afflick?

7) Give the defender the ability to buy some Anti-Aircraft guns. For the Love of God & all things Holy, let me buy some AA-units. Ports are deadmeat. Empty cities are toast. Corps are canon fodder. Putting 750 MMPs into AA-technology as the Allies is a pipe dream & actually get some advances that will help. Even in "Axis & Allies" there were extra AA-guns to buy. Any time combat missions are flying over the airspace, you get some popshots.

8) LongRange is out of control, enough said. Gee, subs really have a chance. Doesn't matter, because against a good player, you won't buy subs anyhow.

9) Spotting needs changed. One AF can spot an entire country...troops movements, ship movement, everything. Then, after spotting ever unit, the Luftwaffen can attack, intercept, operand, do whatever they want. The Allied fleet can't even sneeze, let alone sniff near a coast.

10) Supply for AirFleets should be like Naval units. British Royal Navy & the United States Navy is screwed in the MedFront. The ports of strength of 5 makes that whole front a joke. But the Germans can put an HQ in Torbruk & suddenly those Luftwaffen are receiving the "River of Life" for supply.

I'm sure you guys can add some clearer comments. Maybe one of you game hackers can make some adjustments to spotting range, operand costs, & other things.

Legend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OUT

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Air fleets HAVE ground defence = 0 already.


Experience can be killed with interceptions. It does not matter if I have 3 stars, after 2-3 battles I have to reinforce and my experience goes down. You gotta look at it this way, you are PAYING extra hits in order to bring down the enemy experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe one of you game hackers can make some adjustments to spotting range, operand costs, & other things.
Let's not go there. Don't even suggest such things.

As for the other ideas, yes we need many things adjusted in SC2. If we could change just one thing about air units or anything else, only one, we would still not be better off in the long run.

There are many interrelated issues that all need some minor adjustments and tweaking to make the game play better. Right now the economic balance doesn't feel right, the air war (and particularly the strategic bombing campaigns) doesn't feel right, the U-boat war doesn't feel right, and a host of other minor irritations contribute to gamey and ahistorical gameplay. Yet despite it all the problems are not so terrible. A few bids, scenario mods, and a house rule or two can often compensate for many of these weaknesses.

It's crazy to have AF in rivers, mountains, & out in the middle of nowhere.
Considering the size of hexes in SC and the fact that small towns and airfields can exist in any of them, this isn't all that crazy.

LongRange is out of control ... Spotting needs changed
Yep, reducing these could help. And with normal spotting reduced, giving the AI some spotting advantages could also help. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a followup to my post in the other thread, I

have devised a quick and dirty method to help

rein in the tendency to buy air units like crazy.

Oil as a separate resource is the key. Each unit

needs a certain amount of oil per turn when

involved in combat operations:

Non Mech ground unit...2


Naval Unit.............4



Any unit at rest/port..1/3 of above rounded up

[Argh why does the font change from the edit

window to the post window?]

So say in January 1940 Germany has an Oil income

of 60 [with a reserve of 100]. They currently

consume, if most units are involved in combat,

54 points of Oil per turn.

The German player decides to buy 3 new Air Units

in February, in preparation for the Western War.

Those units now cost a whopping 18 Oil per turn

during combat ops, which is unsustainable during

a prolonged period of combat with France. The

German would find himself running out of oil, and/

or forced to park or disband other units, unless

he can find new sources of income [iIRC the Ploesti

fields were tweaked as the war went on to pump out

increased amounts of Oil, so you could simulate

that somehow].

[Plus I would make it take 5 turns for those air

units to show up, and not instantaneously like now]

No muss, no fuss, possibly with some Unintended

Consequences [which playtesting should reveal],

but is much more satisfying than hard force pool


John DiFool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but is much more satisfying than hard force pool


I agree, making oil a required resource for combat operations is must better than hard force pool limits.

As for increasing the production of oil wells - just add a tech called Oil Production. Not only will it increase Oil production but it will also draw resources from other research areas.

The one issue I have with this idea is how does it affect the UK (or even France with its large army) which has a large navy and a sizable air force but no oil resources? Perhaps limiting the use of oil to armor and air units(excluding bombers?) would resolve this issue and say that each major country generates a base amount of oil resources


Each Armor/HQ/Air Fleet requires 1 Oil Resource Point to move and fight at full strength. Any of the specified units lacking oil resource has its movement, combat effectiveness, combat range (for air units), spotting range and interception range reduced by 50% and the cost to operate that unit is doubled. HQ not supplied with Oil can not command any units. Oil resource points are allocated by left clicking on all units to be supplied at the start of the turn.

The Unconquered Capitals of US, Russia, Germany, Italy, UK, and France produces 5 Oil Resource Points Per Turn. Each Oil hex supplies 3 Oil Resource Points per turn. Thus the UK can support 5 oil intensive units. Germany can also support 5 oil intensive units. When Germany takes Romania it can support 11 Units - say 6 air, 3 HQ and 2 armor. If it takes Iraq with its two oil wells this increases to 17 Oil Intensive Units.

Each level of Oil Tech increases the support capability of Oil Resource Hexes by 1. With Oil Tech 1 Germany could support 13 Units by controlling Romania with its two oil wells (5 + 2x4). With Oil Tech 2 Germany could support 15 oil intensive units. Thus Axis investment in this area becomes critical, especially if it does not seize Iraq.

Note: I choose not to have Infantry units, Rockets, bombers, or naval units consume Oil Resource Points. First, I assume that HQ units supply gasoline to the Infantry units they command. Bombers use less fuel than Fighter Fleets and a battleship/submarine fleet uses much less fuel than an Armored Division or Air Fleet. It also makes Bomber and Rocket units a more likely production choice as they do not consume oil resource points.

Note: Perhaps Countries should be allowed to stockpile unused Oil units and Germany should start the 1939 Scenario with a stockpile of 20 Oil Resource Points with which to supply its combat units. Perhaps Germany should even be allowed to purchase Oil Resources from a Neutal or Friendly Turkey for say 25MPP per Oil Resource Point to a Maximum of 3.

[ January 01, 2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rambo has brought up some good points to discuss.

#1 & #2 basically are issues with operating. He makes a very valid point, that rail movement (ie operating) is not a function of how much MPP you have, rather its a function of your overall rail capacity. The solution isn't to increase the MPP cost, the solution is to limit the number of operating moves per turn per nation.

#3 is the ability to have a airfield in any hex. As Bill Macon pointed out, with a 50 mile hex, finding somewhere in that hex for a airfield isn't a big problem. Granted, putting a airfield in a Mtn hex doesn't seem to make sense, but the negative to it, the difficulty in getting supplies to it, has already been addressed by the reduction in supply. The problem really is covered in #1 and #2, which is the ability to have that airfield up and runnning in a week or so. In other words, operating across water should not be allowed. You should have to transport Air units, not because the aircraft couldn't fly there, but to represent the support crews who don't have the ability to fly there. There was no Fed Express in WWII.

#4, Air unit ground defense. Excellent point. It also applies to Naval and Rocket units. If you understand the way the combat system works, you'll realize that a soft defense value of zero (0) for Air/Naval/Rockets, is still too high. The solution for this, is either give them negative values, or give the attacker an additional random bonus of +3. This will then give the desired effect, of a reasonable strengh unit having the ability to overrun a Air/Naval/Rocket unit defender, but an extremely weak (ie str 1 or 2) attacker could lose.

#5, "turning off" interception, is more involved than simply turning it off. This deserves a topic of its own.

#6, basically states that gaining experience in Air-to-Ground attacks is not the same as Air-to-Air experience. Thats a true statement. But so is gaining experience in Air-to-Sea attacks is not the same as Air-to-Air experience. Until our generic Air units break down into specific units that specialize in those attacks, this is something that should be left alone.

#7 ground units not having the ability to increase thier anti-air defense. Here is the essence of our dilema with Air units. There is no counter to them. If we increase the air defense of the ground units (HQ/Army/Corp) by one (1) for each tech increase in Anti-Air Radar, you'll have the same problem we currently have with Anti-Tank. This is a true design problem, that requires a change in the system, not a fix.

#8, Long Range out of control. Its been awhile, so if I get a chance, I'll repost the combat ranges of the aircraft we are talking about. I've even got WWII documents that support my earlier argument about this. But what it comes down to, is that there is nothing wrong with aircraft ranges and Long Range tech. The problem is our North Atlantic. Its a fraction of the real size of the North Atlantic.

#9, spotting needs to be changed. This issue deserves a topic all by itself, since we are now getting into the realm of Operational and Strategical Reconnaisance, the reason Air Forces exist.

#10, supply for Air units. The last thing we need to do, is mess with the supply system. Its one of those things in SC, that is almost perfect. The problem with Allied Air units in the Med, isn't that there needs to be a different supply system, rather the Allies need a HQ in the Med. Thats a different problem.

Ditto to Bill Macon's response about game hackers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John DiFool & Edwin P

Oil as a separate resource is the key. Each unit needs a certain amount of oil per turn ...
Thats it in a nutshell.

And as long as it clear we are talking about SC2 here, then it becomes much easier to design a change.

John DiFool's list of units work fine. The values themselves and the consumption rate is not important at the moment. To that list I would add Motorized units (we are talking SC2 remember). That gives us... Horse, Motorized, Mech, Armor, Sub, Naval, Air/Bomber .

Lets state the obvious so we are clear. The Oil Wells on the current map are the hexes that produce oil.

You don't need to be able to increase production capacity for oil. If SC2 wants to handle increased production, it needs to be for all economic units. But, what has to be addressed, is the synthetic oil production ability that Germany (and Japan btw) had. Synthetic Oil Production as a tech works fine.

The one issue I have with this idea is how does it affect the UK (or even France with its large army) which has a large navy and a sizable air force but no oil resources?
They both solved the problem by importing oil. Same thing that Germany did (mainly from Russia before Barborossa). Understanding this is the key to realizing why the Allies/Axis had limits on the force mix they had and made the strategic strategy choices they did.

So the conclusion that was reached, about having each nation generate a certain amount of oil resources isn't correct.

And there you have it. The design for including oil in SC2. While the mechanics were different, the design is identical to what I worked out many months ago. Hence, I can offer some comments about what happens when you play a game using Oil in SC.


  • The Oil Wells need to have variable oil production rates.</font>
  • Its hard finding historical evidence for this, but it appears that there should be a few more Axis Oil Wells than there are on the map.</font>
  • HQ units, regardless of nation, should consume oil at the rate of a Motorized Corp.</font>
  • Oil for Naval units need to be supplied to a Port. The supply system already handles what happens to Naval units too far from a port. In other words, if a Port has 20 Oil and a sub needs 5 Oil, once that sub is resupplied from the Port, the Port now only has 15 oil.</font>
  • The Oil supply range of a Port, should be a item that could be increased thru spending economic units. This is not the same as a R&D Tech. This range should also be proportinally reduced based on Port damage. However, unless the North Atlantic is a true 50 mile hex ocean, don't bother with this.</font>
  • The Axis needs the ability to stockpile Oil before the war begans, otherwise they're crippled.</font>
  • The UK needs stockpiled Oil, as merchant losses will strangle them otherwise. But once the US enters, it doesn't matter anymore.</font>
  • There needs to be a Motorized unit, to reflect the different consumption rates (versus a Horse unit). Since the computer is keeping track of the details, its no big deal.</font>
  • There has to be some sort of trade system, to show the imported oil coming from Neutrals. Otherwise, Axis is crippled.</font>

Thats what was determined after two or three games (against other people). If anyone is interested in playing a game with Oil, I'd be happy to send you the spreadsheets I've used and outline the procedural steps you have to follow. I'd even be willing to play a game or two myself, thru PBEM using Oil. Beware though, you need to trust your opponent and you have to track stuff during each turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

German Oil Production in WWII

German Oil Production 1940

German Oil Production Statistics 1940

Country: Barrels per day (approx.)

Germany 750,000

Austria 850,000

Poland and Czechoslovakia 550,000

Romania 2,500,000

Hungary 900,000

Synthetic oil 4,250,000

Others 1,000,000

Total number of barrels per day 10,800,000

[ January 01, 2004, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh... the infamous US Strategic Bombing survey.

At least I now know I'm not the only who reads this stuff.

I'd also suggest

Oil & War: How the Deadly Struggle for Fuel in WWII Meant Victory or Defeat by Robert Goralski and Russell W. Freeburg (1987).

War, Economy, and Society by Alan Milward

Resource Mobilization for WW2: the USA, UK, USSR and Germany 1938-1945 Economic History Review, vol 41, 1988.

You'll find that every strategical wargame created in the last 20 years or so, is based on these works (or the source material for these works). If I threw in one or two more books, you would have the source of every Internet webpage statistic that directly or indirectly deals with wargame production. About the only new stuff that is coming out, is from behind the former Iron Curtain. But thats still acadamic territoriy, since quoting those sources gets into what real and whats disinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats not so easy to answer, but here goes.

Add Oil Hexes to Germany, Austria, Hungary, Poland, etc.

I'll show you how I did my calculations to arrive at my numbers and my conclusions.

The daily production rate that you've listed is one way to establish the ratios of oil production. Once you establish the ratios, you can take a SC map and put values on the oil wells, with ?? marks next to the values in nations that don't have oil wells.

Now comes the fun part. Exactly how much oil was used for economic production? Thats why I say the capitals don't need to produce oil, since if they did, it went towards industrial production as well as military fuel. If we fiddle with the numbers on our map, we should be able to eventually reduce the oil production areas that have no oil wells to zero, leaving us with production ratios of the left over oil wells.

If we now take the '39 and '40 historical OOB's and put them into our generic units (Corps, Armies, HQ, Armor, etc) we have some sort of idea what our consumption rate is. In other words, whatever the consumption rates values are, you have to make sure that the historical units have enough Oil to allow them to function. This usually requires fiddling with the Oil production rate as well as the consumption rate, without corrupting the ratios.

Don't forget that Russia traded Oil to Germany, as well as Germany getting Oil from South America.

Then you can move to Italy, once you have done the above for Germany. Its a little easier here, since we know Italy didn't have enough fuel for her Navy. But they did have enough fuel for the limited Armor, Air and HQ units (since the Corp/Army units are Horse units, hence no fuel consumption). Once you solve how they get the fuel (since all of it wasn't begged from Germany), you should have a working model of your oil wells and what they produce.

Do it all over again for '42 OOB to make sure your production and consumption ratios are correct.

Then I would cross check all of the various references accumulated over the years. This is a ongoing process as you read more and more material (which is also where you find out most authors are quoting other authors who got it from a few original sources, if they didn't make it up).

Resolve those differences and the end result is oil production values and unit consumption rates that are historically accurate.

In some form or another, this is exactly the process that the original developers used to find the oil numbers of thier game (ie High Command and Clash of Steel). Same with the guys who developed rules for Oil consumption as an add-on (ie like World in Flames or World at War).

But as a software designer, you should see how with so many different steps, that depending on the viewpoint of any of those different concepts (not to mention the values used), different people will arrive at a different end result.

If you're still with me here, want to help me on a new project? Manpower. The above is a piece of cake compared to this. But I found once I solved the Oil issue, that was only one side of it. The other was Manpower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Currently anti-air defense tech only affects cities/resources, as well as units on these resources. As I've suggested in the past, have every hex that surrounds that city/resource also be affected.

2) I love the idea of a limited number of operands per turn.

3) I'd also start all air units with one less hex of range to start the game, leaving everything else as is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spotting - currently air units have a 100% to spot all units within range.

I would like to see air units have a % to spot units based on range to more accurately recreate the fog of war. Say 33% at the longest range, 66% at one hex closer and 100% at the next closest hex.(area of a circle = Pi R Squared)

Example: If spotting range is 6 then

100% to spot at range of 1 to 4 hexes

66% to spot at range of 5 hexes

33% to spot at range of 6 hexes

Question: At this scale should Terrain affect the Spotting Chance? Example: the chance to spot units in Mountain or Forest Hexes is reduced by X% (example:10%).

Question: Should Air Units have a lower chance of spotting subs - assuming that submarines were harder to spot than surface ships. Perhaps having Sub Tech futher reduce the chance for spotting submarines as they would be more likely run submerged.

Question: Should the spotting chance be reduced further for each enemy air fleet within interception range.

[ January 02, 2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Airfleets did operate out of some rough areas, remeber that you can basically make any terrain suitable for airfields, look at the Itty bitty Pacific Islands turned into strato-fortress centers ;) Engineering was required and some time, so at least a turn would be nice I think in the future. It's a house rule anyone could easily implement though! Certian undercarriages were designed for worse terrain, some couldn't handle rougher landing strips and others could. Much like WW1 fighers the biplanes were made with fixed Wheels that basically made anything an airstrip<really true airstrips didn't even exist then> Supplies are a definite point however! Though if you have an organized airforce you can ship them in. perhaps tying in HQs and Airfleets more increasing the cost would be benificial? That being the basic supply system. What would be neat in a future SC, is making HQs into actual Supply LandBoats, that are linked with a Port and have to have a mainland connection and have the ability to be supplied like the are now though also interdicted by enemy Raiders surface/Sub/aerial

It's true though, if any land comes in contact with air the damage should be inhuman. Land units with simple rifles and grenades can utterly destroy any number air fleets. The fact is in this game Hubert went with the strategic idea that other units surrounding the airfleet<tank and inf units would protect the airfleet> but the problem lys when all possible protecting armies/armor are 3 or 4 hexes away there is no way they could possibly do jack to protect their air force. Airfleets should take much more damage, I say a Max airfleet knocked down to 1, and any other size utterly destroyed! That way forcing players to do what they had to do historically protect airfields, that vital aspect of the battlefield. an Airfleet operating into noman's land would have little or no protecting forces and would be a cinch to ambush.

We really need to evolve the role of Aerial Warfare. I think the basic game design is pretty set. Although the air warfare needs some help to make it more realistic and fun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent points Liam.

In line with making Aerial warfare more fun I would like to see players have the option to give airfleets orders such as;

1> Do not intercept.

2> Deny enemy air recon - Airfleet reduces chance of enemy air units spotting land units within 1 hex of the airfleet to 10% per unit. This reduces the combat effectiveness of the air fleet during interceptions by 20%.

3> Do not intercept 1st attack. This allows the interceptors to let the 1st attack thru and then attack the followup attacks by enemy air fleets (which may be weaker units).

[ January 06, 2004, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like the idea of variable sight ranges with pct chance of occurrances.

Imagine a unit is 5 spots away. You see it the first turn. Next turn its gone. Did it move, or is your intel not as good this turn. Hmmm.....

Makes your decision just a little more difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ideas are wonderful folks!

The many options you gain and lose with air. Not just a 'set role' Recon sometimes fails, if you considered you had 100% recon everywhere over all your territory then you shouldn't need airfleets period. That may also be a whole nuther possability. If you have a certain LR ability raise recon and intel all over... with or without airfleets as recon detachments are tiny and high flying. Also more tied into Bomber technology that can fly above fighters in the WW2 era...

Perhaps LR Bombers, Heavy Bombers both including larger more durable machinery would have to do with whether or not you can pull intel from the air as we do now automatically with a 1 strength airfleet.

IMO, all this is extremely detailed points and not neccessary to include. Though would be sweet and is one of the many possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Air Power is not a massive weapon from WW2 like some might assume. Let me give you some basics here. You have radar, spotters, recon and detect air comming. Some of the time you may or may not be able to intercept. often the enemy uses many counters against you knowing where he'll put his air.

Also Air is much like Infantry. Infantry's main Goal is to capture Key Points and then control it. Air is similar, it's main goal isn't so much the capture of a point, but to control a point to allow Infantry and other equipment to do their Job. It operates in a particular area and it's role is assigned to it. There are other types of Aircraft from the WW2 era that did many different roles... Infantry often did strategic damage in Commando form, recon in fast Mini Armored vehicles or just the straight up old Scout tongue.gif the death job from the Civil war they often assigned to African Americans

Air though is primarily for support of land, when Goering attempted to use Air to destroy armies completely we know the outcome, it was the 1st real failure of the Third Reich and huge Morale boost for the English. SC is EXTREMELY unrealistic in this case, it should never ever be able to destroy ground units. It should be able to allow for only land units to do this. It should however be able to wreak havoc.

The many options you can assign to air though should be in your hands, agreed. Fighters wouldn't intercept if they weren't asked to, they'd stay home and drink vodka ;) We should have our choice what to do with fighters. Perhaps linking the protection of a particular Land Army, Corps, or tank or even City/Port/Strategic Resource/ship/etc............ So that if they are struck by the enemy only then will they activate rather than now being almost forced to HICCUP!! if anything goes off within their area of Operation. Also, Ships, Air and Land should have different HQs... It's odd to think that some how Manstien, Montgomery or Zhukov are some how Air Warefare genuises.. Even the inept Goering was better Air Marshall than these men. At the very least it shouldn't effect the quality of the air units under their command.

I personally would love including Ack Ack with certian cities. Being able to build stackable Anti-Aircraft Units to put on top of my existing HQs, Land, air units. Then even have AA Technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During WWII air units were able to intercept enemy units due to intelligence that gave them advance notice of incoming air attacks. UK and French Partisan agents in Europe often radioed London when German Fighter Wings took to the air.

I would like to see an Intelligence tech that increased the readiness of intercepting airfleets by 10% per tech level as interceptors units would be more prepared if they knew enemy fleets were incoming.

In the same vein this tech probably should give a bonus to the Air Defense of a city or resource hex being attacked. Perhaps a 10% per Tech level that the Air Defense Level of City increases by 100% as the defenders are on alert and prepared. Thus with Intelligence Tech 2 a city with Air Defense of 1 has a 20% to have an AD of 2 if attacked.

So Intelligence Tech provides 3 benefits:

1. 10% Per Tech Level to increase the Air Defense rating of a City or Resource Hex by 100% if attacked.

2. +10% Readiness bonus to intercepting airfleets

3. 2% per tech level per enemy unit to spot that unit (ie Tech Level 2 = each enemy unit has a 4% to be spotted for 1 turn - ie 1 of 20 units is spotted each turn due to intelligence - limited to units within x hexes of the country's capital city - so Russian intelligence Tech would not be effective against units in the Atlantic)

I agree that players should be able to build at least 1 level of Air Defense in each city or resource hex. This should stack with the defense bonus that one gets from Anti Air Tech. Thus the Maximum Anti-Air rating for a city or resource hex would be 5 (tec) + 1(purchased) = 6.

Perhaps the best way to do this would be to disband a corps in the hex. Thus the building of any Anti Air defense would take at least 2 turns and cost 125MPP - 1 turn to move corps onto hex and following turn for corps to be disbanded. I would also allow the corps to increase the maximum entrenchment level of a hex by 1.

Thus players could disband a corps for 1) MPP, 2) Increased Air Defense or 3) Increased Entrenchment.

[ January 07, 2004, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edwin, fine ideas!

my opinion about Intel from Resistance is a bit different. As much information was gathered by Radar as by resistance cells in France and in other places.

Radar technology that is already applied to Ships should also be applied to this intelligence. German Night fighters were eventually fitted with radar to help detect RAF Night Bombers.

Your idea towards Anti-Aircraft technology and the possability of adding a bonus for a city is good and realistic. the Germans had some awesome anti-aircraft guns. Was it a Million pointed in the skies over Germany? That's not represented in the game. I takes 2 men to crew any gun, sometimes more... Sure, you can put women and children in that position but that wasn't towards later in the war when Manpower was a drain...

Strategic bombing is a big issue. Fighters should be downgraded, and bombers upgraded. People tend to forget even just 1 small raid, like the Dambusters took out what 3 major German Dams and did untold amounts of damage. How many tanks didn't make it to Russia from that damage? I'll assume hundreds...

Given the power of rockets and subs I'd say if nothing else we should re-consider the power of the bomber. if nothing else, we should give the ability if you develop beyond WW2 tech as you do with Jet Fighters to increase the value of Bombers in the later stages as a possible strategy. in major Consideration an A-Bomb. leveling any target it hits to 0, resource/port/city hexes

and have significant damage to ships as well but not as great towards ground forces which can disperse much more hastily than Ships also the civilian factor. Doubt an A-bomb would've ever been used on anything but Germany or Japan itself

[ January 08, 2004, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also make the following change.

Jets can damage a ground unit down to strength 1, but can't destroy a ground unit.

Then you would have to use ground units, ships, or bombers to make that last hit to destroy the ground unit.

Attacks by jets on other jets or on ships would remain as is.

[ January 09, 2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminds me of an old post on the A-Bomb Tech that stirred up a lot of debate;

A Bomb Tech -

The A Bomb is available only when you reach A Bomb Tech Level 5 and control a heavy water hex(a single resource hex in Norway, the US, and Russia).

At Tech level 5 user can build Special Bomber Unit (for about 700MPP) that carries the A-Bomb to the Target (if you control a heavy water resource hex). This unit is destroyed after use. A successful dropping of an A-bomb permanently destroys any city, resource hex or port and any units or fortifications in that hex. If successfully dropped on a major country city the target nation will surrender 25% of the time.

An intercepting jet or anti-air defenses has a chance to destroy the A-Bomb unit equal to a % of the damage the unit receives. Thus if the bomber unit has a strength of 10 and it suffers 2 points of damage from interception then their is a 20% that the unit will be destroyed before it can drop its bomb(simulates destruction of the aircraft carrying the A-Bomb).

Thus one can build the A-Bomb, however, such a path is risky and expensive.

Note: The A-bomb only affects one hex. As each hex is 50 miles accross and the actual A-Bomb used during WWII had a blast radius of somewhat less than 1 mile.

PS: I would like to see such a tech added to SC2 even though it would be rarely used and the research towards it rarely successful ( as it requires Tech Level 5)

Note: It was also suggested that the Allies could only use the A-bomb againt a German City.

Note: Germany should also be able to ship Heavy Water to Japan. This would require German A-Bomb Tech Level 3 and a German Sub going from Oslo to the exit hex in the South Atlantic or an Axis controlled Suez canal. The benefit would be ?

[ January 08, 2004, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...