Something I hope will not happen in SC2

[Retributar]

'ev'...yes the game should draw that distinction...but only where the recipient of the air attacks has no Air-Superiority of his own.

Obvioulsy if the Germans had had a degree of Air Superiority during the Battle Of The Buldge... they would have not suffered such losses in armour!.

Perhaps too if the anti-aircraft-capability in these units were stronger too...they may have suffered less.

Research german 'anti-air'...'anti-aircraft-gun' technology...you will see that they had in the works ground to air missle systems in development to take out aircraft. So if their technology were advanced enough...they may not even have needed a sizeable airforce to blunt the Allied air strikes on their Armoured Formations.

Try this site...im sure what ive been talking about is in here....

http://www.naziufos.com/GER-LINK.HTM (Many Dead Links Here)

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/index.html

DESCRIPTION: The Enzian was conceived as a ground to air flak weapon. It's secondary purpose was that of an air-to-air weapon.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/enzian.html

Heres a good site to look at!.

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/wunderwaffen/missile/missile.html

[ June 09, 2004, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[SeaMonkey]

"Perhaps too if the anti-aircraft-capability in these units were stronger too...they may have suffered less."

Exactly what I've been saying eons ago when this debate started. Simply allow combat units the enhanced AA capability that research affords them. ie increase their AD with each advance in AA research and give them a somewhat more diminished air-attack capability as the level reaches 5.

[Blashy]

Lets not go into Tech debate.

In SC it is obvious that if there ever was a patch needed for one thing is balancing out tech.

You either dumb down long range and jet tech or boost all the others.

AA should boost AD for all troops, where are those 88s when you need them in the field?

[ev]

Originally posted by Retributar:

'ev'...yes the game should draw that distinction...but only where the recipient of the air attacks has no Air-Superiority of his own.

Obvioulsy if the Germans had had a degree of Air Superiority during the Battle Of The Buldge... they would have not suffered such losses in armour!.

Perhaps too if the anti-aircraft-capability in these units were stronger too...they may have suffered less.

Research german 'anti-air'...'anti-aircraft-gun' technology...you will see that they had in the works ground to air missle systems in development to take out aircraft. So if their technology were advanced enough...they may not even have needed a sizeable airforce to blunt the Allied air strikes on their Armoured Formations.

Try this site..

Retributar,

I appreciate your comments, but I am afraid you missed part of my point.

I propose reducing the air defense of tanks and increasing the air defense of infantry to account for the fact that tanks are more vulnerable to air attacks.

I agree with you that players should strive for at least local air parity in the vicinity of their armored units. That's exactly my point: tank's air defense should be very low to account for a tanks vulnerability to air attack. This, in turn, would force players to provide air cover for their tanks.

On the other hand, infantry should have a higher air defense, since Infantry can survive air attacks much better than tanks (see my previous posts). A competent player should hold most of the frontline with infantry, but, concentrate air cover near his tank formations, which should be most vulnerable to air attack. A competent player should also make sure he keeps enough fighters to cover his tanks.

Many of us have complained that airpower was overdone in SC1. I agree with those comments insofar as air vs. infantry is concerned. SC1 overplayed the effect of airpower on infantry. In real life, infantry survived very well air attacks. I would rearrange things in SC2 so that infantry (only infantry) fairs better against air attacks. ...but, only infantry. Tanks should continue to be very vulnerable to air attacks. To achive this, I propose increasing the air defense of infantry units, but, leaving tank's air defense as it was in SC1 or perhaps even decreasing it a little.

Regarding anti-air defense tech, I am not sure if AT/AD Tech would benefit tanks in SC2. Something I read earlier in this site suggested AT/AD research would only benefit Infantry. I would like to hear from Hubert & Co. on this...

[Blashy]

Infantry only of course.

[Edwin P.]

I believe that;

Armor Tech will increase the Armor Defense and Armor Attack and Soft Attack and Soft Defense of Armor Units.

Anti-Tank will improve the Armor Defense and Armor Attack ratings of Infantry Units.

[Edwin P.]

There have been a lot of comments about air power in SC.

I think that players are overlooking the fact that 5 air wings directed against a single target will likely render it combat ineffective, in that sense SC is realistic.

On the otherhand, I can't think of a situation in WWII where 5 different air fleets were targeted against a single corps or army. In that sense SC might be unrealistic.

[ev]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

There have been a lot of comments about air power in SC.

I think that players are overlooking the fact that 5 air wings directed against a single target will likely render it combat ineffective, in that sense SC is realistic.

On the otherhand, I can't think of a situation in WWII where 5 different air fleets were targeted against a single corps or army. In that sense SC might be unrealistic.

There are some remarkable instances of WWII bombings:

First, there is Normandy. As Blashy pointed out earlier in this thread, well entrenched German infantry remained fully effective despite very heavy air bombing.

Then, there is the carpet bombing of the Panzer Lehr Division which one of you pointed out earlier. U.S. troops achieved a mayor breakthrough. There were several important differences between the D Day and Cobra bombings. First, D Day bombings were against fully entrenched troops; Cobra bombings were against partially entrenched troops. Second, D Day bombings were against infantry units; Cobra bombings were against armored units. Third, D-Day bombings were against fresh troops; Cobra bombings were against a unit that had already seen heavy fighting for many days. Fourth, D-Day bombings were against a unit whose actual possitions were only guessed since there was no ground contact with the enemy prior to the bombing; U.S. troops had full contact with the German units prior to the operation Cobra bombings and had much better info on their whereabouts.

A third example of a major allied bombing on German troops was during the Allied couterattack in the Battle of the Buldge. This is a significant example because the allies did not need 5 air wings to put the German Armor on the run. Advancing tank units are extremely vulnerable to air attack - as oppossed to entrenched infantry.

I am sorry I do not have that more info on the Russian Front. Given the enormity of that conflict, I am sure there were plenty good examples there.

One interesting annecdote from operation Cobra. After the bombing ceased, and land troops started to advvance, they found the bombing had made most of the roads impassable. So the allied armored advance was actually hindered by the huge craters made by the allied bombing.

Another interesting anecdote from operation Cobra, German tanks were stuck in craters and even turned upside down by the allied carpet bombing, but the tanks and their crews survived. Of course, they could not operate the machines. But, if not immediately attacked by land troops, they could have recovered their vehicles and returned to combat. (This goes to show that dive bombing with 37mm guns was more effective against tanks than carpet bombing.)

[SeaMonkey]

One small addition, IIRC, the portion of the Pz Lehr division that was subjected to the majority of the carpet bombing were elements of the 901 or 902 Panzergrenadier regiment. What that means is it was largely the infantry element that was subjected to the attack.

[ev]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

One small addition, IIRC, the portion of the Pz Lehr division that was subjected to the majority of the carpet bombing were elements of the 901 or 902 Panzergrenadier regiment. What that means is it was largely the infantry element that was subjected to the attack.

...did not know this. Nevertheless, I remember reading historical accounts of German tank crews whose tank was flipped upside down by the bombing.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Lets take a different approach, since we are all arguing about Air the same way we have done time and time again.

Why were Air units in WWII not used in massed attacks against a specific target to destroy them? Remember, we are talking about using Air units to destroy multiple divisions.

Btw, if I remember this correctly, the carpet bombing example used above is misleading... as that was conducted by strategic bombers, not tactical bombers.

[SeaMonkey]

About time you chimed in Shaka, I'm getting tired of defending the old threads on this, appreciate the help.

"Why were Air units in WWII not used in massed attacks against a specific target to destroy them?"

How about they were more effective on targets of opportunity? OK, then how about it was impractical because they were thought to be more effective at interdiction and strategic targets. Don't like that one either? Alright I'm going way out on the limb here and say that they were used in massed attacks. Now to back peddle, the jabos were used in groups flying air support of ground units that were quickly on the move. In fact entire tactical groups were attached to corps units and especially effective in the 3rd Army's(USA) advance across France. In an abstract game as SC this operational success can only be represented by air units pounding the hell out of the enemy ground units, breaking up their counter-attacks and rendering them largely combat ineffective, ie. in SC abstract terms "eliminated". So what say ye?