What if Air could not destroy GROUND UNITS?

[zappsweden]

If Hubert made a special rule so that air can only hurt ground units down to a certain level (1, 2 or 3) that would be great.

That would mean you can pull back a damaged unit instead of operating it FAR back (by to avoid being destroyd by enemy air).

That also meant HQ killing would not decide entire front wars. By the way, does a damaged HQ unit (strength 4 or less) really affect their functionality? The rating number turns grey but I have noticed no differene. If air could only damage HQ's then that rule must be in effect (low strength HQ's give no bonus).

In my latest games (versus top opposition), I have seen more than once how fronts fall like brick of cards as soon as the enemy got long-range and air superiority.

[ June 01, 2003, 05:54 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[pzgndr]

I disagree. If ground units reduce an enemy unit to low strength, an air attack should NOT be able to finish it off? That doesn't sound right either. The way the game is coded now with only single attacks permitted, we have to allow air to both damage and destroy ground units.

There are a few problems with Air Fleets right now. One, their combat power is a little too much and this could be fixed by slightly reducing their attack values. Two, there are no increased reinforcement costs for higher tech levels. The combined effect of 1&2 is bargain. There's also a concern about how much experience affects combat, and this could be reduced slightly.

If high tech Long-Range Jets were slightly less effective and slightly more expensive, the result should be better balance. Force pool limits might also help. There are lots of things to consider for SC2.

[zappsweden]

I do not agree Bill. If you decreased fighting power and stuff you would only move the threshold. There would still be a threshold. The threshold is when air have long-range and in certain numbers they can destroy HQ's, simple as that. I had a great front line battle against Rambo in my last game, but that would have degenerated to HQ hunting if he had not given up the game. I had air superiority and long-range and would have attacked his HQ's for 3-4 turns and then just march in and take his land. More fun with realistic front wars all the way instead of such gamey tactics.

Even if u reduce the air attack value, if would mean that i attack with 7 air instead of 5 to destroy an HQ.

By the way, why should the attacker always have the advantage of knowing he can detroy the enemy?

If u wanna be certain (in a "air cannot kill ground units sceanrio") then you should include air support BEFORE making that last ground attack.

[ June 01, 2003, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[pzgndr]

You're still focusing on one part of the problem. I suggested a more comprehensive approach.

HQ's might also deserve an Air Defense value of 1 or 2, comparable to Corps and Armies, to help them survive if expensive Air Fleets continue to be a problem. All I'm saying is there's a lot of options available besides an arbitrary rule that may solve one problem but leads to another.

[Dan Fenton]

I have only played against the AI. I can tell that there is a problem with air fleets, but against the AI, it is not to the same degree.

I would suggest that the number one flaw with Air Fleets are their current range. Historically, they did not have the range that they do in the game. Remember, the short range of the German escorts were a decisive factor in the Battle of Britain. Escorts have even longer range that loaded ground attack aircraft. I suggest reducing the beginning range of Air Fleets by two or even by three hexes.

I would even consider dropping the Air Fleet range by an additional hex when a certain level of Jet technology was obtained. Early jets had far less range than prop planes. This could discourage some of the rampant higher Jet Tech research.

Second, and this is still a problem today for modern ground attack aircraft, is the identification of ground targets. I suggest that Air Fleet ground attacks against ground targets, not adjacent to friendly ground units be at half strength.

Third, HQ's need an AA defense boost. They can't stack with a ground unit for defense. (The stacking issue is fine by me because I like the simplicity of no stacking.) HQ's should have an AA Defense of 1 or 2, just like Bill suggested.

If these suggestions were adopted, Air Fleets would seldom be in Range of HQ's to attack, they would be attacking at half strength and with less effect because of the improved AA defense.

[Shaka of Carthage]

zappsweden

AIR SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO KILL GROUND UNITS ONLY DAMAGE THEM.

That is a conclusion that has been reached many many months ago. The discussion on how to fix it was going strong even during my lurking days. And it continues today. As Bill Macon mentions, its not as simple as making a "correction" (whatever that may be) to the Air unit. Its much deeper than that.

There is the problem of the number of air units you can have. I have tried playing with a limit on that number. It helps, but it still results in one side or the other massing every air unit he has because together they can destroy a targeted unit.

There is the problem of the Jet tech. There is no counter (other than your own air), though there are many suggestions here (ie incr HQ and/or Units air defense; expand hex range of Radar air defense; reduce Air attack factors). Some want Jets taken out. Others want a Prop and Jet tech. Others want Rocket tech as a pre-req for Jet tech (thats my favorite). To this day, I still cannot reconcile the difference between the attack values a air unit, the defense values the target unit has and the combat ratios displayed on the screen.

Combined with Long Range, the Jet tech dominates. Other than complaints about what that does to carriers, no one has asked for LR to change much. There was some talk about a range reduction, but I think the "historical" purists proved that the initial range is ok.

There is the "weather" effect on Air. It hasn't been debated much. But there is much to be said for the Air unit being "grounded" during Winter and Fall.

Almost forgot, there is the issue with the advance in tech not really increasing the cost of the unit. Some want to strip out the strength point increase (ok, just me likes that) and others want a proportional increase.

Lastly, but the most argued point, has been the "historical" effect that air units had during WWII. Thats where I initially jumped into this, since I have wanted the "readiness" to be the only thing a air unit could damage. That leads to the WWI "trench" warfare, which leads to fixing the combat model, which leads to fixing the Armor units, so on and so on. Not many want to work out all the problems this presented step by step.

Its a complex subject. Especially since we can't "playtest" the majority of the corrections we propose.

Until then, I suggest you try limiting the number of air each side can build and grounding them during winter/fall. Its the only thing you can do to the current game system.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

There is the "weather" effect on Air. It hasn't been debated much. But there is much to be said for the Air unit being "grounded" during Winter and Fall.

Great idea!

I would humbly suggest, for simplicity sake (... and applying Occam's Razor) that we use the following table:

1) Winter... AF's perform at... 25%

2) Fall ... AF's perform at... 50%

3) Spring... AF's perform at... 75%

4) Summer... AF's perform at... 100%

This would surely make for quite realistic planning of Major Offensives, given that the Fall and Winter especially was a time for reinforcement and reassessment and occasionally, scattered Attrition type combat.

No longer could the Hated Foe simply bomb & strafe all over the place, unless he would be satisfied with lesser results.

Too, I suppose you could also have some variation in the above Table due to Research and/or Reconnaissance... depending on how detailed we wish to be?

[JerseyJohn]

Great Thread

I wanted to cut in with comments a few times but they were always covered first by one of the earlier posters.

Getting back to Zappsweden's original point, which I more or less agree with, is it to be understood from some of the later posts that nothing along the maximum damage lines can be written into the present game system?

What I had in mind was something like this: Air Units cannot reduce a ground unit below 50% of it's normal strength. They can, however further reduce a ground units readiness level with the details to be worked out. This would encourage players to use airstrikes as a preparation for ground attacks and also to spread air attacks out among several enemy ground units instead of ganging to destroy a single victim. HQs would, of course, be covered in this rule the same as armies, corps and tank groups.

Air Units should still be able to completely destroy enemy Air Units being attacked on the ground as well as naval units either at sea or in port.

==

Agreed also and as always with Shaka's view that the number of air fleets needs a revised control factor per nation. And with Immer's idea that weather should have the described effect on air fleets and bombers.

[ June 01, 2003, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Panzer39]

I fully agree with John's position but would allow them to reduce ground targets to a third of their normal strength instead of half. I don't think that air power should be able to destroy a unit completely. How often did this happen in WWII? Yes the Germans were decimated often by allied air, however, how often was an entire Army taken out or finished off by air alone. Dunkirk is a good example of air failing to do the work of an army.

[Iron Ranger]

I have seen more than once how fronts fall like brick of cards as soon as the enemy got long-range and air superiority.

As you know already Zapp the entire game is based on who gets these techs fastest. Against average to new players you can still defeat them if they have a tech advantage in one or both but against good players you know your done if the oppisate side can reach L3 LR and has a 1-2 level advantage in Jets.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Immer Etwas

The details (along with other stuff) is here. 2nd post I believe.

SC Enhancements

JerseyJohn

is it to be understood from some of the later posts that nothing along the maximum damage lines can be written into the present game system?

No, it can be written in. Its just a question of how much and how low. Your statement about them being in preparation for an attack and spreading them out is also the idea I had when I said it should only effect readiness.

[Liam]

Fact is that when the whole game is reliant on LR aircraft and Jet tech which historically didn't decides wars entirely until the Gulf War is completely Ahistorical and despite some trench warfare<that can be altered easily with more options> makes the game onesided. These 3 UK Carriers that back in '39 and '40 carried obsolete aircraft wouldn't have stood a chance in a million years against a ground based 109<it would've been like a WW1 tank vs a more modern WW2 tank> Carriers are too strong and fighters couldn't destroy ground units. Only Fighter-bombers which didn't do the damage that heavy or medium bombers did. If you're including the two then maybe you should rename Fighter units, Fighter-Bomber units and completely do away with teh bomber unit that is present in this game as it's a pawn if anything. OR, make bombers the only units capable of inflicting that sort of damage upon ground units forcing both sides to rethink strategies and getting 1 or 2 breakthroughs rather than an entire Route... also including bomber units for Germany-US-UK...

Like I said before, I never heard of a case of Ground units destroying an Army in history of the War...So I would like to say when you log-on to Battlefront.Com and it says historically accurate<we know this is completely ANNOYING and innacurate> so well, what does it take to figure out tone down Fighers impact on land units! I think it's well established they're 40 times more powerful than historical WW2 aircraft. So mine as well call Jet4 tech<migs and Sabres> and tech5 1960+ aircraft!

Aircraft killed more civilians in WW2 than Soldiers

'Nuff said

[ June 01, 2003, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[xediel]

what if air fleets couldn't spot enemy hq's

or with distance their ability to spot enemy hq's should decrement

i.e.

75 % chance of spotting enemy hq's on the 4th hex

then on the 5th hex 50 % decreasing 10 % with each new hex

what you can't see you can't destroy !

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Thanks for the info. Agreed, your idea on air power affecting the readiness of ground units is the most sound approach. Even if, in the game, air power also effects unit strength and supply I think the emphasis ought to be placed on readiness.

Overwhelming control of the skies should probably be another effect on the mobility of ground units in an area. German units in France from the start of 1944 were were forced to move at night. The problem here would be determing the degree of air superiority and it's effect.

I'd suggest somthing like 3< airfleets overlapping the same uncontested hexes would affect a unit's speed till it returned to a less dominated region. While 3 uncontested air fleets seems like a lot, it isn't if the side in question has Long Range L=3 or above. This would both, make such domination possible late in the war, when there were large formations of advanced long range ground attack aircraft, and preclude it's happening early in the war, when it would be less likely to have 3 or more unopposed airfleets overlapping on the same group of hexes.

[ June 02, 2003, 04:51 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[KDG]

Same discussion as always.

I'd add defense of 1 to HQ's and to Rockets.

Either increase cost for research to improve jets, increase reinforcement costs for jets, increase costs for jets, etc.

You could also reduce the effiency of jets vs ground units, or you could increase the damage that jets take during ground attacks.

I could live with the idea that jets could only damage units down to 1(or 2 if that was the agreed on number).

If jets are severly reduced in power, then we should bump up tanks to balance this out.

[santabear]

Another excellent thread with good ideas about the air problem. A few thoughts from the sidelines:

I would note, along with Dan Fenton, that although the game has flaws when played against AI, it's easier to keep it balanced (if the human adopts some self-imposed restrictions). AI doesn't stock up on air fleets that way humans do.

Aircraft killed more civilians in WW2 than Soldiers

This is absolutely true. It's true because soldiers can HIDE from aircraft (in entrenchments, woods, move only at night, etc.) and civilians are stuck in the line of fire anytime the aircraft fly over.

IF there were a better way for soldiers in SC to hide from aircraft, air wouldn't be able to kill ground units as easily as it can now. I, therefore, like the ideas in this thread that explore this notion.

Finally, the only really effective air defence is an air force (interceptors). This was true in WWII, and I think it's still true today (though maybe less so with missiles--I'm not up on military hardware). In any case, what queers things in SC is the ferocious attrition at high levels of jets. Lvl 1 or 2 jets are wiped out by lvl 4 jets regardless of who attacks or defends. I think this is the crux of the "great air race" problem. Bill Macon's (and others') ideas of reducing attack values (especially at high levels) might give a player with lower level jets a chance to defend without losing an entire air force in one or two turns.

Comprehensive solutions to this issue are going to be much better than the quick fix of letting air reduce but not destroy ground units. If the 'quick fix' is implemented, there will still be ways to "game" around this fix and the air problem will still exist, I think.

Here is one strategy off the top of my head (I think it makes sense):

Use air units to reduce all HQs to 1 or 2, then attack with ground units against some location in the line. If the defender leaves the HQs unreinforced, he risks losing them to a surprise ground attack/breakthrough. If he reinforces them he'll use up most of his MPPs for the turn, and risks losing fighting units. If he moves HQs back his ground units become more vulnerable.

Since HQs can't shoot back, they are always vulnerable unless they have friendly air (that have a fighting chance) around. I think this strategy would tip the MPP war in the direction of the player with superior air fairly quickly.

And a random idea:

What if the anti-aircraft radar tech increased the air defence values of HQs along with cities?

[ June 02, 2003, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

[Edwin P.]

Air Units Spotting

SC assumes that Air Units can see all opposing units that are in spotting range. In reality this was not the case, due to bad weather or enemy air units or deception campaigns.

For FOW games may I suggest

Air units have a base 100% to see units within 2 hexes of their locations, except for submarines which can spot with an 80% chance.

Air units have a base 70% to spot units that are 3 or more hexes from their locations except for submarines which they can spot with a 50% chance.

If the enemy has an air unit within spotting range that percentage chance drops by half for spotting units that are 3 or more hexes from your air unit.

This means that the enemy is unlikely to see your HQ unit if you have air cover in the the area, and even if you don't there is a 30% that the HQ unit will not be spotted.

[ June 04, 2003, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[KDG]

I like you spotting ideas, Edwin. The pcts. could be tinkered with, but it would be nice if spotting at long distances wasn't always 100%.

I'd like to know if the is historical or not. How good was spotting in the actual war, and at what distances.

[pzgndr]

What if air could not accurately spot at all beyond 2 hexes? Semi-spotted units would appear only as nondescript ground, air, naval or sub units. Let these units still be subject to air attack, but their full identity would not be revealed until after an air attack.

Air spotting should provide some indication that large formations are out there to prevent surprise encounters. However, accurate airstrike targeting should require ground identification, or at least a risky first strike to see what's there. If you didn't KNOW the target is a vulnerable HQ, would you attack anyway? Hmmm.

Edwin, good idea. The spotting ranges could certainly be reconsidered to produce better FOW uncertainty in the game.

[SeaWolf_48]

Let me help muddy the water some. If the bombers are strategic then they shouldn't be able to attack ground troops at all, total desaster in WW2 battlefield. killed as many of there own as the enemy. Medium bombers did however do much destruction to ground troops, both from JU-88's and B-25's or B-26's.

Strategic Bombers were mostly used on bombing cities, or military targets. B-24's were used for ASW however, but on a very small level.

Fighterbombers and dive bombers were mostly used against enemy troops. Fighters were used to protect all kinds of bombers and to attack other fighters or bombers. Fighters usually didn't strafe ground troops or bomb bunkers, to fragile.

It seems to me that there should be strategic bombers for strategic targets, fighterbombers and medium bombers to use against troops, and fighters to used against other airplanes. Naval planes are another subject.

Planes no matter which type shouldnot be able to destroy ground units completely, Infantry and Armor destroys and captures enemy troops not planes.

[ June 05, 2003, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

SeaWolf_48

I believe almost everyone agrees with what you said. The problem is how to do it. The details is where everyone disagrees.

[Scorpion_sk]

Heh heh, I pop in to the forum after so many months, and what do I see?

People have finally admitted the problem about air units, as well as the whole combat system?

Heh heh, I remember in my days how violently opposed most people were to my ideas - house rules - or any other suggestions about limiting air power.

People were defending the flawlessness of the game et cetera...

We have to just admit that there´s a lot about SC that is just fundamentally wrong.

In my opinion, the game is unsalvageable - but I do believe that a somewhat similar, but MUCH more historical SC2 could be very nice.

Perhaps we could just consider SC1 to be a "practise work" from Hubert, and allow him a year or three to develop the real game

Not that SC wasn´t fun , but it just wasn´t enough in the end for me - it is too gamey.

[SeaWolf_48]

Some further thoughts about naval airpower. Carrier planes should only be able to destroy ships, submarines, and naval port facilities, and not against infantry or armor. Naval planes should be able to defend against Land airpower and attack it also. This part is iffy however, the only naval attacks against land aircraft was really only successful in the pacific war.

American Carriers carried around 100 planes and from 1943 on usually traveled in task forces, each with several carriers ( between two and twelve, which would mean 200 to 1200 planes). The Japs were the same but on a smaller scale. These task forces did attack Island Air Bases to neutralize enemy air superiority. In the European Theater carriers were more associated with protecting shipping and destroying Capitol Ships, and not attacking air units.

This leads to naval unit distrabution. I remember COS having Task Force Groups of ships that had between one and twenty ships. I like the way that game system was set up. But each TF had a different number of ships in it, instead of just one ship per unit. Maybe the SC Gods could review COS ship battle tactics! Huh! Well, one can wish!

[Shaka of Carthage]

Scorpion_sk

Your terminology is confused, since you are mixing up two different concepts. So I would like to offer you a summary of the "state of SC". While opinions differ, I do believe this summary almost everyone will agree with.

As a game system, SC if just about pefectly balanced. The two sides are evenly matched and equal opponents generate hotly contested games. The AI offers a competent opponent with lots of replay value. Human against Human takes it to a different level.

SC has shortcomings when you compare it against "historical" events. As a result, to achieve that historical feeling, certain house rules have to be agreed upon to create the desired result.

Obviously SC2 would give the gamer side of it more as well as giving the historical people the options they want. The key would be not to destroy one in the attempt to achieve the other. That is what most of the debate is about.

Gamey options have been found, and there is a certain amount of "hysteria" that occurs until someone finds the counter. Its no different then when "bugs" were found and we had to await a patch to correct it.

Air is the most powerful unit in the game. And in the game it works, since both sides have the ability to purchase the same type of air. And yes, the Air tech is the most dominant. But the tech advances themselves are not predictable. There are different opinions on how the combat model should operate, just like there are different opinions on how the armor should operate.

For you to drop in and state. there´s a lot about SC that is just fundamentally wrong. In my opinion, the game is unsalvageablet... You are right. Its just your opinion.

But this one takes the cake. Perhaps we could just consider SC1 to be a "practise work" from Hubert, and allow him a year or three to develop the real game. Not that SC wasn´t fun , but it just wasn´t enough in the end for me - it is too gamey... Thanks for letting us know what else you have, along with that opinion.

[pzgndr]

Scorpion_sk, welcome back! Are you planning to provide us with your brilliant insights for improving the game, or are you just stopping by for a social visit?

I do believe that a somewhat similar, but MUCH more historical SC2 could be very nice.

Don't we all. Would you like to help the rest of us get there, or should we call you when Hubert has SC2 ready?