Tactical Bombers is powerful...

[Armuss]

... so meybe increased cost upgrade (Tactical Bomber) anti-tank 10 to 15%, and decreased cost upgrade (Tactical Bomber) naval warfare 10 to 5%?

[ April 02, 2008, 05:02 AM: Message edited by: Armuss ]

[arado234]

What(imho)should be done(especially for the German tac.bombers most of which were stukas)is to lower their air defence to a minus 2 or 3 which would represnt their absolute hopless chance of surviving any fighter opposition.This would force the Germans to escort them very heavily which they really had to do.

As the German tac bomber units experience went up it would in noway enhance its survivablity involving any enemy fighters.

During the Battle of Britain the Brits.said shooting down Stukas was like shooting rats in a barrel.No hope against fighters.

[SeaMonkey]

And so A234 what are we going to do with the FW190F-3 whos use began in 1942.

2 20mm cannons and 550 lbs of bombs.

370 mph at 18000 feet.

Now only about 500 of the 20000 produced actually had this ground attack capability, but SC is a "what if" and maybe you, as the supreme commander, would have delegated more of the 20 grand to this role.

[arado234]

SeaMonkey I figured someone would bring that up and yes its true about the 190f and the g model but they werent available untill 1942.In the begining of the game they would be mostly stukas.

I can see also where you are going and I agree with you(about this getting to technical)but even a 190f,or g carrying a full bombload would still get mowed down by any allied fighter.At minimum it should have to drop its bombs(same as any fighter dropping its longrange fuel tanks) to defend itself or get shot to pieces.

The only way to have it would be a possible upgrade to better fighterbombers(we already have upgrades to better fighters) and have their airdefence capabilities directly related to their carrying a full bombload or not.Maybe something to think about.

[SeaMonkey]

OK it is something to think about it and for the sake of discussion I'm going to state the obvious.

I'm risking sarcasm here, so everyone put a smile on your face.....remember.....for the sake of discussion.

WTH ...remember. .....what is the dominant piece of weapons delivery systems...well really more of a grouping of systems, on the battlefield today and where are the roots at? :confused: What era did the use of said system display its infancy? :confused:

If this isn't the most powerful piece on the board....what is? :confused:

Too powerful! :confused: IMO

I don't think so.....there are ways to slow it down and you can do the same thing to your opponent. :cool:

[Baron]

All sarcasm aside - (smiley face on) the weapon is too powerful, period.

I have not updated to version 1.3 yet but reducing the amount of AA available was IMHO the worst way to address an already unbalanced situation.

I just lost a game in 1944 where the Allies were every bit as powerful as the Axis but 3 TAC air escorted by 6 level 4 fighters and 2 SAC bombers bombed London to dust and in swoop the unsupported German paratroopers. I didn't even get a chance to take London back - game over. BTW I had 6 level 4 fighters in support an entrenched Army to the max in London and 2 carriers with level f fighters - all supported by HQ's.

I've been an avid fan of this game since SC1 but I'm about at the point where I'm going to push away from the table and move onto something else. It was mentioned in a previous post that 1.03 changes were play tested. That’s wonderful but IMHO the play testers know all the ends and outs of the game and don't reflect the "average" players’ knowledge or skill at the game. There should be a mix of experience amongst the testers to really determine what a good balance is.

From my experience air power is too darn powerful period. I'll repeat myself for the 100th time - airpower alone "should never be able to eliminate the last factor of a ground unit". Now all a player has to do is take Stalingrad and concentrate all their air power onto London and drop a PT in the finish off the game.

What a load of bovine fecal matter! Even if it was a brilliant move on his part.

[SeaMonkey]

Practice some more Baron, sounds like you went to sleep on that pile of crap!

One of the first units I buy as UK is the engineers....now why would I do something like that?

[Baron]

Well I've never seen an engineer improve a city. Maybe I do need to practice some more if I missed that gem in the sh*t

[SeaMonkey]

No gem to miss, just a cold shower of SC reality cause you don't need to fortify the city(even if you could), just tile 65,17 denies both Chatham and Hull to enemy supply and transports. By 44 you should have had at least 64,17 and 63,18 improved as well....wth...the whole damn Island should have been a fort. :eek:

But of course since you had all those flyboys camped out on The Island(s) there wasn't a lot of room left for your counterattacking ground units.

Besides being a nappy head you've been skipping class also. Where were those SBs with LR doing recon??? :confused:

And by the way...I guess the Red Army had its thumb up its a_ _.

[ April 05, 2008, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Baron]

What part of when he took London the game ended do you not understand? He landed a paratrooper in London - game ended. No counter attack - at the end of his turn Major Axis victory.

My long range air enabled me to concentrate all those fighters and aircraft carriers to counter his aircraft. The RN and USN combined were twice what the Kriegsmarine could float - not that it mattered. With 3 tac air attacks on London my fully entrenched at the start of the turn army was gone. His Strategic bombers hit London 4 times and then his fighters piled on followed by the TAC air. All the entrenchments and fighters and AA in the world does not matter - why because with that kind of fire power no tile can stand. It just validates what I've said time and again aircraft should never be able to eliminate the last ground factor.

The Russians who had their thumb up their a-- had retreated from Stalingrad in the face of his airforce even though they matched the Germans and probably surpassed them in total troops. He opperated on one turn west the entire airforce, he had bad weather next turn so I was able to shift my fighters to cover England and still managed 4 ground units who could have retaken London easily had the game not ended before they had the chance, then the next turn his third turn since he operated - bye bye London - Major Victory Axis. It was brillant on his part aside from that it was total BS.

TAC air is too powerful and I don't care if I had all the allied AA at tech 5 around London with 5 experience bars. It would not have made a difference. SAC strolls in takes hits from AA reduces entrenchments - fighters come in soak off all defenseive fighter cover - TAC comes in and destroys ground unit. Paratroopers land - game over. Brilliant on my opponents part and total utter BS.

[SeaMonkey]

Hmmmm...sounds like TAC is too strong.

[SeaMonkey]

So now what are the ramifications of Baron's and others proposal of air units inability to vanquish that last remaining strength point of ground units?

I believe that this should also be considered for other indirect fire units like artillery and rockets. What is the axiom? In the end it is always left for the ground pounders to occupy the territory, in the SC case, the tile.

It is realistic. In fact there may be an argument that as the ground units take losses and become weak...and more dispersed...that it should be less likely that they take additional losses from air, artillery and rockets.

Once again leaving the final work for the ground forces perhaps when a unit reaches strength 3 the percentages go down/way down for subsequent losses from indirect attacks.

What are the consequences of this feature to overall SC play?

[arado234]

As far as Baron loosing London(and the game) you could have it like Third Reich in that every major power always gets their next turn to counterattack to recapture their capital.This prevents exactly what happended to Baron from ever happening.It also prevents or atleast makes the attacking power think twice about sending their airborne on a suicide mission.

As far as tac air(or for that matter all air)being to powerfull you could have it so(again how complicated do you want to make it)your defending fighters could choose to ignore enemy fighter attacks and only attack the enemy tac bombers if they choose to come over unescorted.If the attacking tac bombers choose to keep their bombload their airdefence factors drop so low that they get blown to bits.Also have it so A.A.guns fire every attack(although this will make A.A.guns get real powerfull).

I do like Barons idea about only ground units can eliminate the last 1 or as SeaMonkey says the last 3 or less ground factors.

Remember Airpower was a major factor in enabling Germany to her quick victories early on and the latter Allied victories.If we reduce airpowers capabilities to much then you start going back to more of a WW1 type game.Dont want that.

Perhaps limit Germanys overall airpower by 1 unit of each type.Also have it that experience bars only effect the aircraft in questions primary capability:Tac.bomber experience only effects their ground attack capabilities and has a very limited effect on airdefence capabilities.

-fighters,dogfighting capabilities only.

Baron, Seamonkey you opened up a can of worms here(I love it).SeaMonkey no sarcasim at all in your words of wisdom.You and Baron brought up some very valid points.

_

[SeaMonkey]

I have to say A234 everyone of us are culpable in that we want a better game and this is how it gets done, the betas have their own discussion also.

Got to hand it to Baron, I tested his perspective and he didn't back down, finally getting through my thick skull and making me a controvert. I'm with Baron, this is very near a game breaker.

A patch is needed!

What say yee, SC clan? Hubert?

You know me, I'm up for simple fixes that contribute to realistic play.

I like the ability suggested, allow the Allies the final counterattack, or at least the player that didn't start the scenario before victory is exclaimed.

[arado234]

Allowing a counterattack for all major powers is great.I know in Third Reich it makes a big difference because the Germans could sort of do to England in that game as what happened to Baron in this game.

Third Reich is also setup in that when France falls the French units that cant participate in the attack to recapture Paris cant just go suicide on the nearest German unless the attack to recapture Paris is successful.

[Baron]

Right off the bat the biggest ramification I can see of not letting air/naval forces (I like the idea of indirect attack units added to this list also)destroying the last factors of a ground unit is - Malta. There would be no way to take it unless it was garrisoned by air units.

This brings up another issue that I’ve suggested before. Ground units in amphibious mode should be able to attack directly from the sea. If the defending unit is destroyed then they could advance into the newly vacant tile if not they are destroyed. This would open up huge possibilities of doing a Pacific Mod and make Malta vulnerable even with a new rule where the last ground factor can’t be destroyed except by another ground unit.

As far as AA let them fire twice a turn – just like a tank. If they are too powerful when at tech 5 with 2 shots a turn then limit the tech advancement of AA to something like 3 just like is done with AT guns.

Sea Monkey has a very valid point in that air power was certainly devastating at times in WW2, on those occasions though one side had air superiority and towards the end of the war air supremacy. If one side is able to achieve this in the game I think it should have devastating consequences but not too the point of totally destroying ground units. TAC air should really only be devastating to armor. The accuracy in that time period was not sufficient to be really effective against other types of units. Infantry, AT, Artillary all dug as a matter of training and thus were better protected than armor or mobile units in the open. I would suggest limiting TAC’s soft attack to 3 regardless of how far it’s AT improves. This still makes them powerful against all ground units but only really devastating to armor.

Finally I like the idea of holding the victory cities at the end of your opponent’s turn as being the standard for victory although I think this should only apply to the major powers.

Great dialogue guys – this is how all the changes have come about that make this game so addicting. These ideas are what get tested and HC works so hard to implement – Thank you Hubert!

[The K Man]

Yes, this really needs to be changed. Some great ideas here. I've also felt that AA should get a two strike defense. Maybe the max of 3 tech on AA (instead of 5) would be a good idea. Then the AA wouldn't be overly strong.

I also agree that the player who just lost its capital, should get a turn to try to take it back. But is this possible to do in WAW? (Programming wise.)

Tac Bombers are too strong, but believe the tweak should be a gradual thing. I do like the idea of a max of 2 instead of 3 on the AT. Also not being able to completely destroy a unit, (by any planes) would be nice. How many fighter squadrians ever destroyed a corp sized group of men?

[Micheal Wittman]

The games I have been playing up till now, have gotten me to the point that the TACs are becoming a game breaker for me too, for reason's stated by others. All my games are pbems, also note that I haven't installed the 1.3 patch yet.

[Armuss]

Yes,

Anti-Aircraft by 2 strikes and max level is 3 is very good idea.

Tactical Bomber - meybe reduced started not-TA (Tank Attack) parameters by 1?

PS.Tactical Bomber cost upgrade Naval Warfare is too big - my proposal reduced to 5%

[Sombra]

- I like the suggestion from baron. Reduce the soft attack of TAc bombers.

Additional suggestion would be : AA defense bonus should work against all aircraft in towns etc.

- No escort modus for tac bombers. Either you have enough fighters to engadge the enemy fighters first.

I am against to limit the build umbers even more. Already the pool limits feel "too artificial " for me. If I wanted to mass produce fighters in world war2 ..fine this should be possible. To limit the number of a certain untis because its to strong arggghh

[Armuss]

Idea by Tactical Bomber?

SA by 1 & TA by 3?

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Baron:

I have not updated to version 1.3 yet but reducing the amount of AA available was IMHO the worst way to address an already unbalanced situation.

Baron, I think you may have misunderstood the intention of v1.03 as it is an attempt to address the imbalance in German Tac air power not the other way around. It is a baby step for now but German AA builds were reduced while Soviet AA were increased. General idea being that Germany would now have to spread out its Figthers in not only Tac escort duty but also for Bomber interception etc and as a result hopefully reduce the overall effectiveness of Tac bombers on the field etc.

I realize it may not seem like much but with the effectiveness of Allied Bombers via the double strike I was hoping to hear more feedback from v1.03 games before it was dismissed entirely.

[Lars]

Originally posted by arado234:

As far as Baron loosing London(and the game) you could have it like Third Reich in that every major power always gets their next turn to counterattack to recapture their capital.This prevents exactly what happended to Baron from ever happening.It also prevents or atleast makes the attacking power think twice about sending their airborne on a suicide mission.

This would be the easiest solution to implement while we continue to argue the details.

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Hmmmm...sounds like TAC is too strong.

One idea that we toyed with during initial testing, although it was not that popular at the time but may be more apparent now that the general consensus has been established, is to limit Tac bomber Anti-Tank upgrades only to the TA values and remove upgrades to SA, AA and BA.

Another thought would be to increase the upgrade costs as previously suggested. Perhaps move Anti-Tank upgrades from 10% to 15% or even 20% and bump L/R upgrades from 5% to 10% etc.

Just throwing these out there as they are the easiest to implement and do not break other parts of the game like limiting Anti-Tank upgrades to 2 as it would also effect Infantry and Anti-Tank units as well.

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Lars:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by arado234:

As far as Baron loosing London(and the game) you could have it like Third Reich in that every major power always gets their next turn to counterattack to recapture their capital.This prevents exactly what happended to Baron from ever happening.It also prevents or atleast makes the attacking power think twice about sending their airborne on a suicide mission.

This would be the easiest solution to implement while we continue to argue the details. </font>