Dive Bomber Tech.

[SeaMonkey]

OK I just read HC's last statements in the designer notes and I'm starting to come around to his way of thinking. Why clutter the map with additional unit types, just leave the airfleets as they are now, with some adjustment. How about combine the naval bomber and tactical bomber applications into one tech enhancement for airfleets, "Dive Bomber Tech." With the achievement of higher levels of this tech, airfleets become more adept at ground and naval attacks, no need for additional units. This tech could be further enhanced with a higher level of "Rocket" research, simulating the advent of efficient air to surface missiles. To step a little further there could be an upgrade for AA tech also to denote deployments of SAMs. With the option to commit AFs to intercept, escort, or surface attack and upgrading of equipment at the discretion of the owning player, AFs can take on their unique roles as each player advocates. Example: you could choose to enhance one AF with upper level jet research to make it more interceptor reliable, another AF with LR tech for escorting, and still another with the upgrades of 'Dive Bomber" tech for surface attack. With the availability to name the units it would be a snap for the owning player to quickly identify which AFs are for which role.

[Red Fleet]

Dear SeaMonkey.

dive bombers

Combining the two air techs into one would IMO historically inaccurate. The "dive bomber" was a pre-war design. Just check the success of the JU87 Stuka in the Polish and French campaign. Even the larger JU88 had dive bomber qualities! Later in the war the design of dive bomber was obsolete because with enemy air superiority they were too slow and not heavily armed enough for air defense.

That´s why all nations tried to design better low flying tac bombers.

SAMs

The rocket technology on the other hand was still "in the cradle" (if there is a saying like this in English). The Germans leading in this specific topic. The further development of SAMs could be very interesting for the game. Historically they were a failure, but in the game....

[H.J. von Arnim]

@red fleet:

don't forget that sc is only a game and therefore somethings are historically not accurate

and the so-called stuka was an airplane to attack with and not to intercept other planes - this would have been the duty of fighters (like the FW190 for example).

...and i also do not share your opinion regarding rocket-development...

[Lars]

It was already proposed in other threads.

Although we came up with Tac Air to get the whole gamut of better coordination between air/ground units and better planes/weapons.

[Red Fleet]

@von Arnim

Of course the Stuka was not used to intercept planes. We misunderstood each other there. I wanted to say that they were vulnerable with the air superiority of the Germans gone. They just could not take the punches, and therefore the design was obsolete.

And IMHO sc2 should be as accurate as possible without losing the fun and speed of gameplay.

[ev]

I also like the idea of having a "Dive Bomber" and "Anti Air Gun" techs.

I would not use the term SAM (Surface to Air Missles) to refer to Anti Air Gun Tech. Most of WWII Anti Air design had to do with:

1. making guns that fired more rounds per second.

2. making guns that fired higher (which means faster muzzle speed).

3. doing the above in a gun that is easily transported.

4. for mobile formations, putting that gun in an armored vehicle, always ready to shoot, but prottected from enemy fire.

5. and, in order to hit mediun altitude level bombers, you also needed a gun with enough caliber to shoot a fragmentation bomb.

Terminology aside, prior to WWII none of the warring parties had armored vehicles with anti air guns mounted on top, always ready to shoot. By the end of the war, all major powers had seceral of those weapon systems. Definitely this was an area in which there was substantial technological advance.

[SeaMonkey]

RF, your missing the point, forget accuracy, this is a strategic simulation, we are only hoping to represent the concepts of WW2 warfare with simplified details. You have got to use your imagination or else we will be micro-managing tactics. HJvA, Lars, glad y'all got it, I was trying to incorporate the Naval Bomber tech into the the TAC idea(KISS), but that name(TAC tech) is good enough for me. As far as the application of Rocket tech, you are right RF, SAMs were not operational, although Strategic and Tactical applications of that tech were. What I'm leading into is the advent of certain categorical techs having a broader effect(multiple enhancements) of SC's units combat values. For instance: Level 5 Rockets would of course get you the known upgrades to your rocket units, but also (only at level 5) you would also get a bump up in your infantry's SA, HA values (missile artillery, Bazooka-Panzerschrek)and your ground attack capability of AFs (rocket firing Typhoons). Now this is just an example, probably not really necessary since we have AT tech, but it serves as an illustration. We can cut down on the number of techs available if they have multiple applications at certain achieved levels. Think about what Gun-Laying Radar could enhance?