Jets are F-17 Stealths in SC!

[Liam]

If anyone wants to make any further tweaks to this game I suggest that you do something about the airfleet bugs. The guy who gets jets and longe range wins. That's it...Unless you play a newbie who doesn't know, the real hardcore players jet me into the stone age. Let's all ask Hubert for an alteration on Jet's effects on HQs and ground units!!! Please

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

I think I may have said a couple of things to that effect along the way somewhere, but I'm not sure.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Liam

As a house rule, just agree to limit the number of Air units each nation can have. Thats about the only way to handle this until there is some sort of correction.

I'll offer the numbers I use as a discussion point.

US 3

Soviets 3 (Siberian Air, if any, is a freebie)

Germany 4

Italy 2

UK 2

France 2

(Poles and Sweden get 1 each)

PS This isn't the best place, but I don't know where else to put it. I have a topic in the General Forum regarding the UN Security Council. I'd like you guys' opinion, since alot of the General Forum posters are ... how shall I say this ... on the fringe of reality.

[ April 24, 2003, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Gavrok]

Hate to repeat what has been said before....but:

The only 2 things I would change are the weightings around aircraft and tanks. I hate seeing players buying fleet upon fleet of aircraft but realise it is fully a symptom of the owerpowering air. If there was a ready answer here such as AA tech for units it wouldn't be such an issue. Similarly tanks need a little strengthening for later in the war to ensure ground tech focus is mainly, but not solely on AT.

Got to congratulate Hubert on a brilliant strategic game. Think the strategic level has been spot on, and I for one am glad that the units have not gone too low (eg parachuters) This is a great game and doesn't have to have the ability to recreate every operational nuance of WW2. The level allows for (relatively) quick games, without the need to pour over options for each individual unit!

PS Actually 2 other change would be great:

1) the economic weighting of USA/ USSR increasing throughout war. Thye do have paltry totals, dont they.

2) Allow amphibous assualts only within a few hexes/ (supply points) of an owned port to stop invasions of Canada/ USA, and allow for strategic neccessity of capturing jump-off ports.

Bye

Gavrok

[Shaka of Carthage]

Gavrok

The problem with the Armor unit is in the factors it is using for the attack. When a Armor unit attacks a Corp/Army unit, the attacking factor should be Tank Attack, not Soft Attack. That one change would solve the problem.

Ditto to Mr. H regarding the game.

While I agree about the Airborne units, it is a "glamor" unit and Mr. H would probably sell a few more games if it was in SC.

Economic weight of US/Soviets. SC has it right, it is just that SC takes an approach different from what wargamers are used to. Lend-Lease support to the Soviets and UK are already in the totals they get, removing the step of having to transfer MPPs to them. Trying to show the relative economic "growths" of the different economies is beyond the current SC economic system.

Limiting the transport range has problems, since how is the US suppossed to get its units to the UK? I like your concept of limiting the transport range... it works extremly well when applied to a amphib option for a unit. That, along with restricting the transport to only being able to unload in a port seems a viable solution. Let me thank you in advance for the concept, since by the time I get around to putting these things together, I forget where I get the ideas from.

[santabear]

The concept of a 'house rule' to limit air sounds like an elegant way to manage the issue.

Interestingly, the AI never accumulates air units the way human players will (although in the newest patch I've faced some jazzed Russian air forces--6 units of lvl 3 jets, for example; maybe random events, maybe AI got a little coaching from HC).

I may experiment to see if some self-imposed air limits might work in AI play, too. (Although anihilating Britian with waves of aircraft is fun...no wonder Hitler went crazy...)

[KDG]

Another way to solve the jet proliferation problem is to increase the cost of them by one of two ways (or even both).

1) Increase the cost to 500 (25% increase)

So before 10 jets cost 4000, now you could only have 8 jets for the same cost. Additionally repairs would cost 25 instead of 20 per point, so thats one or two less jets over the life of a game.

2) Have research increases bump up the cost of planes 20% instead of the standard 10%.

Level 5 jets

Old way - 400 cost up to 600 cost.(30 to repair)

New way - 400 cost up to 800 cost.(40 to repair)

New way* - 500 cost up to 1000 cost.(50 to repair)

(*based on also using #1 above)

This wouldn't require changing the existing game s battle equations, makes other units more worthwhile, and is easily changeable.

[ April 24, 2003, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[xwormwood]

Shaka of Carthage

Clausewitz

[Edwin P.]

The key to winning against an opponent with a strong air fleets can "sometimes" be found in the proper use of L3/L4 Rockets (the unit that few player see used in combat). Use them and your infantry to clear a path for Armor or Corps that can attack and destroy these pesky air units.

[KDG]

How do you keep your rockets alive since those high powered jets will just take out your rockets when you get them anywhere near the front lines?

[ April 24, 2003, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[Edwin P.]

Jets, I love jets and do not think that they are are too cheap. Each player has to make strategic decisions on how to allocate their limited resources. In WWII the US industry turned out a massive amount of Jets and several fleets were stationed in Great Britain.

I do agree, however, that to more closely reflect reality, that a few changes should be considered;

1st - Entrenched units should have a higher Air Defense Rating or Entrenchment Rating vs Air Fleets.

Units on the move were more subject to damage by air bombardment during WWII. Units sheltered in prepared positions and pill boxes were less likely to be harmed by air fleet attacks.

2nd - Allow each country to build as many jets or armor units as they want but if they build more that 10 armor/jets they need to control an oil well to support the movement of an additional 5 air/armor units. Units without this support have a 70% to move.

Thus if you controlled no oil wells, units 1 to 10 could move 100% of the time, but unit #11 would only have a 70% to move as 30% of the time it would be out of gas.

This would also increase the importance of seizing oil wells for both players.

You could have a tech called Syn Oil that would allow you to support more units without controlling additional oil wells. Ie Syn Oil 1 would support an additional 3 units, Syn Oil 2 an additional 6 units....Syn Oil 5 an additional 15 units.

3rd - Air Defense Radar Tech. During WWII the Allies were able to defeat attacking air fleets as their radar system located them in time to prepare an appropiate wellcome. The Germans lacked a comparable early warning system.

Air Defense Radar Tech would increase the strength of an air unit flying Air Combat Patrol (ie attack interceptions) but not an air unit that is attacking.

[ April 24, 2003, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[KDG]

Interesting ideas that could be incorporated into SC2. Many other ideas have also been mentioned.

With a patch coming we need an easy solution that is for SC, and can be done quickly. We can't really make the effectiveness of jets change for this patch, and we can't put a restrictive number on jets.

The easy solution is to just bump up the cost of jets. I agree this might not be the best solution, but it will have some affect on gameplay if jets are raised from either 400 to 450 or from 400 to 500.

[JerseyJohn]

Listed below are links (located with others in the FAQ sticky thread area) to some Topics that discuss similar issues.

The Air War in SC.

*Solutions for the Bullying Air Fleet Problem.

*Separate Units and Research Fields for Prop and Jet Aircraft

On Limiting the Number of Air Fleets and Other Units

*Player Defined Unit Limits in the Scenario Editor.

[ April 24, 2003, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

santabear

I've played it quite a few times with different people and it works well. It is still frustrating when Allied player lines up the US and UK air units and proceeds to blow away units in Fortress Europe, but c'est le vie.

KDG

If Mr H was to go that route, I think the increase should be much larger than 20%. More like 50% or larger.

Edwin P

While I agree with your 1st point, it still doesn't address the ability of the air unit to kill a unit, which it should not be able to do. That along with having to make the changes you suggest in your other points comes back to the same problem. If the software has to be changed, then do it right.

2nd point does address the importance of oil. And the fact that Germany had synthetic oil. But, just like above, if the software is going be changed, then do it right. Air restriction because of oil should also apply to Armor (and motorized) units.

3rd point ... yep, there is no Anti-Air tech counter. Radar, proximity fuses, even additional Anti-Air units would apply here. But once again, now talking software changes.

xwormwood

Thanks.

[ April 24, 2003, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[KDG]

Shaka

Jets being increased 50% would put their cost at 600, thus making it next to impossible to take France as the Germans would be hard pressed to purchase xtra air at the cost of 600.

I really think a 10-25% is more than enough to reduce air power in the game. Remember that increasing the cost also increases the reinforcment costs, as well as the plane cost due to tech increases, thus each change is magnified 3 fold.

Here is the breakdown with current costs, and increasing the cost by 25% to 500, along with reinforcement costs, and tech levels:

Tech Current 125%

- 0 - 400(20) - 500(25)

- 1 - 440(22) - 550(28)

- 2 - 480(24) - 600(30)

- 3 - 520(26) - 650(33)

- 4 - 560(28) - 700(35)

- 5 - 600(30) - 750(38)

Under the old system, a level 2 jet was 80 MPP's more than the original 400 MPP, with the 25% increase, it would cost 200 MPP's more than that original 400 MPP. I'd guess that a 25% increase in jet cost would see the total # of jets drop by about 35%.

Right now I'd take any type of cost increase, even to 450 in order to reduce jet use.

[ April 24, 2003, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[John DiFool]

Whatever the solution to the Air Problem turns out

to be, it can't just be cut and pasted onto the

back of the game system almost as an afterthought.

In other words, there should be sound and solid

reasons (constraints, IOW, emphasis on plural),

integrated into the game system (as in said

constraints also being relevant to other units,

and to the research and economic system, and

etc.). as to why you really can't build up a 10-

15 unit Luftwaffe. Otherwise (to name just one

reason) it will likely just open the game up to

more exploits and imbalances (in either direction).

John DiFool

[Edwin P.]

John Difool

I agree with your comments totally. 100%.

Jersey John

Many thanks for the link to the post on Solutions for the Bullying Air Fleet Problem.

----------------------------------------

Any change could have unintended consequences and should be play tested first.

Overly expensive air units might lead to lead to a Germany attacking Russia with 30+ infantry units or 12+ Tank units (which might cause more damage as these units steadily advance and cost less to repair).

As Arby said in the post referred to by JerseyJohn on dealing with bullying airfleets;

Oh, I think the combat model does an excellent job of simulating ground combat during the World War. Unfortunately, it's WWI, not WWII. Think about it: if you took planes out of the equation, you'd have a perfect replica of trench warfare on the Western Front, with units battling for months over a few miles. In contrast, WWII ground combat was remarkably fluid, featuring armored breakthroughs, sweeping pincer movements, entire armies finding themselves suddenly surrounded. To the extent that happens here, it is only because of air power. You bomb some unit into oblivion, then exploit that.

And that's the point I was making to Jersey John. I agree with him completely: air is too powerful, there are too many air units, and it too often results in play which is not historical and, for that matter, not much fun, either. The problem is that if you attempt to change that -- to reduce the effectiveness of air units -- without examining how it affects overall play, what you may wind up with is even worse. And I think that's what would happen here. To the extent that the ground combat model works, it works because of the excessive role of air power. In essence, ground units are underpowered, and air units are overpowered, but the two balance themselves out to give a moderately realistic feel to combat overall. And even that's questionable.

--------------------------------------------

Question for those WWII experts in the Audience:

In WWII at the scale of SC what was the relative production cost of an Air Fleet unit vs an Armor unit? Was it 2x, 1.5x or 1.x?

I believe that there was a post that covered this but I do not know where to look.

[ April 24, 2003, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

KDG

Who said France can't be taken with "just" 3 air units? I understand your point, but it comes down to the fact you think its ok for Germany to have more than four (4) air units, and I don't.

John DiFool

Agree, thats why I think anything beyond a cost change or max unit limit should be more involved. But either of those options (cost or max unit) would not unbalance the game.

Edwin P

The Grey's having way so many units is not a problem, since the other colors can also. Its when you want them to be Germans that the lack of unit limits and other issues causes problems.

To answer your question about the relative production cost, you first have to establish what is in each unit you are referring too. That is a whole nother subject itself. I tried to establish some numbers for manpower purposes. If you are interested, I can re-post the relevant information. Also, I don't consider myself any sort of WWII expert by answering your question.

[Edwin P.]

Thanks Shaka,

Now I know where to look for the manpower information you had written.

As for the production costs, I was just wondering whether the game accurately portrayed the relative costs of fielding an air fleet vs fielding an Armored Division (?) plus supporting troops. Ie is a cost of 400 MPP vs 325 MPP a reasonable ratio. Would a cost of 450 MPP vs 325 MPP be reasonable? Would a cost of 500MPP vs 325MPP be reasonable?

I agree with your comment that all sides could field an equally large army, but the German advantage is that only they can afford to do it early in the war, given successful conquests and plunder.

-----------------------------------------------

As for changes to limit air power, one option (as mentioned on the post on dealing with bullying air power) might be to reduce their range by 1 or another option would be to increase the cost of operating Air Fleets.

Each of these changes would be simple to implement. The questions are 1> which change is best:

- Change the Cost

- Maximum number of air units

- Reduce Range by 1

- Increase the cost of operating air fleets from one front to another

and 2> what would be the consequences.

-----------------------------------------------

[ April 24, 2003, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin

My pleasure, hope it's of some use.

The Arby quote from ...Bullying Air Fleets ... is part of a dialogue carried on in several threads examining stacking and basic changes to the game's combat concept. Among the ideas were:

-- It ought to be more difficult to destroy units and easier to drive them back, advance and retreat after combat.

-- Limited stacking using HQs.

-- Improved Amphibious Invasion Rules.

Arby's comparrison of SC's ground combat being World War One in nature is legitimized in Carl von Mannerheim's The Guns of August Scenario (human vs human only). Removing air units and tanks reduces ground combat to First World War static attrition!

[ April 25, 2003, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

Good info, all aside just lower the ground attack capabilities as you do with attacking marine targets. Jets vs Jets is okay... They're supposed to be aggressive to one another but that doesn't make them better against ground units. How??? The weapons haven't improved any???

Should be air to ground weapons???

[santabear]

Air defense in SC is no problem: Buy air fleets to provide air cover. Improved radar, etc. is nice, but in the end effective WWII air defense depended on fighters. AAA can't effectively protect the ground pounders (though it can inflict losses on the attackers).

The real "devil" seems to be when both sides invest in "jet aircraft" (as always happens). Then the game is in danger of becoming a "luck of the draw" event in which the side that gets the best random rolls at opportune times can win.

The current patch makes it less likely that one side will get far ahead in any tech area, and this seems to help--it's tougher for the Luftwaffe to dominate the RAF early on. So it seems to me that we're headed in a good direction with this fix.

Making units more expensive will more heavily favor the side with greater MPPs. It seems to me that, as an Axis player, I would want air to be expensive to buy, and very expensive to reinforce early in the game. Britain would never be able to compete because of her low MPP numbers. So it might be possible to dominate Britain before Russia even enters the war. Does anyone have a thought about how that would work out?

If we were to consider an "MPP based" fix, I would suggest making research points more expensive, or lowering the maximum number from 10 to 5. That would force players to only have 1 or 2 chits per area, which would slow down the aerial arms race somewhat.

[John DiFool]

Something someone said in the beta thread made me

think: even though it might prove unwieldy, it

might be best for air power to be split up into

the three main roles: air combat, ground attack,

and strategic bombers. The issue was how normal

air currently works both ways: it gets experience

from its own missions, as well as from intercepting

those of the enemy.

The problem is unwieldliness if you have to deal

with 3 different types of air counters. England

for example would be hard-pressed to squeeze in

all those units in along her coast, if there isn't

any stacking in SC2. Stacking actually would

make a certain kind of sense: you could have a

stack of fighters, along with either a stack of

tactical bombers, strategic bombers, or another

stack of fighters.

Each kind of unit could perform the other missions,

but not as good as the one designed for that

mission. Hence the Germans could try a strategic

bombing campaign against England with tactical

bombers, if she wanted to.

JD

[KDG]

We have two problems with jets, as I see it.

1) Jets are too powerful, especially when you get to tech 4 or 5.

Personally I think getting to tech 4 or 5 should be much more difficult for all techs. I'd like to see tech slowed down even more as you advance in tech. Either reduce the max amount of chits per research(maybe 2-3 chits max), or reduce the pct. chance to advance would be fine with me.

2) We have too many jets.

Slowing research might mean less jets, but the best possible way to reduce total jets is to increase their cost. 25% more for a jet means at least 25 less jets. I believe this hurts Germany more.

I wish we had an editor so we could change unit costs or attack values and see what the effects were. That would be sweet. Test all these theories that we have.

[Edwin P.]

I agree,

An editor that would allow you to modify unit values (cost, attack, range, action points, etc) would be a great tool for allowing players to test proposed changes to the game engine.

It would also allow modders to write scenarios for 1910, 1940, 1950, or 2000. Example: Strategic Bombers might have a range of 40 in an 1980 scenario. The action points of tanks might be reduced and their costs vastly increased in a 1910 scenario to reflect their much slower speed and the limited production capabilities available.

[ April 25, 2003, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]