Tech Observations for Long Range Aircraft

[Edwin P.]

With Long Range Aircraft research the strike range for Air Fleets increase by +1 and the Strike Range for Bombers increases by +2 at each tech level. A realistic differentiation between the two types of aircraft.

- Long Range Aircraft

- S/AP/SR + 1 (S = Spotting, AP = Action Points, SR = Strike Range)

- 5%

- Air Fleets

- Long Range Aircraft

- S + 1/AP + 1/SR + 2

- 5%

- Strategic Bombers

I wonder what the starting strike range will be for each type of aircraft. Personally, I would experiment with setting it at 5 and 10 while keeping the spotting range for both at 5. This would reflect the historical usage of Strategic Bombers for Strategic Bombing and not for recon.

[ July 05, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[pzgndr]

What do you want them to be?

Seriously, I did read the previous threads about various aircraft ranges several weeks ago. SR of 5 and 10 sound good. At L5 L/R, AFs would have 10 and SBs would have 20. There are still some exceptions to these numbers, but for this scale these numbers should work fine. Should we consider different values?

IMHO, the L0 spotting range could start at 3/4 and work up to 8/9 for both AFs and SBs. This makes long range air spotting and deep air attacks more difficult, and that has been a major complaint about SC1. The air war is more interesting when you need ground and naval units to advance and spot targets for you. Air units can still strike; they just can't see everything.

Btw, the quote above doesn't look right. SBs should have +1 spotting and +2 strike range. I believe this got corrected.

[SeaMonkey]

Bill, your evaluation is "spot-on" , the recon ranges are representative, however, it seems to me that a % decrease in recon disclosure should occur as range increases to simulate larger areas of the earth's surface to be searched. Example: at level 0 range/(intel?) 1 tile from ground/air/naval unit = 100% disclosure, 2 tiles(same tech level) = 90% disclosure, 3 tiles = 80% and so on. You get the idea. This is of course with FoW option on and will add to the drama of "The Search",ie. not knowing if there are other enemy units in proximity even though under the umbrella of your recon radius. I might add that your opponent will also bare the anxiety of doubt, not knowing if his units have been spotted as a consequence of the variable spotting algorithm. IMO this adds a reality element that previously has been lacking in strategic wargames(or any scales for that matter), in other words SC2 could set the precedence. Are you ready, HC, to be on the cutting edge?

[Edwin P.]

I agree with SeaMonkey that there should be a % decrease in recon disclosure as range increases as the area of a circle is Pi R Squared.

Moreover, no intelligence is 100% perfect as SeaMonkey points out.

[ July 06, 2004, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[ev]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

I agree with SeaMonkey that there should be a % decrease in recon disclosure as range increases as the area of a circle is Pi R Squared.

Moreover, no intelligence is 100% perfect as SeaMonkey points out.

"Pi R Squared" would not be the most approriate conversion rate here since planes fan out when conducting reconn.

A fighter's range is determined by dividing its total range in three parts: one part to go, one part to fight, and one part to return.

A reconn's range is determined by dividing its total range in three parts: one part to go, one part to recon, and one part to return. The proposal to reduce the recon range by 1 tile sounds fair to me.

But, I would also add a random chance of a unit not being spotted at all. Units that moved last turn (unentrenched) should be easier to spot. Units taht did not move last turn (entrenched) should be harder to spot.

Also, land units should be able to conduct slower night moves to avoid being spotted by aircraft. A unit conducting night movement, can only move 1/3 of its total AP but finishes its movement with entrenchment level 1 which makes it harder for enemy planes to spot it. As a matter of fact, I would always assume that unit moving only 1/3 of its total AP allowance, finishes the turn in entrench level 1 so it is hard to spot, and it is ready to defend from attack. (It should not take a whole week to dig a foxhole. )

[Edwin P.]

P R Squared is good formula to keep in mind. Why? At a radius of 50 miles - 1 tile the area is about 8000 square miles, at a radius of 100 miles the area to be searched is about 32000 square miles, at a radius of 3 tiles the area increases to 81000 sqaure miles.

It shows that the area to be searched increases geometrically as the radius of the circle expeands.

An airfleet can't give the save coverage to 81000 square miles that it gives to 32000 square miles.

I do think that the farther out you are from your base of operations the reduced the chance of spotting the enemy an air unit should have.

[ev]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

P R Squared is good formula to keep in mind. Why? At a radius of 50 miles - 1 tile the area is about 8000 square miles, at a radius of 100 miles the area to be searched is about 32000 square miles, at a radius of 3 tiles the area increases to 81000 sqaure miles.

It shows that the area to be searched increases geometrically as the radius of the circle expeands.

An airfleet can't give the save coverage to 81000 square miles that it gives to 32000 square miles.

I do think that the farther out you are from your base of operations the reduced the chance of spotting the enemy an air unit should have.

I got the math, thanks.

Fortunately for the airfleets, they have a lot of planes, and they do not have to cover the whole circle.

More than half of this circle falls within friendly lines. Remember airfleets are usually stationed a couple of tiles behind the front lines. So a lot of the "cicle" falls within friendly lines. Let's say that on average about 1/3 of the circle falling in enemy lines. So, as per your example above, the airfleet only has to cover 27,000 miles (81,000/3 = 27,000). And we have week long turns, so we have 3,000 miles per day. Assuming an entire air fleet assings only 30 planes to reconn, that means each plane has to cover 100 miles per day.

Now, I do not remember how many planes are represented by an SC air fleet. But, in SC 1 an airfleet costs more than an entire infantry army or armored group, so my guess is that it represents quite a few planes. An army must have thousands of guns, let alone small arms and other equipment. An armored group must have several hundred tanks, plus trucks and halftracks for the infantry and artillery., guns, small arms, etc. If an air fleet costs close to as much as an infantry army or armored group, it should have hundreds planes.

Now, say an airfleeet has 900 planes, but sends 300 on recon for a single day. Say each plane covers 100 square miles, that means in a sincle day you cover 30,000 square miles. But, as I mentioned earlier, we only have to reconn enemy territory, so at most we need to recon 27,000 square miles. An airfleet could probably reconn 27,000 sq. miles of enemy territory within his 81,000 sq. mile range in one day while using only one third or maybe half of its planes.

Air fleet reconn probably generated more data than intell could absorb and process. My guess is that a lot of good good reports bungled up durring WWII (on all sides).

[With Clusters]

Sounds like we need some hard data on how exactly air recon worked in WWII, rather than just mathematical guesswork. Unfortunately, I can't help there. But I do doubt that every plane in an airfleet was available for recon if it wasn't otherwise occupied (bombing, intercepting, etc.). I'm assuming (and I could be wrong) that there were dedicated recon airplanes in any air group (weapons removed and replaced with cameras, pilots with specific training for such missions, etc.). Does anyone have any numbers on recon planes, and how they functioned (meaning, did they just tool around looking for anything of interest, or were they given specific 'targets' or 'target areas' for detailed examination, or a combination of both), for the various powers?

And lets not forget how intelligence tech might work in regards to aireal recon. Part of the intel tech 'package' might be thought of as increased numbers/training of photo analysts, as well as increased capabilities/numbers of the recon planes and/or camera equipment. Definitely something to consider, IMO. Just my perhaps not so helpfull thoughts...

[SeaMonkey]

Sounds like we may have dissected FoW feature into its innumerable specifics. Let's face it spotting, intelligence, etc. was one big operation to disclose the intent of the enemy and assess his future ambitions. We have the grunts on the ground conducting a patrol to capture an enemy soldier for interrogation all the way up to high flying, high resolution cameras doing bomb assessment damage and all that's in between, including espionage. Then we have a system of human beings evaluating (not always competently) the information and issuing reports to various levels as feedback. Maybe we should not lose the general picture of information in and information out and keep the modifiers to this action simplified, while knowing in our minds that it is an infinitely complicated process made even more chaotic by human inter-action and weather.

[ July 07, 2004, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Liam]

Interesting topic. Just to add at least 2 cents in here. Aircraft spotting is tricky. When do you stop it? In WW2 the Max that the best Long Range bombers ever reached were the US Strategic Bombers on Japan. Even had they needed some fairly close Islands to hit the Target. Partly why some of our men sacrificed their lives on Iwo Jima, 600 Miles from Japan. However, even owning a lot of these strategic Islands didn't derive a whole lot of Info. Strato Bombers usually use formations, and the reason being is safety in #s. They use a Formation to maximize their MG power against Enemy Fighters and to also Maximize the hitting Power on the Ground. Confusion is notorious in such missions due to the above reasons and they stayed together to make sure they got to the their target and got home safe they weren't Spotters, or Recon Artists. There were plentiful other aicraft specifically designed for this purpose and they flew higher or more evasive and usually alone... with cameras and other such equipment. I don't recall the precise names, but they can be looked up... Strato Bombers effective spotting should be low low low... Individually their Crew is not built for Recon, it's built for bombing, period.

Fighters on the other hand have a free hand, they're much more diverse machine and very independant. Some of that ole fashioned WW1 style Lone Wolf stuff. They have great visibility and speed and manueverability. Much more likely to peg a target. They do have many roles they play and are assigned Missions, some of which were recon but I don't know of many Bombers unless converted to a different Role, did what some are suggesting. Sending out 1000 B-17s for Naval spotting, I'm sure it's possible but why? 150 P-47s with their speed could cover a much larger area and wouldn't be a costly loss nor an obvious Blimp for the enemy. Don't forget The Enemy is spotting your spotters and shooting back if they can. So some limitations on the way bombers are used needs to be employed. They're not literally the Eyes in the Sky, they're Death from Above. Ground, Naval, Air balloons all did plenty of spotting... Only Land really did a great job of telling you precisely what was there and that's usually when they were on top of things... So Air Recon should be slackened down altogether. I think it's been discussed quite extensively. Although I must say at least 1 thing, Lancasters were smashing Berlin in '40... In SC that's impossible. Fix it

Germans never developed LR Bombers to hit the Urals and think what 2000, 3000 German HE-LR Bombers could've done. The entire V-1 V-2 rocket program could've likely financed the above. Talk about knocking down Soviet production 20% and cutting their essential Transportation system off. That could've extended the War 6 Months or a Year...

[ July 07, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[ev]

I agree with your remarks regarding reconn by bombers.

In fact, I would not allow bombers to conduct reconn, period.

[ev]

Expanding on my prior entry:

We must distinguish between strategic reconn and "operational" reconn:

There is one type of reconn regarding factories and railroad crossings, and the effects of strategic bombing. This type of reconn is completely irrelevant to SC.

There is a second type of reconn regarding the location of large concentration of troops. Say we call this operational reconn. That is the type of reconn we are talking about here. And, I do not think it was the job of strategic bombers to conduct operational reconn.

[Edwin P.]

One area that SC1 ignores is that enemy air fleets strongly limit your ability to conduct reccon behind enemy lines.

Perhaps a simple way to reflect this is to say that each enemy airfleet reduces your ability to spot within the enemy air fleet's spotting radius by a percentage - say 25%.

If you want to spot an enemy unit within an enemy airfleet's Spotting Radius of 3 you have a 75% to do so. If that hex is within 3 hexes of 2 enemy airfleets you have only a 50% to spot that unit.

Just an idea, any comments?

or to get more technical.

The chance to spot an enemy unit is reduced by

Enemy Air Strength/Max Strength x 25% or

an enemy air unit at strength 5 would reduce your chance of spotting by 12.5%, while an air unit at strength 10 would reduce your chance of spotting by 25%. One enemy air unit at strength 10 and another at strength 5 would reduce your chance of spotting a unit by 37.5%.

This also means that you can reduce your enemy's ability to spot your units by concentrating air units in an area.

[ July 07, 2004, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Liam]

Edwin, just as Land units like a corps can block you from moving a unit up and opening up the FOW so should air, Totally 100% Agreed. If you send a recon plane in and 100 Fighters are there to meet it in every tile, it's unlikely to reveal much information