LongRangeAirfleets: why they are needed and basic tactics against loosing Hqs to them

[Terif]

There are a lot of discussions now about LongRange (LR) airfleets and that they are too powerful and we should make house rules against them. I do NOT agree with this.

First I have to say: important for me is SC as a game that makes fun, is playable and balanced. That means both sides (Allies and Axis) have nearly the same chance to win if the players are equal. Changing things out of historical reasons or cause of more realism is another discussion.

Why is LR needed ?

- Now SC is nearly perfectly balanced, no side has a real advantage. They only have to use different strategys because of the different starting position. LR belongs to the game and if you forbid to use them this creates an imbalance.

- without LR its very difficult for Allies to win, against an experienced player nearly impossible. The most important thing in SC is reconnaissance and Allies need LR for this. Axis dont need it, they rule the continent and can use some cheap units like corps for recon purposes, they dont mind loosing them.

In the consequence: Allies cant see where they can attack the carriers are weak and it is easy for Axis to set a trap and kill the Allied air and other units. No chance for a second front when Russia comes in ( If Axis player knows what he does ). Forbidding Industrial tech for Axis doesnt change this problem.

Why is LR no real problem for Hqs ?

Strategys against killing Hqs by LR fighters:

- In general: its the problem of the player if he places the Hq in range of an airfleet, then he neednt to complain if it is attacked, thats the game .

- Hqs have a range of 5 hexes. If a player notices that its Hqs are under attack he can move them back. Thats also the purpose of such an attack: forcing an Hq to move back. The enemy needs at least LR Lv2-3 to reach them there.

- In case of higher LR levels of the enemy and if he tries to kill the Hqs a counterstrategy should be used:

The player should know if he is in the offensive or defensive, if he doesnt know, he has a problem.

In the defence he doesnt need a Hq and can move them away. Cheap corps should be used in the frontline and Hqs barely decrease the defenders losses. They only could increase the attacker losses, but that doesnt really matter, against corps the attacker doesnt loose much anyway.

Behind the frontline some counter-forces (armies and tanks) can be ready and they should be Hq supported as well as airfleets if some are there. because they can move to the front if they are needed to attack, the Hq can stand 8-10 hexes behind the frontline and even with LR Lv5 the enemy cant reach them.

In the offence the player should have airfleets to protect his Hqs and to make advances. If he doesnt have enough airfleets to battle for airsuperiority, he cant make a longer and successful offensive.

In the end I can say:

In none of my over 100 games I had problems with LR or airfleets killing HQs. If the enemy kills the Hqs, the player made a fault and has done something wrong. It can be that the enemy sets a trap and can kill one Hq with a surprise strike, then the player knows about the higher LR and can react. But normally he should test the LR of the enemy from time to time with an airfleet if he is not sure which LV the enemy has.

Some people or complaining about too much and powerful airfleets.

I cant remember a game where a player had significantly more than 10 airfleets at the same time. Especially as Axis you need a balanced mix of units: ground units and air units. Only with air the russian war can not be won, the same with only ground units - airfleets are necessary to finish off units, cause 2 ground units alone cant kill a defender. Normally Axis have not enough mpp to afford too many airfleets. Allies have to attack and reduce the available mpp for Axis, if they dont do and Axis have more than 10 airfleets Allies did something wrong (other possibility: Allies also builded up and have more airfleets than usual).

Additionally: killing Hqs with LR is a separate strategy. It needs mpp for research, the airfleets cant attack more important targets and it can be easily countered. The main purpose for airfleets is recon and kill front units for breakthroughs. Attacking Hqs is normally a waste and is only done if there is no better target for the airfleet.

And about the powerful airfleets: they attack land units with an attack value of 2. Armys and tanks attack with 4 and are cheaper to reinforce. Problem can be the experience for airfleets, cause they can attack more often. As long as there are no airfights this is true, they get faster experience than ground units. But with the first airfight they will loose all experience besides one medal. At least with jets an airfleet usually looses half of its strength points and after reinforcing the experience is gone.

SUMMARY:

Airfleets are only powerful if the other player has no airfleets to intercept them. But that means he doesnt have enough mpp to afford them, and he would have lost anyway, even with weaker airfleets. Killing Hqs through LongRange can be easily avoided by moving them away or using counterstrategys. The one described above is only one possibility, but there exists others too .

Thats the way of SC: if there comes up a strategy, develope and/or learn a counterstrategy and dont complain and demand for changes of the rules . This can take some time, like against the dutch gambit, but until now there always existed a counter to every strategy. The only problem is, to know which strategy the opponent is using and to find out how to counter it

[SeaWolf_48]

Terif

Far be it that any of us should question The Great One (and I mean that you are the best). WW2 was a Air Supremacy war. SC does need to limit the number of units that a nation can build however. Italy becomes a super-power too easily, Germany can build too many Air Units, 12 or more is outrageous (I like that word even if it does not fit here).

Tank units are to weak in the game, Germany had 25% Panzer or Panzer Grenedier divisions in 1944, but that doesn't work in SC because tank units have no punch or defense value, so why buy them, it's easier too build Jets and kill Russians.

[ April 29, 2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[Liam]

I have found that Bullying Air killing HQs has given me a game or two. I played a game against CvM I got 6-7 German Jets on the Russian Front and every turn I killed an HQ. <it was almost 1944 and I had only taken 1 or 2 Russian cities but he didn't have the air so I had the game> It was indeed his fault for leaving them in my range but it really does make it a pain in the butt in certian terran Terif! France is much too small than historical France. Only the US ever produced truely longe range aircraft that I know that was for escort and ground attack. You know these longe range fighters from WW2 weren't Jets, the evolution of droptanks for them probably wouldn't be around for quite some time. Thus making Jets shorter range!

Therefore Jets-Improved Prop<ground destruction aircraft> Should be altered to 'historical accuracy', in that Jets in this game are not at all from 1940s or even the 1950s, maybe the Gulf War<sorry but I play WW2 game I want to feel like I'm there not in the 90s>...also since the range of fighters are what? Not nearly as good as the starting range in the game. Perhaps lowering the beginning levels would be better, forcing players to invest more into it. Giving the US the edge<not the UK> and making the accuracy even. When the War started, various nations were already pioneering in certian fields and it's not not accurate how it reflects on technical research. Whether it effects gameplay or not. It's a bit disheartening to see even MPP earning and Russians Migs in 1943 when the possability of this was probably 1-a trillion in real life

Just cut down the ability of the air some. Make them more expensive and give the Allies more Pros with Air. Better Recon with all the real craft that did Recond<longe distance regutted bombers>

Also Carriers??? In the N.Sea are like Midway

It doesn't fit... It's so weird you've no idea

[Shaka of Carthage]

It seems some of us have already forgotten what he intially said.

That means both sides (Allies and Axis) have nearly the same chance to win if the players are equal. Changing things out of historical reasons or cause of more realism is another discussion.

Terif is correct. The game is balanced. Key word being the GAME.

But the "feel" of the interaction between the various WWII units seems wrong to me. The Armor is broke, because it is not strong enough. And the Air is broke, because it is too strong.

[Terif]

Liam:

You are right about certain areas where you cant protect your hqs from beeing killed. But this only occurs in some special and rare situations - usually the game is already decided when this happens, so it doesnt matter. Besides this: every unit has its advantages and areas where they can be used best. In some areas armies are very good, in some airfleets, sometimes battleships can be a real threat for ground units.

In France Germany dont have enough airfleets to kill a Hq at the beginning and its also more important to kill units, if the enemy attacks my french Hq I am happy, cause I dont need to reinforce it for the short battle in France and this saves mpp - the airfleet could have also attacked an army which I had to reinforce immediately. In Russia I also kill Hqs when they are in the Ural and Caucasus and cant hide any more. But thats how it should be. Only few turns before a country is surrendering everything is attacked and destroyed.

You were also comparing SC to real life and that jets in the 1940s were impossible and not historical, so they should be changed...

Sorry, but this is another discussion. SC is simplified and abstracts. It doesnt mirror the reality exactly. To make it more historical should be discussed for SC2, if it should be or not.

SeaWolf:

Which of the nations grows and becomes a superpower depends on the player. This is the choice SC gives you. If someone has 12 or more airfleets he decided to invest more in airfleets and less in other things. But this can be a bad decision, depending on what the opponent does. In ground war, one army is as strong as 2 airfleets. Too much airfleets dont make sense, only if you have too much mpp and dont know where to spend them. But If someone has such an advantage that he can afford many more things than the other he will probably win anyway. Doesnt matter if he buys airfleets or armies for his mpp. In a normal game everyone is short in mpp and has to think about where to invest them best. And airfleets are not the best, you need a certain number, but too much is not good as well as not having enough.

About tanks: perhaps they are in a disadvantage against armies. At least in the long run when antitank is researched they are. But their main purpose is not to attack units, but to march through breakthroughs, encircling the enemy and cutting them off from supply and Hq support. Sure, they could be changed to serve also other, more "historic" purposes, but for this there had to be changed a lot more, cause it changes the game balance.

Shaka:

You got the idea reality and the game is something different

Tanks and airfleets are strong in some situations and if they are used for certain purposes. But all in all I think the game is balanced and no unit type has such an advantage that you can only build this one to win. There is also no unit which will never be built. (ok, rockets are only used during trench warfare, but that makes it even more interesting if you only need them for special situations. Its like a special force ).

[ April 29, 2003, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[KDG]

Some additional HQ hints. I'm in a game where my opponent has level 5 tech in jets and longrange. After losing 3 HQ's, I realized they could be effective in some spots.

Pop your HQ in a mountain. It still can command out with a range of 5, and if entrenched at level 1, only takes .5 points damage from a jet with level 2 experience. The same works at level 2 entrechment in forests and cities.

This leads me to three thoughts on modifications, though.

First, HQ's should have air defense of 1, the same as Corps.

Second, maybe instead of slightly nerfing jets, we just increase the AD of all units by one. Thus HQ's have a 1, Corps have a 2, etc. This still allows jets to attack and help eliminate units, but they will take back some additional damage, thus reducing their experience gain.

Third, how about a tech for HQ's? It could increase their supply range, or increase the number of units they govern, etc.

[Terif]

KDG:

I agree with you. Hqs can also be moved into mountains, forests or cities. If they have some entrenchment they barely take damage from airattacks. Especially mountains are a very good place for a Hq. There its very hard to destroy them ( OK, with 10 airfleets or so, they are dead...). To increase the airdefence for Hqs could be a good idea, but its not a must.

[ April 29, 2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[Liam]

Given you have found a balance to the game with the current formula, though doesn't mean tweaking it a little the other way wouldn't make it just as great a game? Hey, where is the anti-aircraft guns for these poor HQs???

Fighters are not meant to destroy ground units. A spitfire/ME109/P-any model that flew low enough to divebomb if it could divebomb would be very vulnerable to antiaircraft...and at least take damage for smooshing HQs like country squash...That's left to carpet bombing Bombers. If we put bombers back in the game and made them the the better unit killers it would balance things cause they're expensive and require fighters as escorts...maybe cheapen them a bit to reinforce!

[Liam]

It's not that I'm a historical nut or anything but it's just like Axis & Allies. SC shouldn't remotely resemble that game. It becomes trendy to use gamey strategies rather than the hardcore factors. I prefer to feel that old fashioned feeling of making things as close to the real thing as possible. Dunkirk is the first sign of Aircraft's failure to destroy ground units and D-Day is probably the last in WW2. We still had to defeat them on the ground, although the air superiority was a big factor. A greater dice factor to this game and lower damage rate upon land units would make the fighter less the "ringer" weapon that it is and more an added element.

If you want a trench breaker, use what history used, good tanks...mixed with dive-fighter bombers... As Fighters alone never achieved this in history until modern computers, smart bombs, and huge bomb arsenals.

60%? of all military deaths were due to artillery in WW2??? in SC 60% is due to AirPower. In real WW2 Europe???

[Terif]

Liam:

You are right. There are a lot of ideas how to make SC more realistic, historical and more complex. But someone has to program it and we only have one(?) manpower: Hubert. If you change one thing in the current system, you also have to change a lot of other factors too, or it will become unplayable and imbalanced. This is a lot of work. With unlimited time he could program the perfect game...

Only one problem:

e.g. If you dont allow airfleets to kill units you need another longrange unit that can. Or you have to change the map, with the current hex system you need another unit type than ground units to finish a unit. Yuo propose bombers to do so. Then you have the problem that you have to buy both bombers and fighters, but in the game mpps are limited and if you have the same amount of mpps but need to buy twice as much units, you have a problem. And the other player (e.g. Russia) can only concentrate on fighters, so he can stop your offensive with half of your mpps...

only some aspects of the problems that will occur with such a change. I didnt thought in depth, but if you want to change one thing, you (and Hubert, if he has to change it)have to think about the long term affects, how it affects gameplay and so on...

An easy solution can become very complicated

But SC2 will come and perhaps some ideas from the forum are implemented if possible. For SC1 I think its too much effort now to change it. And I dont think its bad as it is now...

[Liam]

The current setup, not awful! I've played Computer wargames since 12 and SC has star quality! The idea purposed I have before, I hope that in a newer version one like it can be implemented and the ideas get thrown around that we've put up here to make the gameplay enhanced.

I am a bit leary about not changing things though. I really think that evolution of strategy is ultra important. Right now everyone has one and mine is flawed after 50 training hours with you I'd be probably 2nd best here that'd rock! More units, more hexes, more possiblities, more realism. Thrown in the Salt, Pepper and spices for me

So long as it has the nice ez flowing move and click interface<hell with the graphics and sound>

[Terif]

Yep, SC is a very good game in my opinion. Lets wait for an even better SC2

[Codename Condor]

i totally agree with terif in his first post, in all my games ive never had problems with HQs i always said that that was the player personal fault for trying to take the most possible advantage of the usage of HQs by setting em in the front line, well, u have to know that if u r in barbarrosa and u have no planes u cant do that, u want to do it... but u cant. In france u can do it, because u know with 4 airfleets axis cant kill it and brit planes do a good counterattack.

What i do disagree is if the enemy manages to kill u 1 important HQ, that is very frustating, and drives to an inminent quit of game. That is the main problem, that surprise attack can win a war, but as terif says u have to try to find out what level the enemy has in LR, if u have disbanded russian planes u cant test it. But u have to know that if the enemy has level 3 in LR in 1941 then its difficult for him to have level 3 in jets, germany needs to divide techs, AT, industry... that would mean axis has wasted many MPPs in LR and few in jets (or less MPPs to buy planes) so u dont have to disband your russian planes and u cant defend your HQ or at list not to get that first surprise.

[Edwin P.]

Terif

Thanks for the great post on LR Aircraft and HQ strategy. It covered all the major points in most excellent detail.

The biggest problem I see is that not all players know how to fight the production war as the allies. Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Iraq, scrapping fleets, Portugal/Spain and reclaiming research are all ways to boost allied MPPs. If you don't know how to fight the production war you will surely lose as the allies fall farther and farther behind German production.

To win as the allies agianst a human player I find that you must concentrate your forces while forcing the Axis to disperse their's (and keep surprising your opponent with the unexpected).

As for starting an invasion of Russia with 14+ air fleets, its something I have never even tried to do, but I guess its possible against the AI (which leads me to my favorite line - improve the AI).

[Iron Ranger]

- without LR its very difficult for Allies to win, against an experienced player nearly impossible

Thats really unfortunate if this is true - that one side can only win if they invest in and recive this one Tech. If so the game is based only on luck when both players are experenced? This could be why so many players seam to dissapear after several games (that and the shear amout of time required, I think this is a good thing but I have a life outside of this game too). All you need to do is invest in LR and Jets and if you recive them before the other player you win - if not he wins. This game should be more complex then that, with so many factors, techs, units, and a good sized map.

[SeaWolf_48]

Very good point IR, you took the words right out of my keyboard!

Maybe we should have the Axis and Allies version (like chessmen), and a Historical version where Infantry and tanks supported by Artillery and Air Support rule the game.

[Terif]

Iron Ranger:

It depends on the strategy: Allies can also fight for France with everything and after France sacrificing everything to kill german units and reduce its mpp. Then they dont have mpp for research and it isnt needed. I used this tactic during my first 20 games or so and it worked. But now against experienced players it wont work, cause they know how to protect their units and mpp base. Perhaps I would have luck and could turn the tide in Russia, but a second front is not possible with this tactic.

Axis dont need LR to win the war and if they have it its a bonus but no guarantee for victory. For them research in LR is quite unimportant.

But Allies need a cheap reconnaissance method to take a look across the border of their Isle. Attacking with airfleets and hoping no enemy airfleet is there or using transports is too expensive for them. LR is the best one, everything else is expensive and Allies lack of mpp. Also LR increases the value of the carriers, especially important with 1.07b, where they arent protected any more by ports. Additionally LR is usefull to kill enemy airfleets that move in range of England to defend airsuperiority. UK needs airsuperiority over France if they want to establish a second front.

Without LR Allies have only a very small choice of possible tactics. They need LR to plan attacks and to develope a bigger, long term strategy. Short term they dont need LR, they only need it at least when Russia comes in the war. So they have 20-30 turns to invest in LR and normally they can spend 3-5 chits. Its no luck to get LR Lv 2-4 by russian war entry. I cant remember to have less in my last 100 games if I invested in LR. Therefore luck doesnt play a role. If you get it earler then your attacks can start earlier, but only small ones cause german airfleets are still superior in number. Usually the real attack can only take place when Russia enters the war and german airfleets are needed in the east.

Tip: if the other player has a higher jet Lv, then dont attack as Allies and move your airfleets out of range as Axis until you have reached equal or higher Lv (wont take long with the catch up system).

[Iron Ranger]

Everyone has stated some very good points in this post, and they are all true. Something that I find funny is if you've read of enough of the other posts you know some of the back stories to each entery and questions/statments that they are answering on the side!

Obsevations (historical and SC)

Military:

In the west the allies won because of overwelling/total control of the air and sea. If it takes long range tech to acomplish this then so be it. I enjoy the game but think some of the numbers should be different.

Economic:

With the unlimited force pools, the side that can build the most wins. So with the four land bridge's and the need to connect each resource to a friendly capital - Spain is the Key. With Spain under axis control the allies will be hard pressed to win. Without it the allies should be able to grind Germany down over time.

Political:

German political plans (DOWs) are what bring together the forces that can defeat her (USA and USSR). So its a race to make the right DOWs at the right time to contol enough MPPs to stop the other side. The allies (UK) have to delay the germans in FRANCE as long as possiable to make condisions were the attack on Russia is weak with out opening herself for operation Sealion.

Turkey:

This country is out the window of every experenced SC player - the MTs and fast activation of the red bear make this country and its supply bridge the leapar newtrul. Too bad this country can't be activated as a minor for each side - during the WW2 it swung both ways and joined the allies in mid 1945. After is was sure the germans were done (but it did help in the balkins) and to get British assistance in keep Russia on its side of the border.

Remember opinions are like asshole's - everyone's got one!

[Terif]

To make it (hopefully) more clear:

You need LR as prerequisite to use the better, high level strategys for UK and only UK (not Russia not USA and not Axis). There still exists a lot more strategys and you also can win with them as Allies, but not against very experienced players. To beat them you need the best and most advanced strategys. But if your opponent doesnt use the best strategy, you also dont need to use the best one to win .

LR is only necessary for the westfront and for UK. The eastfront and Russia is a totally different thing. There LR is unimportant and there you can play like if LR wouldnt exist. Ground units and tactics decide there. A totally different approach and war. Thats also the fun of the game: you dont have to wage the same war and use the same strategy. If you dont like UK air killing your units in France with LR, then look to the east, there is a totally different picture . Each country needs its own strategy. UK needs perhaps LR, but the other 4 major nations do not. There you can choose every possible tactic. Its also a problem of mpps: with more (a lot) mpps, UK wouldnt need LR too.

[ April 29, 2003, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Thanks Terif for your input on the Long-Range. I agree with you. The game is balanced & fun.

Bottom Line: Life's a bitch & excuses are your own when it comes to getting headcracked.

I've lost 16-times to Terif. Wow, my record would be alot better if I never played the Champ. Is anybody going to beat this guy? Terif, you did get lucky on the Ardennes attack last game, that sucked. Don't preach about that, I want another game soon.

Hollywood.

[Brian Rock]

From a game tactics/balance point of view Terif's right. But for those of us who like the aesthetics of trying to game WWII we'd still like to see air power weakened a bit and armor upgraded.

It's one of those "both sides are right" discussions - it just depends on your perspective.

[Terif]

Brian Rock:

I totally agree with you. SC is far away from reality and history, but a good strategical and tactical game.

[ May 01, 2003, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by KDG:

Some additional HQ hints. I'm in a game where my opponent has level 5 tech in jets and longrange. After losing 3 HQ's, I realized they could be effective in some spots.

Pop your HQ in a mountain. It still can command out with a range of 5, and if entrenched at level 1, only takes .5 points damage from a jet with level 2 experience. The same works at level 2 entrechment in forests and cities.

This leads me to three thoughts on modifications, though.

First, HQ's should have air defense of 1, the same as Corps.

Second, maybe instead of slightly nerfing jets, we just increase the AD of all units by one. Thus HQ's have a 1, Corps have a 2, etc. This still allows jets to attack and help eliminate units, but they will take back some additional damage, thus reducing their experience gain.

Third, how about a tech for HQ's? It could increase their supply range, or increase the number of units they govern, etc.

Having air defence=1 for HQ's would be great. Also, it would be great if air units could NOT destroy GROUND units. Think of it, air serves as a combined attack with ground so it would make sence if they attacking order would be ground+air+air+air+ground (killing unit) instead of the ground+ground+air+air+air (killing unit) sequence. Also, it would prevent killing units thousands of miles away from the front.

[ May 01, 2003, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Terif:

Liam:

You are right. There are a lot of ideas how to make SC more realistic, historical and more complex. But someone has to program it and we only have one(?) manpower: Hubert. If you change one thing in the current system, you also have to change a lot of other factors too, or it will become unplayable and imbalanced. This is a lot of work. With unlimited time he could program the perfect game...

Only one problem:

e.g. If you dont allow airfleets to kill units you need another longrange unit that can. Or you have to change the map, with the current hex system you need another unit type than ground units to finish a unit. Yuo propose bombers to do so. Then you have the problem that you have to buy both bombers and fighters, but in the game mpps are limited and if you have the same amount of mpps but need to buy twice as much units, you have a problem. And the other player (e.g. Russia) can only concentrate on fighters, so he can stop your offensive with half of your mpps...

only some aspects of the problems that will occur with such a change. I didnt thought in depth, but if you want to change one thing, you (and Hubert, if he has to change it)have to think about the long term affects, how it affects gameplay and so on...

An easy solution can become very complicated

But SC2 will come and perhaps some ideas from the forum are implemented if possible. For SC1 I think its too much effort now to change it. And I dont think its bad as it is now...

What currently bothers me is, if this game is not perefectly balanced, how do we know SC2 will be?

It would be the same "waiting for new patch" procedure for a game that is never going to be finished. Also, I think you might overexaggerate the consequences a bit. I mean, when the interception bugs were removed it only improved the game so all changes does not necessarily make the game more complex. Instead it could make the game less complex. When the carrier interception flaw still existed, I had to plan every move around the English Channel to prevent falling into any interception range of a carrier. I had to plan when and where the carriers would show up. Without that flaw it became less complex. Also, the Air kills HQ makes Russian wars more complex. Russia has to constantly move his HQ's and guess where enemy air is and so on. The time factor also is something to consider as you say (i.e Hubert cannot spend unlimited time on this game). However, some things are so easy to change. Giving HQ's air defence=1 or changing the initial egypt unit corps->army are examples. We have a last life-line in the form bidding system to balance the axis-allies balance if some change should benefit one of the sides too much.

[ May 01, 2003, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[KDG]

I am one of the big supporters of nerfing air just a bit, from increasing jets costs, increasing units air defence, improve the advantage for intercepters, etc.

I've also thought that air and ships shouldn't be able to kill a unit, but this leads to a big problem. How would you take Brest? How would you amphib. invade? The axis could just line up corps along the coast, and this would make invasion impossible. If we didn't allow planes to destroy units, only knocking them down to 1, then we would neet to still allow ships the ability to destroy a unit so a coastal hex could be cleared.

We have the following choices for adjusting air:

Increase the area of effect of anti-air research.

Increase advantage for air intercepts.

Increase air defense of units.

Increase jet costs.

Remove destruction ability of jets.

Increase cost of tech for improving jets.

Reduce range of jets.

It would also be possible to combine one of the above with an increase in the soft attack of tanks by 1, making them a more viable alternative for the destruction of ground units.

[ May 01, 2003, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]