Air Restriction

[Alexanderthe_OK]

There seems to be a general consensus that some sort of air restrcition is necessary in SC. What then is a fair restriction? I have used German 10, UK/US10, Italy 4, Russia 4 (plus any Siberian) but other players restrict it as low as German 4, UK 2, US,2 Italy 2, Russia 3 (+ Siberian). What do others think?

[Iron Ranger]

To me your numbers seam alittle high (10 air) but might be just me. I've seen and played games where Germany only gets a min of 4 to a max of 10. From my point of view you also need to limit the number of CVs (Carriers) in the game if your going to limit the number of air fleets. I assume that there is no limit on SB.

Historical/Balance limits on Fighters (?)

Air Fleets:

Germany 7

Italy 3

UK 4

USA 5

USSR 4 (+Siberians,)

France 1

Carriers

Germany 2

Italy 1

UK 3

USA 4

USSR 0

France 1

Just my numbers, others might aggree or disaggree.

[Shaka of Carthage]

The answer gets tricky. Because you are now getting into what is historical and what is play balanced.

Iron Ranger makes a valid statement about the carriers. They have to be restricted as well. I've gamed it various ways, with and without the carriers, but the bottom line is that the carriers are as overpowered as the air units are, and with experience, become overwhelming. I restrict them by converting them into battleship (BB) units with an extra experience bar. I do leave the Med Carrier for the UK, as it compensates for the air assets that should be in the Med.

Anyway, the numbers I gave you, are based on historical ratios of combat aircraft. The US is a tough one, since its air assets where used globally and it provided the aircraft for most of the Allies.

So it works out like this... Japan would be restricted to two (2) air units. The US would deploy at least another two (2) air units in the Pacific, to counter the Japanese (not to mention the naval air assets). Then you have to deal with the aircraft that the US sent to China as well as Russia.

Between the two (ie China and Russia), there are enough to account for another air unit (I assume thats what happens when Siberians give the Russians two (2) air units).

The US, for all practical purposes, was supplying the UK with its aircraft in the later years. Then there is at least another air unit worth of aircraft spread in smaller units throughout the other smaller theaters.

Hence, the US could deploy upto four (4) air units in the European Theater, depending on what was going on in the rest of the world. And thats the hard part, trying to represent its other commitments.

So I leave it at two (2) for the US. But sometimes I think it would be more accurate, if the US was able to increase its limit to three (3) in '43/'44 and four (4) in '44/'45.

[ December 31, 2003, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Iron Ranger]

There seems to be a general consensus that some sort of air restrcition is necessary in SC

One note on this (I assume your talking about the 39 std senerio): If the UK can hold onto France until the summer of 1940 the game becoumes very balanced without a limit on the number of air fleets. If the allies see/allow the axis (germany) to build a huge air fleet thats there own fault. The LR/Jets (and now AA) - all air plan is a powerfull one but it all based on luck and consitration of a limited powerfull attack. Air fleets are expensive and if any side has 'too many' then they must be weak somewhere else and you need to exploit it, if you don't they will eventualy cover this weakness and win. Thats the key to winning any game of SC - exploiting the mistakes or weakness of the other side.

[pzgndr]

The good old Third Reich game provides some useful force pool limits for air units, which could address all combinations of AF, SB and carriers:

Ger - 6

It - 2

UK - 4

Fr - 2

USSR - 3

USA - 5

Problem is, UK already starts with an AF, SB and 3 carriers for a total of 5 so 4 won't work. And 5 for the USA seems high, so I'd recommend switching those two limits. But UK would not be able to expand its land based air without disbanding a carrier, which may be an interesting strategic decision later but a problem for UK facing Sealion.

So even these limits may be too restrictive in most games if you assume AFs and SBs are both included. Increase them all by 1 to provide adequate flexibilty for ahistorical what-ifs and keep things simple. Thus:

Ger - 7

It - 3

UK - 6

Fr - 3

USSR - 4

USA - 5

These limits for all combinations of AF, SB and carriers should work fine. Total 10 for Axis and 18 for Allies, with Axis having air superiority for the early years (10 vs 9, then 10 vs 6 after France falls) and Allies gaining supremacy (15 vs 10, then 15+ vs 7 after Italy falls and France is liberated) in the later years. UK could only build one additional AF or SB, or more if they disband a carrier or two. Interesting choice for them to make later as the Allies shift from naval defense to ground offense. Also, interesting choice for Axis to max out their Italian air limits or spend their limited MPPs elsewhere. And, how many SBs should USSR and USA build versus AFs? :cool:

[ December 31, 2003, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Bill Macon ]

[Iron Ranger]

I've never been a fan of the 'patch this' posts but if you want to 'fix' the problem with the TOO POWERFULL air fleets, you would need to start (and finish?) with these two changes.

1) Stop forced interception. Players at the end of there turn should be able to 'togle' if an air fleet is going to intercept that turn or not.

2) HQ defense. HQs act as a resource, they should get the benift as one. AA tech causes HQs to incress in strenght by 1 and raise's the units AD by one for each level.

I'm not going to go into my reasons why I think these are to two required changes, I would prefer everyone draw there own conclusions.

[pzgndr]

We're not going to see any more game changes until SC2 so it's fair to discuss what can be done now with the current game. The massive air strategy seems to be a problem in many games, so some house rules to impose a few air limits are reasonable. They may not completely resolve the interception and HQ issues, but should help overall.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Interesting concept of having the Air limit include Carriers and Strategic Bombers. It does address the fact, that in SC, the Strategic Bombers are really used more in a tactical bomber role than a strategic one.

I'm curious, what the limits are in World at War? Its basically the evolved Third Reich (and Rising Sun), yes?

House Rules (what do you think the "bid" system is?) have always been an accepted way of addressing the weakness (actual or perceived) of a favorite game. Unlike other computer games, we wargamers don't have the luxury of putting aside one game and playing another. Our choices are extremely limited, especially if you only play Strategy or Grand Strategy WWII.

[Iron Ranger]

And, how many SBs should USSR and USA build versus AFs?

Zero, unless the Axis go the rare route of building a sizable Navy. SB are really only usefull for UK in the early game and Germany in the mid to late game. I find that sooooo funny the the country that best can use the SBs is the country that never developed any (Germany).

[Bill101]

And I've always found it interesting how a country that did have a sizeable strategic bomber arm, the USA, never has one in this game (unless you play one of the later scenarios).

If you're playing the earlier scenarios it just isn't worth the extra MPPs.

I think that it should be added to the USA's starting order of battle in SC2.

[John DiFool]

I've know I've said this before, but static unit

limits are rather boring. Why couldn't/didn't

the Luftwaffe build a 10000 plane air force by

1942? [Frontline strength at that time was likely

~3000, no more than 4000 certainly] Simulating

these "soft" limits is much more satisfying and

allows for some strategy to overcome them to a

certain extent.

I see several main constraints, which can be

abstracted to various extents:

Resource shortages, with most metals

going into tanks, rifles, guns, etc. Oil is a

big problem too, with everyone wanting their share

of the pie (and an air force requires a lot of the

stuff, proportionately speaking].

Personnel constraints: training someone to fly a

plane, and fly it well, equates to a huge invest-

ment in time and money. You can't replace an

elite force of crack flyers overnight [as Germany

found out the hard way in 1944]. Same is true of

technicians and mechanics.

Logistic problems: keeping an air force going at

peak efficiency, esp. far from home, is an arduous

undertaking. I think Grigsby's War in Russia,

whatever its other faults, handled this pretty

well: once battle was joined again after a lull

efficiency dropped like a rock and tended to stay

down.

All in all an effective air force cannot spring in

being overnight: try what we do in SC1 and a real

world air force would be flying around in Junk on

Wings, with very raw recruits at the controls,

more of a menace to themselves than to the enemy,

and sucking resources at a ferocious rate from

other areas of the armed forces.

As for how to simulate such constraints without

bogging the game down, I'll leave that to the

likes of Edmund, who is so very good at that

stuff.

John DiFool

[Shaka of Carthage]

Bill101

No one does Strategic Bombers, because none of us "believe" what they did back then. If the Strat Bombers had the ability, even a small % chance, of forcing a nation to surrender, you'd see the US and UK build as many Strat Bombers as it could.

JohnDiFool

The two major historical reasons why the Axis didn't build more aircraft was lack of trained pilots and oil. It was a catch-22, since you couldn't have one without the other. There were more constraints as well, including political ones, but those two work under the 80/20 rule.

Yes, it would be nice if SC2 handled details like above, but SC doesn't. And there is no better way for a House Rule to handle it other than unit limits. Thats why every board and computer game that abstract those constraints uses unit limits.

Now, if we had multiple economic units (Prod, Ship Prod, Oil), manpower constraints (Army, Naval, Air Force personnel points) and a few other things, we could replicate the conditions. But designers are reluctant to spend the time to do the work required for those systems, since done poorly, everyone will complain, while done properly, hardly anyone will appreciate it. Kinda like the supply and variable movement systems in SC.

[ December 31, 2003, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]