"Do not intercept or escort" options

[veki]

Hi,

In my post before, Hubert said if we massively demand manual for diplomacy that he we reconsider this proposal. I am also sent to him in one of my post my proposal that Air feet should have “Do not intercept or escort” option if player wants to keep Air fleet in full strength for offensive action in his turn. If you agree with my proposal please forward your vote to Hubert. Maybe we will get this option in next patch if he receives many your posts.

Thanks in advance.

[Scorpion_22]

All in favor say "aye".....

"Aye"...

You might want to include his e-mail addy though.

But....this is not at the top of my "most wanted list"

[Rastan]

Yes, I'd like that option if possible.

[pzgndr]

Let's be careful what we wish for. If intercept/escort is an on/off option for all air units, that could present other problems. We probably don't want to introduce a new turn phase for designation of individual missions by the defending player, since that would complicate matters and extend gameplay, especially PBEM. Maybe some way to flag air units at the end of your turn could be considered, or some sort of SOP feature where you define a minimum strength threshold for intercepts and escorts.

On the other hand, air units in range to fight are there to fight. That's what they do. If you don't want them to fight, move them away and then rebuild them. What is the minimum strength threshold for these missions now, 3 or 4? Should that be tweaked a little higher maybe?

[Rastan]

I don't see that another turn needs to be added, just a check box or something. It may not be easy enough to do to add to a patch. I don't know, but I'd turn off intercept for most of the early part of the game when the Germans destroy most of my airforces just because I'm intercepting them. If we were allowed to turn off intercepts, maybe the French airforce would have enough strength to actually do something in the beginning of the war.

[John DiFool]

Combine that with a toggle for bombers to let them

choose to attack the unit or the resource/city

they are stationed in, and I'm all for it. Note

that this can be used in a tactical sense, by

reducing the supply of the defender...

JD

[Scorpion_sk]

Yes, this is an unfortunate feature, not being able to bomb strategic resources when there are troops on top of it....

If no check box is added, perhaps the heavy bombers could be made to always prioritize strategic resources?

It would add a need for these kinds of units.

PLUS what about rockets?

[SeaMonkey]

Vote is "Aye". If "Rockets" are artillery then they should be transportable.

[Good Soldier Svejk]

"Nay" on toggling air units (I'm afraid).

At the level of this game, these are air "fleets." An "airstrike" in the game represents from a week to a month's (depending on the season) worth of air campaign. Those air operations are going to include suppressing and dealing with the defending air force. So, in reality, your air units would get drawn into combat if they were in an area where the bad guys are operating whether you liked it or not. Committing air units to a theater equals committing them to the battle. The current rules reflect this well, I think.

Additionally, history doesn't indicate that air units sat on the ground and gave up their airspace to hostile aircraft. On the contrary, the very last mission that was still being conducted, by any airforce, but the most obvious example is the Luftwaffe, who, to the very end of the war and under conditions of allied air supremacy, were still flying interceptions (not bombing). If you toggle off the intercept, then what you will have is an inverse result: the first thing that would go is interceptions and the last the bombing.

Additionally, I could see a checkbox for no intercept/escort would be more of an anomaly and more "gamey" than what we currently have. The likely tactic that would develop would be to see both sides, with healthy air forces, each in their turn bombing with impugnity since the other side would rather be holding its strength for bombing than intercepting.

With the rules forcing interceptions, you are able to replicate an air campaign. Look at two examples: the RAF in the Battle of Britian was about to abandon the south to preserve themselves before the Luftwaffe shifted priorities; the Luftwaffe, who had no place to run, were ground down. How else would you bring an enemy air force to combat if the player could just checkbox his units to not intercept?

I think that the points about ground units artificially covering strategic targets, however, are good, and I also think that some adjustment over multiple interceptions over the same target could be made.

Salute!

[sogard]

I lean toward the notion that players should not be able to control air fleets too much (like telling them not to intercept). The ability of military commanders to dictate this was very limited. If history tells us anything, if you put military units within striking distance of each other, they are going to engage. The solution is to keep your air units out of harms way unless you want them to engage in combat. The less micromanagement permitted to the players on this scale, the better.

[veki]

I don't see that another turn needs to be added, just a check box or something.

That what I mean. In right click menu check box for "Do not intercept or escort". For each Air fleet individual, of course.

Combine that with a toggle for bombers to let them choose to attack the unit or the resource/city they are stationed in, and I'm all for it.

That was my second suggestion to Hubert but I suggested that strategic bombers could NOT attack units in generally. If Air fleet can’t attack strategic resources then strategic bombers should not attack units. Logical.

So, in reality, your air units would get drawn into combat if they were in an area where the bad guys are operating whether you liked it or not.

With all do respect to you Good Soldier Svejk this is incorrect and stupid. Air force always has their orders. So if their orders is to intercept they will intercept but if they have order to keep their strength and fuel they will stay on the ground. And another thing – what about all this cases in which enemy air force was surprised on the ground? They did not automatically intercept enemy planes. This option for automatically interception in game to my opinion is not real. Especially you who wants reality in game should see that.

[Rastan]

The RAF was going to relocate because the Luftwaffe was directly going after the RAF... they stayed because the Luftwaffe started hitting cities. I have no problem moving my UK airforce back if the German airforces are attacking that unit directly.

There are plenty of instances in WW2 of holding back forces in preparation/buildup for a counter-attack. I just wish I had the option of saving airforces for using them in an attacking manner. I don't see giving us the option to turn off interception to be so bad for the game. Those who don't believe in it can turn on interception and the game plays the same way it is now. If someone you're playing PBEM with turns it off, you get free attacks without having to worry about interception.

This is a game of 'WW2 what if' right? What if I could chose to intercept or not? Would that change the outcome if I could use my full strength, 'not weakened by interception' French airforce unit to counter with a couple of French armies and destroy a Panzer unit or 2 before France falls? Would that greatly effect Barbarossa?

This point may all be moot because it may be to much code/work for them to implememnt in a patch, but for SC 2, I'd hope they'd at least consider it.

[Good Soldier Svejk]

Well, my friend, I quote you:

"With all do respect to you Good Soldier Svejk this is incorrect and stupid."

So much for respect, and your comment on an airforce having its orders is correct, but a foolish assertion (I submit with equal respect).

Yes, an airforce may have orders to sit on the ground and not intercept, as you say (I grant) but if they do, and there are enemy air units within range, they will be destroyed there, on the ground, not intercepting. This option, I would submit, if chosen knowingly is foolish.

Hence, my point, that your units will be drawn into combat whether you like it or not is, in fact, irrefutable. In fact, not incorrect, but correct. Just because they are on the ground being bombed and strafed, does not mean that they aren't in combat. They just aren't defending themselves (and not surviving, either).

Salute!

[Norse]

If this is added, then a defender who orders his airfleet not to get airborne must be given a terrible disadvantage. Such an airfleet, if it is kept within enemy range, could be attacked and destroyed on the ground as it's ordered just to sit still and be a sitting duck.

It isn't like you can "hide" a huge airfleet, by giving orders not to fight back, and "hide" all your planes on famous airstrips.. They are just easy targets, is all.

So, wouldn't it just be better to move an airfleet that you don't want to fight with, away from enemy range?

~Norse~

[Panzer Cmdr]

I believe the option as mentioned would be great but not as a patch but for SC2. As a new thing airfleets should not be allowed to just land anywhere - they should only be able to operate from cities or from established or newly built airfields. In this manner it would be realistic in FOW to know where airfields are and that if you attack an airfield you are likely to find aircraft there. If the person had decided not to have any aircraft on "patrol" then they would be hit by surprize and not be able to inflict damage back on attacker. Though it would be ok to have some air defenses fighting back from the airfield.

As things are you can land airfleets on the tops of the mountain ranges and swamps as it would be to land on flat ground. The idea of having to operate from fixed airfields, and thus allowing the capture and construction of new airfields would be great - and this would help to reduce the impact of airpower. For instance, would it make sense for germany to have 20 airfleets if they had only 5 cities and 1 airfield. This would thus only allow them to have only 6 airfleets. This would encourage the building of new airfields or capture of new cities.

With the desired pacific/world playground the idea of building new airfield on viable newly conquered islands would be great. It would be a shame just to have instant ability to land airfleets on new islands just anywhere.

Again this all leads to what depth players wish to go, but I believe that this game is great and that the talented Mr. Hubert is up for the task and will prudently tweak things.

[Rastan]

The intercepting units already suffer a 'terrible disadvantage'. From the beginning of the game, my interceptors are losing 3 to 1 in terms of strength. I guess this game is just designed for the allies to crap out in airpower until '43 or so... run/disband your airpower until then, cause it's useless.

Sorry, but my air charging straight into certain death and I can't do a thing 'cept run to do CAP over Iceland is 1 thing that comes close to ruining the game for me... I gotta pull back perfectly fine airforce or lose them at ridiculous percentages because they are all stocked with Kamikazee pilots.

[Morthomme]

it's a very good idea, i'm for this one.

morthomme