SC: WW2 or WW3 Aircraft???

[Liam]

Well, Here is my Topic. I think it speaks for itself. Is SC WW2 air combat? Seems it's all about airtech and airfleets. WW2 aircraft never accomplished the goals they do here. We should change the name from Fighters Fleets, to Stealth Bomber fleets. No offense, but even the best Bombers of the War, B-17 couldn't hit a Jeep in a field in Kansas in July without a Formation

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

A truly magnificent topic. You've done it again, I love it, vintage! :cool:

You're right, they made a lot about the Noden Bombsight, MPs with drawn guns escorting it in and out of the plane, etc., then the B-17s and B-29s (over Japan) would carpet bomb with individual loads going miles off target.

Not to mentione the Swiss handling all of Hitler's Gold and the U. S. selling Japan all that scrap metal. Would have served them right if we'd ignored Sweden completely, and we did!

But getting back to the aircraft issue. What solutions can we offer. I think the best one was given in another forum; unfortunately can't remember who said it, but ground attack should only effect readiness and supply while carpet bombing strategic bombers inflict ground casualties as at St Lo. Also, the naval attack effectiveness of air units should be reversed; airfleets should be more effective against naval targets than bombers.

I think the L=0 airfleets are pretty accurate, but L=3 and above are real killers. One solution might be to make prop and jet/rocket two seperate categories. Below is a link to the forum that explores this specific idea.

link to Jet and Prop as Seperate Units and Research Forum.

All teasing aside, this really is a good forum idea; the WW 3 part is a little extreme, though the Flying Wing designs, both German and American, were already leaning in that direction.

There ought to be some really interesting indeas coming out of this one.

[ March 11, 2003, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Yes, we all know the Truth. Fighters are out of hand & should not be able to waste ground units like they do in SC. Fighters should fight other fighters & have a much reduced effect (or affect?) against armies/tanks.

That takes us to Bombers. Anybody ever build one? I sell the British Bomber. Yes, they might be cool at level-14 or something but not worth the cash. Fighters rule in SC.

Next, lets talk history. The Air campaign of the Allies did kick some ass. Granted, I get my history lessons from movies but didn't the Allied air stop the Bulge? FireBomb Dresden? Knock out factories? Sink ships? Supply lines? Bridges? Etc.?

I guess it's just frustrating to see a British carrier(s) mow your best German armies down. Or as the Russsians see German fighter planes trash Lennigrad. Fighters shouldn't be able to intercept, wax Naval ships, & trash ground units. Make fighters fight fighters & have Bombers bomb.

Speaking of Lennigrad, shouldn't they get some extra defense or something?

This bull**** (can I say that here? Well, I did) with experience is a joke. Fighters bombing mines & carriers can't take damage against ground units...while gain vast experience.

"And know you sons of a bitches, you know how I feel" --- General George S. Patton, as played by George C. Scott. Told you I get my history from the movies.

Hollywood

[Comrade Trapp]

May Terif burn in hell for his damn carrier tatics :mad:

[Liam]

Why thankyou, not so bad if I do say myself

Also, AMEN!

I think we should adjust Fighter Fleets to only reducing Readiness or Supply. Engaging other Fighters in their various missions and that's it!

Bombers to do some of the dirty work though making them incapable of being a worthwhile investment VS a fighter. I can buy 1 fighter, 4 corps and 1 HQ and do more damage than if you buy 4 tanks and 1 HQ... The way the Map is you're fairly locked in certian places getting around to flank certian units. Fighters have a hell of a range as Rambo would put it.. You end up in a stall<stale>fight of sorts that puts you to sleep in an hour... Me and Shaka spent 2 hours the other night deciding who got Sweden. He send nearly 15 Russian land units in. My Mainstay was 4-5 fighters and I conquored the whole shabang with em..Though lost the game, it shows just how bloody boring they are...

[santabear]

Another minor change in the game that might have a significant effect during play would be to introduce a pronounced weather effect on air/ground combat for summer vs. winter.

Not only are the level 4 & 5 fighters practically invincible, but they operate in sunshine, at night, through fog, rain, snow...whenever there's something to kill they're on the job.

If this were a tactical game the weather effect could be more specific, but since turns are weeks or months one could degrade the performance of the air during winter months to reflect fewer sorties due to bad weather.

Reduced air effectiveness for 4-6 months would allow the 'mostly ground' armies a chance to get moving. Germans-summer; Russians-winter...

PS In my most recent effort as Allies vs. the computer I managed to get level 5 jets with level 5 long-range for the British...needless to say the Third Reich died during the ensuing "jet Sptifire" blitz. (Thanks to all for the hints offered in response to my plea for help...the 'delay in Poland' worked beautifully; can't wait to try the others!)

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by santabear:

Another minor change in the game that might have a significant effect during play would be to introduce a pronounced weather effect on air/ground combat for summer vs. winter.

Not only are the level 4 & 5 fighters practically invincible, but they operate in sunshine, at night, through fog, rain, snow...whenever there's something to kill they're on the job.

If this were a tactical game the weather effect could be more specific, but since turns are weeks or months one could degrade the performance of the air during winter months to reflect fewer sorties due to bad weather.

I think Grigsby in WiR had this right: Air assets,

by their intrinsic nature, tend to degrade during

a long bloody campaign. In that game the Luftwaffe

was never better off than during the first turn.

You really had to nurture them to keep them in

decent fighting shape. In SC however, well...you

know...

Aside from enemy action, you had basic wear and

tear on fragile high-performance machines,

accidents from various causes, good pilots

completely fatigued out of their minds, THEN you

put enemy action in on top of that... Well it's

no wonder the Luftwaffe suffered so much attrition

(esp. since Hitler and what passed for logistics

in the Wehrmacht at the time probably didn't

properly anticipate said high attrition levels).

John DiFool

[ March 11, 2003, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: John DiFool ]

[Liam]

John good point, all equipment wears. It took maintenance fees up the kazoo to keep those things up and running.

[SeaWolf_48]

Great topic Liam, SC should be a land warfare game and not a Air Force dominated conflict. We all have played some greedy chap that attacks a Panzer Unit, that has experience level of 3 because of winning ten battles, with 10 Jet units a destroys it. What kind of game is that?

I would really like to see three different air units. 1) Pure Pursuit Planes (P-51D in 1943 "P" stood for pursuit, later changed to F for fighter). 2) Fighter/bombers like the Typhoon, Thunderbolt, Owl, Stuka tank buster, Il-2 and La-5. 3) Medium bombers, Mosquito, B-25, A-26, Ju-88, Tu-2 etc...

And no Strategic Bombers at all!

Fighters fight eachother and bombers, no ship rating or ground attack rating. Fighter/bombers attack ground troops, some naval rating. And Medium bombers longer ranged attack Ships, forts and some ground attack rating.

Stratregic bombers are like in COS, and not a unit. Naval air could only attack ships and subs. Only in the Pacific did naval air support ground troops, and that was only done by the Marine air squadrons, specially trained for ground support.

And very very hard to devolop Jets!

[ March 11, 2003, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf

No Heavy Bombers at all!

Whoa, a bit harsh isn't it?

I agree with your basic point but think we have to also have strategic bombers.

How about the following:

1) Fighters -- escort & interceptor, very limited ground and naval attack capability mainly affecting readiness.

2) Tactical Bombers -- the work horse, good ground attack but only affecting organization and supply of ground units, no point loss inflicted. The Main Naval Attack Aircraft, goes the distance, a killer!

Limited Strategic Bombing Capability. High Losses in this area with mediocre results.

3) Strategic Bombers Revised and heightened anti-instalation capability with lower AA losses. Reaches best effect when long range aircraft research allows escorts to make the round-trip. Good Carpet Bombing Ability vs Ground Units , low losses to AA and moderate losses to attacked ground unit along with disruption of readiness and supply. Low Anti-Naval capability but useful along coasts for spotting U-boats.

What I didn't like about strategic bombers in COS is they were based in outter space and had unlimited range! I'd rather have a unit, but one that is more realistic than the present version. I think the real problem, as was the case in COS, is having airfleets combine fighters and tactical bombers. They should be seperate units.

I like the idea of having the computer automatically assign nearby fighters to intercept and escort, it's an abstraction but the alternative would become very complicated in considering range, and exactly where the interception took place and all the rest.

[ March 11, 2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[KDG]

I've mentioned this before, but here goes again.

Two ways to solve the problem in SC if Hubert were to do one more patch:

1st - Change Jets tank and soft attack from 2 to 1, and Bombers from 1 to 2. This makes Jets better in air to air missions, and Bombers better in ground missions.

or

2nd -

Change

ANTI-AIRCRAFT RADAR RESEARCH

Here is how it works now:

Every new level of anti-aircraft radar research improves the air defence values for all

Strategic Resources. As an added bonus defending units located on these resources will

also receive the anti-aircraft radar bonus when defending against air attacks.

I'd change it to include the hexes around the resources(cities, oil wells, mines, harbors) as well.

[JerseyJohn]

KDG

Fine Ideas and it sounds like they'd work pretty well in the present game engine with slight modification.

[Shaka of Carthage]

I like KDG's ideas for current SC. Also think that both of them should be incorporated, not just one or the other.

But it still doesn't solve the carrier having the ability to perform like an air unit. As an addition to the above, how about simply removing the carriers ability to air attack anything at all, and have its function purely be to increase the spotting range?

[Liam]

I agree and Carriers were specialized Iron Beasts

[gazza_35]

There is a downside to building lots of aircraft and that is the cost of replcements. A more realistic and easier to implement idea is to make the cost of fighters higher and double the replacement value cost for each air point. I am sure it will get so expensive to maintain so many airfleets that players will have to employ more conventional means of attacking.

[Tigleth Pilisar]

I agree with both KDG's changes. They are simple and can be reflected in a patch.

Another idea I have seen in other games is for a player to assign the air unit to a friendly ground unit, rather than directly attacking an enemy. The concept here is that the aircraft assists the ground unit in a combined arms attack. Some thought would have to put into how the supporting aircraft would assist the friendly unit's attack.