Airpower... still a problem

[Shaka of Carthage]

Here is my number one concern with SC2. Air units, specifically our "fighter, fighter-bomber" unit, is still based on a flawed system.

I was reminded of this by a discussion over in the SC forum regarding the historical '39 OOBs. Luftflotte in '39 had about 3000 frontline combat aircraft. UK had about half that. Since its generally agreed that the air unit represents roughly 1000 aircraft, its 1.5 units vs 3.0 units. Thats not so bad.

..........UK............Ge

1939..... 1.5 ......... 3.0

Where SC falls apart, is when you look at the numbers in the later years. Russia in '44 had something like 15,000 frontline combat aircraft. Luftflotte peaked around 5000. UK had something like 8,000 and the US had 12,000.

..........UK ....... Ru ....... US ....... Ge

1944...... 8 ....... 15 ....... 12 ....... 5

It doesn't take alot of games in SC, to realize, with those numbers, you simply pick which unit(s) you want the Axis to remove. So we have something wrong with the model thats being used.

When the war started, one of the things that Germany had that the Allies didn't was the doctrine of Close Air Support. A good analogy in todays world, is to think of helicopter gunships. Flying artillery. The guys on the ground had the ability to call in air assets, to reduce strongpoints with smaller bombs, maybe some rockets but mainly cannons and heavy machine guns. Germany, in effect, embraced a close coordination between its ground and air teams, just like the US Marines and the US Army gunship pilots.

The Western Allies, on the other hand, believed more in a strategical airforce, with any ground attack missions being of secondary importance. Russia went a third direction and thought of its aircraft more as flying tanks.

So how to represent this in SC2?

Possible Solution

</font>

• When an air unit attacks a ground unit, it reduces the ground units readiness.</font>
• German Air units, when attached to a HQ, will increase the ground units soft attack factor.</font>

Thats it.

So lets see what we have, especially in combination with the other things mentioned in SC2 (ie ability to turn off interception or escort missions).

1941 Barbarossa. Army Group North, Center and South, each have a Luftflotte unit assigned to them. Just like they did in real life. During the German players turn, he can use his Air units for Interdiction missions, in the hopes of having the Russian air units come out, so the Germans can try and gain air superiority. Or he can simply not use his Air unit, which would then give a bonus to each ground unit that is attached to the supported HQ. During the Russian players turn, with the Interception ability turned on, if the Russian aircraft do try and strike at German targets, the German aircraft can meet them.

1944 Russia.... German Air units no longer bother to intercept, since they can't replace thier losses easily. But they still provide a valuable roll in support of the ground units. And while two or three Russian Air units can pick a German unit and render it ineffective in combat (ie readiness of zero), there is a limit to how many units they can do it to... not to mention the losses the Russian aircraft will suffer from Flak.

I think everyone gets the idea. Comments?

[ April 21, 2004, 05:08 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[John DiFool the 2nd]

If an air unit is put into the close air support,

will it still take casualties and/or be liable to

being intercepted? If they do suffer losses to

Russian planes while flying auto-air-support, then

you have an abstracted round (or rounds) of

"hidden" combat each time a supported ground unit

is in combat, which seems rather counter to SC's

"what you see is what you get" combat system.

If they don't, then nobody will bother to fly

actual manual attacks, unless enemy air is not

present or tech/experience is favorable-not a

good idea to put in such a loophole...

A good idea, Grigsby's Eastern Front did something

similar, I'm just not sure how it would work in

SC2, or how to get it to work without hidden

combat which you then have to check after all

ground combats in that area are over (and perhaps

see some nasty surprises as you note that your

air fleet got chewed to pieces).

John DiFool

[Edwin P.]

Interesting, give me an hour to ponder the implications.

[Night]

Not a bad idea.

[KDG]

Then again you can keep the existing model that Hubert is putting in, and edit the individual units and costs to fit what you want.

You can make it cost 500 MP's for a German jet, going to 550, then 600, etc., this will limit there numbers greatly. If you want them to be stronger in air to air, or vs tanks, etc, then bump up the stats the way you see fit.

Then set Russian jets to 350 across the board. Set the stats the way you want for those units. Weaker in air to air, fine, edit just the Russian jets.

Besides allowing us to edit units, we can edit units of individual nations. Very nice.

[Shaka of Carthage]

John DiFool the 2nd

If a Air unit is attached to a HQ in the CAS role, then no, it could not be intercepted.

The whole point of flying "manual attacks" as you put it, is to perform interdiction missions, not close air support. In other words, you fly manual attacks to reduce a cities value, so it reduces the overall supply level and cannot operate troops to it. If you do fly manual attacks to go after ground units, you can't kill them (or even reduce the strength points) soley by air.

KDG

The ability to edit the values, still doesn't address the fundemental problem that Air units have abilities that they shouldn't. So reducing the damage they do or making them so expensive that you are limited in what you purchase, still doesn't solve it. You just end up with it taking more units to do the same damage, or fewer units because of the cost.

Thats why I tried to show the example of '39 vs '44. Three (3) Air units need to be powerful enough to play part in a decisive defeat of France, yet fifteen (15) to twenty (20) Air units, should not totally dominate the game.

[Bill101]

Shaka, do you have the figures to show what average proportion of the frontline combat aircraft in 1944 were serviceable, i.e. able to fly in operations on an average day?

[pzgndr]

Then again you can keep the existing model that Hubert is putting in, and edit the individual units and costs to fit what you want.

And edit unit build limits.

When an air unit attacks a ground unit, it reduces the ground units readiness. German Air units, when attached to a HQ, will increase the ground units soft attack factor.

I don't see how Hubert would make #2 work. As for air attacks reducing only unit readiness, that's something to consider. But somehow unit strength SHOULD suffer from air attacks, and strength is a component of readiness. If SC had unit stacking and combined unit attacks and some sort of air/ground limits, air wouldn't be the issue that it is. It's an abstraction to have air units make individual attacks, which means air units can ultimately destroy ground units, but that's how it is.

Folks have got to step back away from SC1 and really consider all of the proposed changes being made. Air attack values will be adjusted somewhat, force pool limits will keep air forces reasonably sized, cost increases for higher tech levels will make also prevent super-sizing one's air force, strategic bombers will hopefully be more effective and thus a more important component of one's air force, etc. ALL of these little changes combined will affect airpower in the game, hopefully resulting in a more realistic balance between air and ground forces. :cool:

As for exact numbers of aircraft which make up a factor of unit strength in SC, that's all abstract anyway and very difficult to quantify. Who's to say a factor of German air isn't 100 planes and a factor of Russian air isn't really 300 planes? It's hard to say, unless we create a new game system like HOI or TOAW that attempts to account for individual equipment types down to sub-division level. This is grand strategy level gaming with abstract unit types. It's the overall relative effectiveness of raw combat power that's important, and how and where players choose to apply that combat power to achieve their game goals. It's just not worth it to scrutinize the details *too* closely.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Pzgndr

I don't see how Hubert would make #2 work

This ones easy. Same software code that is used to give units a combat bonus from the HQ, can be used to give a bonus to the soft factor if a Air unit is attached.

If SC had unit stacking and combined unit attacks and some sort of air/ground limits, air wouldn't be the issue that it is.

This one I have to strongly disagree with. This, along with limiting the Air units, is addressing a symptom, not the cause. While I am firmly in the camp of limiting Air units in SC, thats a temporary fix because we have no other way to solve it. It doesn't address the problem that Air is fundementaly flawed because it causes too much damage to a ground unit. Same with stacking. Thats more a problem with the Armor units, then Air (ie because you can't get enough combat power to bust thru the lines).

Who's to say a factor of German air isn't 100 planes and a factor of Russian air isn't really 300 planes?

Because the game has generic units and doesn't distinguish national differences?

Air units are broken and having the ability to edit isn't a solution, its a patch.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Bill101

Hmmm... I remember reading some stuff about the sortie rates, but I wouldn't have the faintest clue which book to go look in. If I run across anything like that in the future, I will send it to you.

[Bill101]

Thanks Shaka.

I have the raw data on the Luftwaffe in Alfred Price's book "Last Year of the Luftwaffe", but I'd have to add it all up, so I was hoping you might have had some figures at your fingertips.

If you find the allied figures I don't mind adding up the German just so that we can see how they compared. The reason being that I wondered if the number of serviceable aircraft was more even.

Also, as SC2 will have unit limits, if you want that game we talked about 6 months ago then I'll be up for it (I never felt that I'd be able to manage it properly in SC1, and wouldn't have wanted to get it wrong).

[KDG]

Thats why I tried to show the example of '39 vs '44. Three (3) Air units need to be powerful enough to play part in a decisive defeat of France, yet fifteen (15) to twenty (20) Air units, should not totally dominate the game.

Three air units are Germans, bump up their ground power, they dominate early game, limit them to 5-6 max units.

15 air units are Russians, limit their stats, thus they can't dominate, decrease cost so 15 units could be built.

or you could do this:

Reduce the French air defense of their ground units, thus Germans are more effective early on. Every other nation would have normal air defense.

or

try over 100 combinations, I'm sure you can get the situation you are looking for.

You can make each individual nation as strong or weak as you want for any characteristic with the editor. I'd think you can make the game do what you want.

[pzgndr]

It doesn't address the problem that Air is fundementaly flawed because it causes too much damage to a ground unit.

The current air attack values should be adjusted in SC2, and if that does not resolve the fundamental flaw then players can edit these values further. We have experimented with this already and it seems to help.

[Shaka of Carthage]

KDG, pzgndr

Hopefully I've made it clear that I feel the solution is in changing the formula, not the values of the formula.

If the formula is correct (ie the combat model), then the German, Russian, etc aircraft can have there proper relative combat power and regardless of the numbers, the system will simulate what history has already demonstrated.

[KDG]

If the formula is correct (ie the combat model), then the German, Russian, etc aircraft can have there proper relative combat power and regardless of the numbers, the system will simulate what history has already demonstrated.

I too hope that no editing of units will be required, and that a perfect game will be made. As SC demonstrated though, not everyone was happy with the combat formulas for certain units. Making it worse was that nothing could be done about it.

SC2 will have new units, combat factors, etc., that should make most people happy. Unfortunately, there will be a good chance that some historical factors may be discarded in order to make the game highly playable. At this time, many will be thankful that we now have a full editor, and the ability to tweak things to fit what each individual would view as historicly correct.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

Possible Solution

When an air unit attacks a ground unit, it reduces the ground units readiness.

German Air units, when attached to a HQ, will increase the ground units soft attack factor.

This is a thoughtful solution, but the Air Fleets in SC are actually performing MANY functions, and not merely acting as "ground support units."

They are recon, interceptors, CAP over HQ and other valuable targets, fighters on escort missions, and... also, tactical bombers, and now, should you research it, naval bombers as well. :cool:

Not to say that "readiness" couldn't be effected, instead of strength point casualties, that remains to be seen.

You seem to want separate functions, and if we had separate Air units, such as the abovementioned tactical or naval bombers, then you could easily limit and proscribe particular tasks to each kind of separate unit.

I think KDG and pzgndr are correct in saying that you can selectively modify existing units and certain game parameters such as combat target data... to suit the MULTIPLE roles that the one Air unit has been designed to fulfill.

The default game will surely have all of these many factors combined in close relationship, so that the Air Fleet performs as is expected.

I wouldn't mind separate tactical and naval bombers, but at this scale, and given the restriction of one unit per tile (... good, eliminates that cumbersome stacking!), it would surely make the board a bit too cluttered.

____________________

Unfortunately, there will be a good chance that some historical factors may be discarded in order to make the game highly playable.

Not to worry.

You can remain faithful to "history" (... and thanks! to all the "history nuts" who help to insure that this can be so) and allow for "what-ifs" and ALSO have a tremendously replayable and plain and simply, an exciting game. These are hardly mutually exclusive.

[ April 22, 2004, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[l3w53r]

How about if we could just spend research chits on individual unit capabilities? That would give the player the power to tailor-fit his units to how he likes to use them.

And with this, how bout adding diplomacy to the research part? Something like "hey research people, I want a 30mm gatling gun-armed twin engine CAS aircraft.... and I wanted it yesterday! Give it to me next turn or I'll bite your head off!!"...

I'll stay off the sugar now...

[Desert Dave]

A wise science-man never beats against the high winds created by a giant creature capable of biting a whole head off, that's fer sure... but, here,

Major areas of research, and especially that GS game-changing new category of Naval Bombers should suffice.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Attachment to a HQ doesn't prevent the other missions from being performed.

[SeaMonkey]

Hmmm! Regarding Naval Bombers, is it possible that they may be attached/stacked to a carrier group? Would they add a greater ground/naval attack factor to carriers if they aren't attached directly (abstracted). How much additional firepower is their potential at max values?

[pzgndr]

Carriers would have the edge in naval attack.

On the flip side, AFs would have the edge in air and ground attacks and their combat values would improve with Jets research. Carriers would remain more or less fixed with their air and ground combat values, but could still receive bonuses with experience and elite reinforcements.

So notice the distinction now between land based and carrier air, each with their primary roles but also able to perform those alternate missions to some degree.

Hopefully I've made it clear that I feel the solution is in changing the formula

Shaka I hear ya. Maybe Hubert will consider some changes. It's his game and his decision. My lack of enthusiasm is due to not wanting to mess with generic formulas too much. What you propose are country-specific formula modifications to simulate different doctrines. It's a neat idea but easily leads us to the slippery slope of complexity.

Regardless of how we do things, we still end up with a bunch of abstract numbers for attackers and defenders which gives us some combat result +/- some random factor. At this scale, that's fine.

[ May 20, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: pzgndr ]

[SeaMonkey]

Thanks again Bill, you are much to accomodating. So I'll take advantage. In reference to carriers; will their air arm take losses to some degree when attacking ground/naval targets? Remember we discussed this possibility of carriers not falling in combat strength under a certain value due to intercepts/air losses unless they are directly attacked?

[pzgndr]

Plan is to not allow carrier air losses to destroy the carrier. Minimum strength would be at least one, requiring direct attack to sink it. Other than that, air combat would still work the same.

We could maybe bump that minimum up some more to 3 or 4 to help simulate the differences between the air wings and the carrier vessels. In a perfect world we could have the carriers plus the naval fighters plus the naval bombers but we're not likely to see that in the current game. So we're looking at reasonable compromises, and the direct attack requirement to sink carriers is definitely in the works.

[KDG]

Plan is to not allow carrier air losses to destroy the carrier.

Slowly but surely, we learn more about this game called SCII.

[Edwin P.]

One weakness in air power is that opposing air power units do not hinder spotting by friendly air units. Your air fleet can spot everything even with 4 or 5 enemy air fleets in the area.

Perhaps a simple solution is 1)not to allow air fleets to spot ground units that are adjacent to enemy air units or to the rear of enemy air units or 2) to allow players to assign a role to air units that would allow them to shield adjacent friendly ground units from spotting.

This would allow players to build a reserve force close to the front line that is hidden from enemy air spotting.

[ April 23, 2004, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]