Idea about air fleets...

[daamion]

Although at this scale it likely doesn't make sense to seperate air fleets into air superiority/fighter units and tactical bomber units, it does have interesting implications. If tactical bomber units worked as air fleets do now for ground attack, but were weak for air combat and fighters worked as air fleets do now for air combat but were quite ineffective for ground attack, the German player would be forced to choose which type of unit to build with each aircraft purchase. If the German player built few fighters and many tac bombers, he could emulate the current ability to punch holes in the Russian line but would have difficulty later as the Allies could gain air superiority for D-day and the Russians could possibly use their fighters effectively (later on). If the German player builds a balanced force of both types of units, he can still ground attack well and defend vs. later allied offensives but is only going to have half as many effective ground attacks as now exists...which would reduce the number of corps that could be wiped out in Russia each turn. In any case, this is just an idea to help reduce the 'overpowering air fleet' problem - what do you think?

[husky65]

Originally posted by daamion:

Although at this scale it likely doesn't make sense to seperate air fleets into air superiority/fighter units and tactical bomber units, it does have interesting implications.

- what do you think?

The problem is that its unrealistic, both sides routinely put ground attack stores on fighters.

The allies did it with Spitfires, Mustangs, P-47s etc, the Germans with Bf-109s, FW-190s, Me-262s and so on - most a/c could convert roles overnight, if not faster buy simply fitting bomb racks.

If you want to impede aircraft in game, make them consume supply much faster and recover it more slowly, look at making op moves for a/c use up all of their supply and tac rebasing use up about 1/3 of their supply, so it is hard for them to keep up with an advance.

[SeaMonkey]

Me thinks the best way is an agreement to use only strategic bombers for ground attack

[arby]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Me thinks the best way is an agreement to use only strategic bombers for ground attack

That doesn't work, either. First, strategic bombers aren't very effective against ground units; their strength is against ships and strategic resources. In short, it takes air power from being too strong to making it too weak. Second, it completely screws up the early game. Because of the narrowness of the front, there's no way that Germany can take the Low Countries and France without air power. In fact, they'd have trouble with Poland. Rendering their air fleets useless for the early offensive, and requiring them to buy Strat Bombers instead, allows France to hold out almost indefinitely.

The best solution, in my opinion, is to limit the number of air fleets: maybe 10 for the Germans, 4 for the UK and USSR, and 6 for the US. Obviously, that has to await SC2. Whether it can be done before that by house rule without affecting playability too much, I don't know.

RB

[norvandave]

Perhaps limit where you can put air fleets. In 3R you could only place them on cities or limited numbers of airbases.

[pzgndr]

The best solution, in my opinion, is to limit the number of air fleets: maybe 10 for the Germans, 4 for the UK and USSR, and 6 for the US. Obviously, that has to await SC2. Whether it can be done before that by house rule without affecting playability too much, I don't know.

Some force pool limits for air fleets and tank groups should probably be considered, but hard numbers like these proposed just bug me. I'd prefer seeing some other principles applied. There's already an economic limit to how much you can afford, but that doesn't prevent players from overloading certain units. I've suggested total MPP value of air/tank/rocket units can not exceed total MPP value of corps/armies. That would ensure simple balance between high-tech and low-tech units. Another possibility is some sort of limit based on number of HQs in play, either an n+1 or n+2 limit. Eg, if Germany has 4 HQs in play, it could have 5-6 air fleets and 5-6 tank groups in play. Want more high tech units? Buy more HQs to support them. Either or both of these ideas may be better than trying to hardwire specific force pool limits in the game.

A third possibility, in addition to 10% cost increases with each tech level, is to have some increased cost for additional air and tank units, maybe 5%. That 5th air fleet would cost 20% more, 10th air fleet 45% more, etc. I'm not too keen on this one, but it's an option.

[arby]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

Some force pool limits for air fleets and tank groups should probably be considered, but hard numbers like these proposed just bug me.

So you don't have a problem with force pool limits, but you don't want them to be "hard numbers"? What else could they be? "Well, there's a limit on how many air fleets you can have, but we're not going to tell you what limit is"?

I'd prefer seeing some other principles applied. There's already an economic limit to how much you can afford, but that doesn't prevent players from overloading certain units. I've suggested total MPP value of air/tank/rocket units can not exceed total MPP value of corps/armies. That would ensure simple balance between high-tech and low-tech units. Another possibility is some sort of limit based on number of HQs in play, either an n+1 or n+2 limit. Eg, if Germany has 4 HQs in play, it could have 5-6 air fleets and 5-6 tank groups in play. Want more high tech units? Buy more HQs to support them. Either or both of these ideas may be better than trying to hardwire specific force pool limits in the game.

I don't think either of those are bad ideas, especially the latter. But see below.

A third possibility, in addition to 10% cost increases with each tech level, is to have some increased cost for additional air and tank units, maybe 5%. That 5th air fleet would cost 20% more, 10th air fleet 45% more, etc. I'm not too keen on this one, but it's an option.

One of the dangers here is to view proposed changes only in terms of how they affect the German player. Keep in mind that the Western Allies rely on air power just as much as the Germans do on the Eastern Front. Given the low production levels for the UK and US, any of your proposed rules would make it much more difficult for those countries to amass any appreciable air. Although admittedly your last rule would affect the German player much more than the Allied.

[daamion]

>>>The problem is that its unrealistic, both sides routinely put ground attack stores on fighters.

>>The allies did it with Spitfires, Mustangs, P-47s etc, the Germans with Bf-109s, FW-190s, Me-262s and so on - most a/c could convert roles overnight, if not faster buy simply fitting bomb racks.

1) Well, as far as realism goes, I'm not so sure that the IGO/UGO system is particularly realistic in the first place.

("Sir they're attacking!"

"That's fine"

"But sir, they're manuvering around for more attacks"

"Yes, that's ok"

"But sir, shouldn't we do something?!?"

"Son, IT'S THEIR TURN!!!")

2) As far as fighters being quickly refitted with ground attack ordenance - true, but were they used primarily for attacking supply convoys, targets of opportunity, etc, or used to obliterate entire armies?

3) I've noticed that some other games at this scale made the air-air/air-ground aircraft unit split - I wonder if those game designers were just including units for 'fun' with little care of realism, or if they noticed during initial playtesting that air units were too powerful and a combined air unit removed the need for players having to choose between different force compositions for their air fleets...

4) What about if the German player (for some unknown reason) decides to place his air units on the Russian front and launch no attacks. The Russian player (not knowing any better) repeatedly attacks and the German air fleets gain lots of exp. Then, the German player moves the same air fleets to France to oppose a D-Day invasion. The high exp units then kick the snot out of the Allied fleet - that air-air exp suddenly enable the pilots to be highly experience (highly effective) in torpedo bombers and dive bombers in naval attacks!

5) What about players being forced to make high level production decisions? Say the German player has developed jet engines and production limitations require that either an interceptor or a ground attack aircraft be developed with a jet engine (hmm...sounds familiar). In SC as it stands, the fighters, tac bombers, torp bombers, supply aircraft etc all get insta-jet upgrades! (Hmmm...jet engine dive bombers - bet the Japanese would have found a use for those!)

6) It still seems to me that air fleets are too powerful because they are too all-purpose (without sufficient offsetting downside - surely the major players built a large number of AFV's for some reason instead of all air fleets??). Imagine you were designing this game and you began describing the units to someone (who had never seen the game). Running through the units, giving strengths and weaknesses, you come to air units at which time you say:

Air-Air: excellent

Air-Ground: excellent

Air-Sea: excellent

Range: excellent

Can take advantage of HQ exp and as an added bonus, can execute stat bombing vs resources!

Of course, their use will be offset with thier high cost...

(You say) Really? How expensive?

Well, they'll cost slightly more then armor and less then strat bomber formations.

I don't know what your reaction to this would be, but mine would be: well, with those capabilities, sounds like I'll be buying lots of air fleets and less strat bombers, tanks etc, without even seeing the game...

7) I suppose if resource requirements for production were modelled in the game it might have provided a means to limit air fleet production (as has been suggested by others)...but if the same mineral/oil costs applied to other (non-inf) type units, I'm not sure how well it would have worked (since it might have caused people to just build less ships and tanks to keep the air fleet count higher)

[pzgndr]

So you don't have a problem with force pool limits, but you don't want them to be "hard numbers"? What else could they be?

Soft numbers. Actually, numbers more dependent on the situation than just something hardwired into the game. Take the proposed limit of 10 air fleets for Germany. Based on actual history, this may be fine. But should Germany be allowed to ramp up to 10 as soon as possible, say by 1941? Should they be allowed to maintain 10 air fleets to the very end? What if the game deviates significantly from history - should the limit change? How?

I think we have the same goal in mind, just different ways of getting there. There are problems with trying to determine what all these hard limits should be, for each country and perhaps for each year, perhaps with modifiers or other complicated schemes, and trying to implement all that into the game code in some easy-to-understand manner. I've suggested a couple of relatively simple ideas. They may not fit history exactly, but should limit some of the extreme strategies folks are complaining about without harming the current flexibility of SC.

[ev]

[husky65]

Originally posted by daamion:

>>The allies did it with Spitfires, Mustangs, P-47s etc, the Germans with Bf-109s, FW-190s, Me-262s and so on - most a/c could convert roles overnight, if not faster buy simply fitting bomb racks.

1) Well, as far as realism goes, I'm not so sure that the IGO/UGO system is particularly realistic in the first place.

("Sir they're attacking!"

"That's fine"

"But sir, they're manuvering around for more attacks"

"Yes, that's ok"

"But sir, shouldn't we do something?!?"

"Son, IT'S THEIR TURN!!!")

Whilst I appreciate an attempt at sarcasm as much as the next person, it only works when the practitioner has the intelligence to understand the subject at hand, this you lack.

You will note that, even under the IGO/UGO system the attacker still incurs casualties - ie the defender IS fighting back.

Perhaps if you started out with a simpler subject for your sarcasm, you might just carry it off?

2) As far as fighters being quickly refitted with ground attack ordenance - true, but were they used primarily for attacking supply convoys, targets of opportunity, etc, or used to obliterate entire armies?

(Sigh) here we go again,

1. you can obliterate an army by destroying its logistic elements, without which it will easily collapse in the games simulated timeframe.

2. fighters were frequently used to attack ground combat elements.

3. have a look at the sheer scale of destruction at Falaise (historically), and then project that onto the numbers of air groups frequently used to attack one army in SC, all concentrated in a 50 mile area, for a week to a month! - you are using forces that make the historical allied airpower in Normandy pale in comparison.

3) I've noticed that some other games at this scale made the air-air/air-ground aircraft unit split - I wonder if those game designers were just including units for 'fun' with little care of realism, or if they noticed during initial playtesting that air units were too powerful and a combined air unit removed the need for players having to choose between different force compositions for their air fleets...

It would also depend on the objective of the designer.

4) What about if the German player (for some unknown reason) decides to place his air units on the Russian front and launch no attacks. The Russian player (not knowing any better) repeatedly attacks and the German air fleets gain lots of exp. Then, the German player moves the same air fleets to France to oppose a D-Day invasion. The high exp units then kick the snot out of the Allied fleet - that air-air exp suddenly enable the pilots to be highly experience (highly effective) in torpedo bombers and dive bombers in naval attacks!

Perhaps you should read stuka pilot, HU Rudel did not see a major distintion between dive bombing ships and ground targets, also the FW 190 was able to carry torpedoes, I doubt it was a major task to train an experienced pilot to aim them.

You also ignore the concurrent training that the military does, just because a unit is on operations does not mean that all training ceases, if they felt it was sensible to train pilots in anti ship work, they would do so.

5) What about players being forced to make high level production decisions? Say the German player has developed jet engines and production limitations require that either an interceptor or a ground attack aircraft be developed with a jet engine (hmm...sounds familiar). In SC as it stands, the fighters, tac bombers, torp bombers, supply aircraft etc all get insta-jet upgrades! (Hmmm...jet engine dive bombers - bet the Japanese would have found a use for those!)

Name the realistic production limitations that prevent using an Me262 as a fighter bomber.

Supply a/c are not present in the game, you assume that late game ground attack is by dive bomber, it could be rocket/cannon carrying fighters or by cluster bomb, also you assume torpedo bombers, why?

6) It still seems to me that air fleets are too powerful because they are too all-purpose

snipped

Welcome to the reality of WW2

Why do you think it is that the USA, USSR, UK, and Germany all built more combat a/c than they did Tanks/SP guns?

[daamion]

Whilst I appreciate an attempt at sarcasm as much as the next person, it only works when the practitioner has the intelligence to understand the subject at hand, this you lack.

Not the least bit interested in person attacks.

1. you can obliterate an army by destroying its logistic elements, without which it will easily collapse in the games simulated timeframe.

2. fighters were frequently used to attack ground combat elements.

snipped

This has been discussed from a historical perspective ad naseum - with points and counter-points offered. I personally don't agree with this assertion but I have no intention to revisit that lengthy topic here.

It would also depend on the objective of the designer.

Agreed.

Perhaps you should read stuka pilot, HU Rudel did not see a major distintion between dive bombing ships and ground targets, also the FW 190 was able to carry torpedoes, I doubt it was a major task to train an experienced pilot to aim them.

You also ignore the concurrent training that the military does, just because a unit is on operations does not mean that all training ceases, if they felt it was sensible to train pilots in anti ship work, they would do so.

Interesting. Apparently this same experience to every single pilot in WW2...

Name the realistic production limitations that prevent using an Me262 as a fighter bomber.

I was actually getting at the conflict between the need to develop a jet-based intercepter to combat Allied bombers vs. Hitler's desire to develop a jet based ground-attack aircraft. I certainly wasn't suggesting it is not possible to do both.

Supply a/c are not present in the game, you assume that late game ground attack is by dive bomber, it could be rocket/cannon carrying fighters or by cluster bomb, also you assume torpedo bombers, why?

Why not?

Why do you think it is that the USA, USSR, UK, and Germany all built more combat a/c than they did Tanks/SP guns?

My question is, given the system currently presented by SC, why build AFV's at all? Or bombers? etc. Just load up on airfleets and use cheap corps to occupy the areas 'vacated' by enemy units that got to experience the power of air attacks first hand.

[docd]

In my opinion, it should not be possible to finally destroy a unit using airfleets. That would reduce power of airfleets.

In real war, I think the more bombs were dropped, the more the units hid from them.

Inital bombardments of airfleets seem also more realistic, in my view.

[dougman4]

Under the current ground rules (see rationale below), air fleets are the only way to reliably remove weakened pieces from the board. Any savvy SC gamer immediately spends big on jet power research. To not do so is to loose the game, as you would forfeit air superiority to your opponent. Even if you didn’t attack your opponent’s superior planes with yours, his planes would decimate yours in defensive support sorties.

Since both players are forced to spend big on jet power research, the game boils down to simple chance as to whom the computer awards advancements more quickly to. The player who gains superiority immediately sets about building large quantities of air fleets, often exceeding ground forces. This abstraction, IMHO, is a harmful to game play.

Ground rules that create the disproportionate emphasis on airpower are as follows: no stacking is permitted, you can’t attack and move units to the rear to bring in more units for continued attacks, you can’t move then deselect and then attack, reinforcements and building new units is unlimited even when enemy units adjacent, reinforcements are too cheap or there are too many MPP’s in the game.

[daamion]

Under the current ground rules (see rationale below), air fleets are the only way to reliably remove weakened pieces from the board. Any savvy SC gamer immediately spends big on jet power research. To not do so is to loose the game, as you would forfeit air superiority to your opponent. Even if you didn’t attack your opponent’s superior planes with yours, his planes would decimate yours in defensive support sorties.

Since both players are forced to spend big on jet power research, the game boils down to simple chance as to whom the computer awards advancements more quickly to. The player who gains superiority immediately sets about building large quantities of air fleets, often exceeding ground forces. This abstraction, IMHO, is a harmful to game play.

Ground rules that create the disproportionate emphasis on airpower are as follows: no stacking is permitted, you can’t attack and move units to the rear to bring in more units for continued attacks, you can’t move then deselect and then attack, reinforcements and building new units is unlimited even when enemy units adjacent, reinforcements are too cheap or there are too many MPP’s in the game.

I agree - I suspect that the combination of allowing retreats to occur (with the possibility of units sometimes being 'destroyed' instead of retreating) and limited (or in some way less desirable) reinforcements at the front (or within an enemy zoc) would have made for a much more fluid, and enjoyable battlefield.

[dougman4]

Daamion, I truly appreciate your comments as this game is close to marrying a highly abstracted strategic style (Axis and Allies) with the exhilaration and fun of a tactical style battle resolution (Panzer General II). Working out a few kinks, and adding some customizable options, and I think we've a cult classic here that will have a long life and many subsequent upgrades.

However, the shortcomings I continually harp on are rather striking – but also strikingly easy to fix if only through toggle-able options. Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin (CMBB), for example, does not lend itself to customization as readily. So, I hope the SC staff fully appreciates the wellspring of enthusiasm for the game they have stumbled upon, and will take advantage of the ease of customizable options to satisfy all of us.

[Ecthelion]

After reading all your suggestions i have experimented with limiting the number of air units to 5 and this is working very well.

Now we are going to limit the number of corps.Perhaps the great number of corps is the real problem.Buying lots of corps (putting them even in double line) makes breakthroughs imposible.So you need a lot of air fleets to make a breach in the enemy line.

We are going to use corps only in cities hex and moving them only by rail.(as a kind of city militia o garrison city)This way there are more spaces and you can play more with the tanks and need no so many airfleets.

Doing this we are having more fun, thats for sure.

Sorry for my english.

[dougman4]

Ecthelion, great ideas! I hope SC incorporates your suggestions as toggle-able options so that we can use them in PBEM and hotseat without having to depend on our opponents voluntarily complying with them. Sometimes, you can just inadvertantly forget as well!

[husky65]

Originally posted by Ecthelion:

[QB]After reading all your suggestions i have experimented with limiting the number of air units to 5 and this is working very well.

Now we are going to limit the number of corps.Perhaps the great number of corps is the real problem.Buying lots of corps (putting them even in double line) makes breakthroughs imposible.So you need a lot of air fleets to make a breach in the enemy line.

[QB]

I've had quite a bit of fun as the German player by simply not researching fighters and by sticking with the 3 original Luftflottes - if I lose one I don't replace it.

[David Brown]

[The following idea has probably already been suggested -- so have been, but I haven't read *all* the forum postings -- so forgive me if you've seen this one already.]

Change the economics model of the game so that MPPs have to be spent on maintenance of forces in the field, with costs increasing as you move from corps to armies to armour to air fleets. Every turn the computer automatically deducts MPPs from a country's total for every strength point in the field. Should a country have more strength in the field than it can support economically it would have to disband units (player's choice) until it reached the economy's limit.

Players would then have a 'soft' ceiling on the number of units they could have in the field. You could build as many units as you wanted of any type so long as you could support them economically. Because of the higher costs of supporting air fleets someone who built a great number of them would be forced to build fewer ground units and naval units in exchange.

Some units would need special rules -- for example, partisans. (I could see a player praying, "Don't give me partisans, I can't afford them!")

The drawback to this approach is that it would involve a large rejigging of the economic model. The current numbers in terms of unit costs and MPPs gathered per turn by the different sides have been designed for an economic model that does not include maintenance. This change would perhaps would best be saved for SC2.

[husky65]

Originally posted by daamion:

Not the least bit interested in person attacks.

Come now, the sarcasm was a personal attack.

"2. fighters were frequently used to attack ground combat elements"

snipped

This has been discussed from a historical perspective ad naseum - with points and counter-points offered. I personally don't agree with this assertion but I have no intention to revisit that lengthy topic here.

ie you couldn't and still can't refute any of the points raised.

"You also ignore the concurrent training that the military does, just because a unit is on operations does not mean that all training ceases, if they felt it was sensible to train pilots in anti ship work, they would do so"

Interesting. Apparently this same experience to every single pilot in WW2...

Sarcasm again, and yet again your lack of subject knowledge lets you down, the vast majority of WW2 combat pilots would have undergone concurrent training.

If you were referring to the Rudel reference, just how many pilots in a luftflotte do you think need to hit a ship with a bomb to destroy a fleet?

"Name the realistic production limitations that prevent using an Me262 as a fighter bomber."

I was actually getting at the conflict between the need to develop a jet-based intercepter to combat Allied bombers vs. Hitler's desire to develop a jet based ground-attack aircraft. I certainly wasn't suggesting it is not possible to do both.

To quote you-

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

Say the German player has developed jet engines and production limitations require that either an interceptor or a ground attack aircraft be developed with a jet engine (hmm...sounds familiar).

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

I'd have to say, in light of the above, that you are lying, but either way your point is spurious - it was quite possible to develop a high performance fighter that could drop bombs (the Me 262 being just one example, the Tempest another, the late model Thunderbolt yet another) - the Me 262 bomber/fighter limitation was in no way a technical limitation - it was just Hitlers idea, this is well covered in Gallands 'the first and the last'.

" also you assume torpedo bombers, why?"

Why not?

Ouch, serious admission that your argument is going badly there, don't address any of the points raised and make a bad effort to turn the onus of proof onto me - you raised Torp bombers in spite of the fact that they are not mentioned in the game, it is up to you to justify it.

"Why do you think it is that the USA, USSR, UK, and Germany all built more combat a/c than they did Tanks/SP guns?"

My question is, given the system currently presented by SC, why build AFV's at all? Or bombers? etc. Just load up on airfleets and use cheap corps to occupy the areas 'vacated' by enemy units that got to experience the power of air attacks first hand.

Finally something sensible.

The problem is, if the allies had invested in airpower to the extent possible in SC, then it is quite possible that they would have done just that.

To avoid it (hard coded) you need a fairly detailed economics system, and that is beyond the scale of this game.

[daamion]

Come now, the sarcasm was a personal attack.

Incorrect - the aside was added for humor, not personal attack. It would appear that it wasn't found all that humorous.

ie you couldn't and still can't refute any of the points raised.

Already addressed previously.

Sarcasm again, and yet again your lack of subject knowledge lets you down, the vast majority of WW2 combat pilots would have undergone concurrent training.

Another personal attack. That would be strike 2.

I'd have to say, in light of the above, that you are lying, but either way your point is spurious - it was quite possible to develop a high performance fighter that could drop bombs (the Me 262 being just one example, the Tempest another, the late model Thunderbolt yet another) - the Me 262 bomber/fighter limitation was in no way a technical limitation - it was just Hitlers idea, this is well covered in Gallands 'the first and the last'.

Lying?

Ouch, serious admission that your argument is going badly there, don't address any of the points raised and make a bad effort to turn the onus of proof onto me - you raised Torp bombers in spite of the fact that they are not mentioned in the game, it is up to you to justify it.

And why exactly do you think any particular type of aircraft is or is not included in the general 'air fleet' unit?

Finally something sensible.

The problem is, if the allies had invested in airpower to the extent possible in SC, then it is quite possible that they would have done just that.

To avoid it (hard coded) you need a fairly detailed economics system, and that is beyond the scale of this game.

This is probably true - however, there is no reason that we can't strive to improve the game play of SC within the limitations of the game design as it now stands...