Air force

[Korut Zelva]

Opinion: Air forces and bombers should be limited to reducing land units to half strengh, land units attack/or shore bombardement would be required to finish units off.

HQs are too easy to bust by air. =(

[SeaMonkey]

Now KZ back off and read what you just posted.......Think about it......ie. shore bombardment....shells falling from the sky...right! Could that be similar to bombs....falling from the sky?

[Korut Zelva]

yeah I know, I'd be all for a shore bombardment limit too but there's malta!

[SeaMonkey]

Anyway we are in agreement, that IRL units the size of corps and armies are never really completely eliminated...even by land unit attacks. They simply become ineffectual for combat, the survivors absorbed by other formations or used as cadres for forming new or rejuvenated units.

[roman uk]

Dont you think that there should be some added bonus for surrounded units that are destroyed, 'eliminated'. I completely agree with a unit that is not surrounded, as you say, would simply become ineffectual, and survivors absorbed in other formations.

IMHO the game should really reward surround and destroy, and I dont think SC1 really did.

Roman

[Korut Zelva]

yeah but I still prefer a destruction to disbanding and rebuilding units all the time

my main grudge is

VS a human player, HQs risk instant death by air

even when it's far from the figthing

[Bill101]

The simple solution is for HQs to have some AA defence, as they would have had in real life, even though in some situations this was rather limited.

Yes, they should be vulnerable to air attack, but they shouldn't be totally defenceless either.

Remember also that the HQ represents all the logistical support for the front line troops, it is not just Rommel and his staff car.

[Edwin P.]

Also, you have to realize that HQ units also represent supply depots which are easier to destroy than combat units as they are large and immobile. Thus I see no problem in HQs being targeted by enemy air. I also disagree with the suggestion for HQs having an increased Air Defense rating, for in practical terms the best air defense is another air fleet.

[SeaMonkey]

roman uk, if you define surrounded as all adjacent tiles occupied by enemy units, then I agree there should be complete elimination of the unit. If we are defining surrounded as enemy controlled tiles, then maybe not. If there are sea or non-clear tiles adjacent to a "surrounded" unit not occupied by enemy units, then perhaps there should be a provision for some surviving forces.

[Bill101]

Edwin P wrote: "I also disagree with the suggestion for HQs having an increased Air Defense rating, for in practical terms the best air defense is another air fleet."

So it is, but why should a corps have some air defence when the logistical apparatus backing them up does not? It's not consistent and it doesn't coincide with reality.

I'm only thinking of a minor ability to inflict damage on an attacking unit, and I would include both attacking ground and air units in that (but not naval).

[Edwin P.]

Excellent point, but I should point out that a major portion of a corps assets can jump into a foxhole or a ditch when under air attack. A fuel dump can't move or dig itself foxholes.

Its just that I think that a corps unit has more protection against an air attack than a supply unit.

[SeaMonkey]

Good point Edwin with the fuel dump representation. Well there is the old suggestion of units not be eliminated except by ground units' direct attack.