Aircraft vs Ship Attacks

[JerseyJohn]

In SC-1 there is a basic aircraft vs ship mistake in that strategic bombers are more effective vs warships than smaller aircraft, which would include torpedo planes and dive bombers. Presumably the smaller attack planes would be represented by air fleets (and carrier based aircraft), which would also contain fighter aircraft and medium bombers. Larger bombers, four engined models such as B-17, B-29, Lancasters, would be part of strategic bomber units.

The smaller attack craft were hands down much more effective in attacking warships than heavy bombers, which very seldom, if ever, delivered a hit against a moving target. They weren't designed for that task. Strategic bombers were meant to spread bombs over a large land area where the combined explosive impact would inflict large scale damage. The same bomb spread against moving vessels inevitably resulted in a lot of large splashes and no damaging hits. What was needed, and most often used, was low level bombers, torpedo bombers and dive bombers, all of them able to come in comparatively close to the target and stay with it as it maneuvered.

When sent over an ocean expanse, strategic bombers were used mainly for recon (due to their great range) and anti-submarine attacks, in which a wide bomb spread could be lethal (especially when dropping specialized anti-submarine charges).

Hubert, I hope you'll correct this in SC-2, make rockets and strategic bombers less effective against ships at sea with air fleets and carrier strikes the weapons of choice against warships.

The largest bombers I know of that were used with any effect against naval vessels were the United States B-25 (and smaller B-24) and the very versatile German Condor.

Below are two views of fine bomb patterns spashing harmlessly during the Battle of Midway. They were dropped by an American B-17 against the Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryu.

[Edwin P.]

So you are saying, that Bombers should be effective vs subs and not effective vs surface ships.

Could this adjustment be made in the editor? ie Naval Attack = 0, Carrier Attack = 0, Sub Attack = 4

Of course, given the limited spotting range of bombers in SC2 you would need to spot the sub with another naval or air unit before calling in the bombers.

PS: Great photos.

[ December 09, 2005, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Lars]

Several mistakes in your post, for instance, a B-24 is bigger than a B-25. And B-24's were very effective in the anti-sub war and the anti-shipping war, although they were a bit late to the party.

But, I think the thing to do here is remember the Strategic Bomber and Air Fleet counters are abstractions. A plane can be either doing "strategic" things or "tactical" things. So consider one as a bunch of planes organized to bomb cities more effectively and the other as a bunch of planes organized to attack military units more effectively.

Hubert never does tell you the exact aircraft type.

[pzgndr]

Hey guys, here's some detail from the current Combat Target Values tables for you to chew on (sorry about the formatting, but you can figure it out):

SC1

SA TA NA RA

Air Fleet 2 2 4 2

Bombers 1 1 5 3

Carrier 1 1 5 2

SC2

SA TA NA RA CA UA

Air Fleet 2 2 2 1 2 2

Bombers 1 1 4 4 4 4

Carrier 1 1 4 1 4 4

The CA and UA are new Carrier Attack and Sub Attack values. As seen above, most of the stuff is the same but there have been a few adjustments. Naval Attack values have been reduced, mostly for AFs but also a little for Bombers and Carriers, and these carry over to Carrier Attack and Sub Attack also. Strategic Attack is reduced slightly for Bombers but considerably higher now relative to AFs and Carriers. Land-based AFs remain more effective against land targets than Bombers or Carriers.

Bombers gain an obvious advantage for strategic attack on resources. AFs lose a lot of their SC1 naval attack capability. The air war at sea goes to Carriers and Bombers. Now, it's true that high altitude bombers were not overly effective against surface ships but Allied bombers were very effective against subs later in the war with radar.

The issue in game terms is that AA Radar research will not affect Bomber naval attack values and a proposed idea for naval bomber research was not adopted - both primarily because there is no competing defensive tech for the naval units. So, our "rationale" is that Bombers also include naval bombers (dive bombers, torpedo bombers, and other naval air expertise) and thus deserve to keep the higher naval attack values relative to the land-based AFs.

Could this adjustment be made in the editor? ie Naval Attack = 0, Carrier Attack = 0, Sub Attack = 4

Correct. This is something players can experiment with. And as playtesting continues, we could consider reducing Bomber NA and CA from 4 to 2 to be consistent with AFs, and leave the real naval air expertise to the Carriers. Nothing is final, yet! But note that this naval attack capability of Bombers make them useful for both sides. Some players dislike Bombers since they believe they are not effective at anything, but hopefully SC2 can change that attitude.

[Lars]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

The issue in game terms is that AA Radar research will not affect Bomber naval attack values and a proposed idea for naval bomber research was not adopted - both primarily because there is no competing defensive tech for the naval units. So, our "rationale" is that Bombers also include naval bombers (dive bombers, torpedo bombers, and other naval air expertise) and thus deserve to keep the higher naval attack values relative to the land-based AFs.

What about proximity fuses? Probably the most important AA Radar advance there was as far as naval defense goes. You don't need a separate tech, just a bit of carryover.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

True. Strategic bombers were generally a bust in trying to hit ships at sea. I don't know of their even having been used in this role other than during the Battle of Midway. And in that action they were a total bust, not even a near miss. Under ideal conditions it was understood that bombs would fall far astray of the target, which is why they attacked in formations. It was similar to troops armed with smoothbore muskets firing volleys to compensate for lack of accuracy. Naturally, this wasnt as meaningfull in strategic bomb runs because the overall effect still resulted in massive ground damage, disruption and overall chaos. But against surface ships it just meant a lot of large splashing.

During the Battle of the Atlantic, strategic bombers did their own sighting and attacking of U-boats. They were armed with high explosives that would go off in clusters in the general vicinity of the submarine, which they often saw even if it were partially submerged. As subs had thin hulls, near misses were often lethal, particularly when the vessels were straddled with them, rupturing the U-boat's thin covering.

Glad you like the photos, finding them was a pleasant surprise.

I agree regarding the editor. If we can alter those values ourselves I'd be satisfied.

Lars,

I stand corrected on the B 25/24 issue, but it really amounts to the same thing and is irrelevant in terms of the point being discussed, which is the ability of heavy bombers (WWII era) to hit moving ships.

B-24s, and some other medium bombers such as the German Condor, were effectively used against shipping. They came down to low altitude and often did a lot of straffing with aircraft cannons and heavy machine guns. But anti-shipping action is different from attacking war ships that are firing back with 6 inch guns mounted in turrets; the aircrafts cannons would be ineffective and machine gun straffing meaningless. The only weapons of any use would be bombs and they'd have to drop them at high altitudes, bringing back the accuracy factor, or be easy AA targets.

It's true that he never does tell us what exactly constitutes a bomber wing as opposed to an air fleet, but if one is abstracted as medium bombers and ground assault (which the Germans had) and the other is strategic bombers (which Germany didn't have) which group should torpedo planes and divebombers be considered a part of? Also, the Germans inflicted considerable damage against Royal Navy units off Norway and Greece, forcing them from their area of operation. They were using what in the game would be considered air fleets.

Bill

I don't happen to be one of those who dislike bombers, though I've got to admit I think they're misrepresented in SC-1. I'm looking forward to seeing them in an improved strategic bombing capacity and also as an effective weapon to be used against ground units; that was demonstrated beyond a doubt by the saturation bombing and near destruction of the Panzer Lehr Division at St Lo.

But I don't see their high value vs naval targets. If submarines were a separate category I'd give them high marks in that area, but not against surface ships. If the two were combined, I'd give strategic bombers and overall 2 NA and air fleets (containing dive bombers and assorted smaller aircraft) an overall 4 NA. Which appears to be a matter of reversing their assigned values in this version of SC-2. I think the carriers are great in this regard at their present 4.

My suggestion regarding naval attack:

Air Fleet 4

Strategic Bomber 2

Carrier 4 (as it currently is).

-- It doesn't work to say the strategic bomber unit has torpedo planes and dive bombers contained in it's organization, that's a vodoo explanation. And if it does, it means the unit has to have a different range for them; torpedo planes and dive bombers don't have anywhere near the effective strike range of strategic bombers.

[pzgndr]

My suggestion regarding naval attack:

Air Fleet 4

Strategic Bomber 2

Carrier 4 (as it currently is).

-- It doesn't work to say the strategic bomber unit has torpedo planes and dive bombers contained in it's organization, that's a vodoo explanation. And if it does, it means the unit has to have a different range for them; torpedo planes and dive bombers don't have anywhere near the effective strike range of strategic bombers.

Good points as well. I would consider the strike range bonus a "feature" and as Edwin pointed out you still have the limited spotting range to deal with. One thing we are desperately trying to achieve is to break the idea that AFs are all-powerful. If you don't really "need" Bombers, if there's no inherent advantage to having them, then we're back to trying to fix this old SC1 problem. So it's worth keeping that in mind. We need a balance between AFs and Bombers, and giving the naval bomber advantage (despite the voodoo range) to Bombers helps in this regard.

[Edwin P.]

pzgndr

Many thanks for the detailed info on the combat target values tables. It really helps to clarify the mechanics of the game.

It will be interesting to see what happens to play balance as you test(?) reducing naval and carrier attack value of bombers from 4 to 2, while keeping its sub attack value at 4.

I think that submarine attack values of 4 for bombers & carriers and 2 for air fleets is correct. This is especially true since carrier based air units were configured for naval warfare and their sub spotting was enhanced by the radar and visual sightings from their accompanying naval vessels.

[Edwin P.]

One of the biggest advantages of the Bomber in SC2 as opposed to Sc1, is going to be its range which increases at a much faster rate (as compared to air fleets or carrier fleets) with each increase in LR tech.

Example: LR3 (with hypothetical numbers)

Air Fleet Range = 6 (3 + 3x1)

Bomber Range = 14 (5 + 3x3)

Just this one change gives the allies a much wider range of strategic targets and complicates the Axis player's defensive planning.

The allies may also find that a bomber fleet is just what the doctor ordered to safeguard convoy routes between the US and UK as bombers, especially if one is based in Northern Ireland and another in Newfoundland.

[ December 09, 2005, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[SeaMonkey]

What, I think, we need to define is exactly what each group of air units contain.

If we can agree on specific definitions then the allocation of combat factors will be much easier.

Now each unit could be a mix of similar aircraft types, while specifically targeting a certain type as the predominant species.

Take the carrier air group(CAG) for example, generally an equal allocation of dive and torpedo bombers with an equal number fighter contingent, specializing in naval/sub attack, but with an air and land attack value as well. Their weak point? Probably attacking ground units in the early war years, but expanding in later years.

So what is our predominant class of aircraft for the AF. My opinion would be mostly single and dual engine fighters, FBs, and light ground attack aircraft with shorter ranges initially. Now don't forget their reconnaissance abilities as sometimes those longer range aircraft could be fitted with weapons systems, just like fighters could carry light bombs at times.

This group(AFs) would excel in air attack(interception) with equal abilities at naval/sub and ground attack, to a lesser extent a strategic attack value.

Now the Strategic bombers, (ie. transports also).

Heavier bomb loads of the two and four engine variety give it good strategic attack and land attack values(combat units). Some potential success at naval engagements and with their inherent fighter escorts(excluding AFs) and armor/aa weapon systems some decent ability to defend themselves.

Once we have some agreeable definitions it will be easy to assign the combat values.....yes?

[Desert Dave]

I think that submarine attack values of 4 for bombers & carriers and 2 for air fleets is correct.

As do I, Edwin P.

The "Strategic Bomber"

Is no longer known by that name; instead,

It is just plain old... "Bomber,"

And is listed as such in the game.

The category is meant to include

BOTH the high-flyers AND "naval bombers."

One reason?

Too many units clutter the board.

We are playing it "chess-like," which IMHO

Is unique and challenging and makes it VERY easy

To find and place your units, so

You won't have to

Clickety-click, click through

The massed,

Over-whelming stacks until you find out

What unit is where.

IMHO, a great improvement.

Early on, ideas were floated to have a separate

Naval Bomber, or, even,

Research in "naval air doctrine"

Which would have allowed you to upgrade

Your "naval bombing" capability for air fleets.

Problem became evident - why do AF's have

SO MUCH capability?

Say, you have an AF near Kiev, attacking T-34's,

Or dog-fighting with Yak escorts, and then?

Next turn it suddenly becomes

A "naval bombing unit?"

Able to send out topedo bombers so

To dive-bomb Red Cruisers in the Black Sea? :confused:

Not so plausible.

That it could do EVERYTHING.

At the snap of the fingers.

OK. So instead, we now are supposing that "Bombers"

Have multiple roles to play.

The AIR FLEETS are... Interceptors

AND - TAC, or "ground-support" units.

BOMBERS can be "strategic" or "naval."

True that the range is slightly high, though,

By 1942 and beyond, most Sea

And/or ocean-going Countries

Had naval bombers that could equal or better

The range of the currently depicted "bomber."

But most importantly,

The Bombers and AF's each cost a little less,

And NOW have more or less equal... value,

In terms of cost-benefit ratio.

So that Bombers will be purchased

And used more often than was true

With SC-1.

You CAN, of course, modify your own game to suit

Your personal preferences.

IF you do, THEN you probably should raise

Or lower the cost

Of the unit that gets more, or less capability.

Default game will have it as EP has mentioned, along with naval and carrier attack of "4."

[ December 10, 2005, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[JerseyJohn]

Dave, Edwin, Bill,

I don't understand the reasoning behind these generalizations. Two engine medium bombers, single engine naval bombers & dive bombers, four engine heavy (long range strategic bombers) are, technically, all bombers. But they have little in the way of similarities. Germany tried using it's tactical bombers as strategic bombers and the result was a disaster.

To say they're all one and the same -- does that mean an He 111 and a B-29 are both bombers so that's all there is to it?

So far I find myself agreeing with SeaMonkey's post. There needs to be a definition as to what unit type represents a given class of aircraft. Clutter hell, if we're throwing realism out the window for the sake of having a clean looking map then something is faulty.

When I was in SAC we had, primarily, one kind of plane on the base, B-52s. Yes, we also had tankers and a few other types, but on any given day you'd go down any given runway and see row after row of giant strategic bombers. Friends of mine who served in TAC and MAC said similar things about their bases; TAC bases consisted primarily of fighters and MAC consisted primarily of cargo/tankers. I think, in a game, they would each represent a different kind of piece.

Bill,

The reason strategic bombers were neglected in SC-1 was because, as we all know, they didn't quite pay back the cost of building them.

Historically there was a lot of controversy in building fleets of strategic bombers and up till fairly late in the war many Allied officials felt the large amount of resources and large numbers of men tied up in those units would be better used elsewhere. Historians are still argueing over this, so in a sense it's appropriate that the justification for this unit is vague in the game. One of the justifications cited for the bombing campaign is that it tied up a lot of Axis troops and resources, both in AA batteries and also in interceptors that were thus unable to protect their own front lines.

Strategic bombers, by 1942 onwards were flat out city busters. The last hurdle was providing them with escorts that had a comparable range; once that hurdle was gotten past, they literally destroyed the Third Reich and Japan. Albert Speer stated that three attacks such as the one on Hamburg in 1943 would have crippled Germany's ability to continue the war.

So, if this were possible to replicate in the game, there would be more than enough justification in buying heavy bombers. Unfortunately, that never came across in SC-1, but we're talking about SC-2 now, and the issue still seems blurred to me. Better than it was, but blurred all the same.

In summary, strategic bombers were a very effective weapon, but only when used in large numbers. The thousand plan raids were the only application that really achieved results. In Japan, so many major cities were flattened by the B-29s in 1944 and 45 that by war's end they were running out of targets. A handful of secondary cities, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be reserved on a special list or they'd have been routinely flattened as well. America wanted two pristine targets to study the effects of a nuclear attack.

In Europe, Germany had an average of 1,000,000 men and boys manning the AA batteries. This was offset, however, by the fact that heavy bomber losses were considerable and their crews were among the most highly trained -- which I think is well represented in SC1, the expense incurred in replacing losses is the main thing that makes those bomber units so unpopular. It far exceeds the damages caused.

DD

-- I understand that we can always adjust the values ourselves in the scenario editor. I'm grateful for that and am certain that many others feel the same way about it. But I think we should still be discussing this in a thread, not only to help ensure that the values assigned in the main scenarios are responsible, but also so that later we'll individually have a greater basis for making our own adjustments.

Thanks for that tip about adjusting costs to changed values. That aspect could have been easily missed.

[Desert Dave]

But I think we should still be discussing this in a thread, not only to help ensure that the values assigned in the main scenarios are responsible, but also so that later we'll individually have a greater basis for making our own adjustments.

Absolutely, JJ, couldn't agree more.

Nothing is set in stone.

Who knows?

What might be tweaked by the time

Of initial release, or, even,

After. :cool:

All I was saying, essentially, is that we

Are now dividing air capabilities

Between two units,

Instead of having MOST of the attack factors

With ONLY, or mostly the Air Fleets.

I easily recall the tremendous number

Of COMPLAINTS!!

That the AF was just too all-powerful in SC-1.

Here,

They are no longer the "Queen"

Of the battle-field, rather, perhaps,

A Knight?

______________________________

**(... off topic, so who don't care for that can SKIP this next bit)

[... BTW, tell Ethan for me that was a great story! The Garden state of Good & Evil! Or, Tammy and the bewitched batchelor! LOL! Also,

my congrats for making the HS soccer team! My

son chose soccer also, no matter! My immense

efforts to interest him in baseball... well, it

actually ain't NO damn good anymore, @ Major

League level, eh? Now! Tejada says he ain't

for the Birds no more, he's unhappy, misunderstood, not appreciated! At 12 million a year! He don't LIKE losing! Wants, DEMANDS to get traded to a contender, well, may happen... he's got an Agent that could steal the pony off yer Polo shirt!]

[JerseyJohn]

Dave,

Thanks, if I ever catch him again I'll tell him and I'm sure he'll be very pleased. I'm sure he'll be in to do more posting next time we get a few days of steady heavy rain.

I suspect soccer today has filled the role that baseball had for us back in the days of Snider, Mays, Mantle, Colivito, Feller, Paige and all those other already fading giants of the diamond.

Excellent points about the Air Fleets. I agree, in SC-1 they were too much too often and always. I'd better agree after all the complaining I did about them.

[Lars]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Lars,

I stand corrected on the B 25/24 issue, but it really amounts to the same thing and is irrelevant in terms of the point being discussed, which is the ability of heavy bombers (WWII era) to hit moving ships.

B-24s, and some other medium bombers such as the German Condor, were effectively used against shipping. They came down to low altitude and often did a lot of straffing with aircraft cannons and heavy machine guns. But anti-shipping action is different from attacking war ships that are firing back with 6 inch guns mounted in turrets; the aircrafts cannons would be ineffective and machine gun straffing meaningless. The only weapons of any use would be bombs and they'd have to drop them at high altitudes, bringing back the accuracy factor, or be easy AA targets.

It's true that he never does tell us what exactly constitutes a bomber wing as opposed to an air fleet, but if one is abstracted as medium bombers and ground assault (which the Germans had) and the other is strategic bombers (which Germany didn't have) which group should torpedo planes and divebombers be considered a part of? Also, the Germans inflicted considerable damage against Royal Navy units off Norway and Greece, forcing them from their area of operation. They were using what in the game would be considered air fleets. [/QB]

Two words.

Skip bombing.

Again, you're getting hung up on plane types. All these problems go away if you just look at the results and don't worry about types and tactics.

btw, have a beautiful pic on my wall of a B-25 coming straight in on a Jap destroyer. 5 inch guns didn't do him much good.

[JerseyJohn]

Lars,

We went through the B-25, B-24 issue and, yes, they did attack ships. German two engine bombers also attacked them and sank quite a few. B-25s filled a strategic bomber role in the Mediteranean, most notably in hitting the Ploesti Oil Fields, but they were more like long range tactical bombers than the high altitude strategic variety.

What we're really talking about is the role of strategic bombers in attacking warships and why they're listed in SC as being the best at it. No, they weren't. That's all there is to it. B-17s couldn't handle moving targets, even when they were 800 feet long, and B-29s would have been hopeless in that function.

The reason we can't get away from this is that there are huge differences between strategic bombers and medium bombers. Range, the different roles they were meant to fill and how well they filled them. Many aircraft that were technically bombers also served as night fighters because they were large enough to carry the bulky radar and other necessary gear. But during daylight they'd have been no one's idea of a fighter plane.

I hate to keep harping on the issue, but I think it's significant.

[ December 10, 2005, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Desert Dave]

JJ,

Let's play hypothetical.

Let's say you are modifying your own treasured copy of SC-2. :cool:

OK, now what would YOUR ratings be?

Keep in mind:

1) The range of attack values is recommended to be 1 to 4, so to... prevent TOO MASSIVE casualties with any one encounter. Keeps the ships and planes in the game a little longer.

2) And, let's assume the CA's and BB's have an Air and Bomber defense value of "2."

3) Use Bill's accurate statement of current ratings as mentioned in above post:

a) SA= Soft Attack

TA= Tank Attack

(... these 2 comprising the TAC component)

c) NA= Naval Attack

d) RA= Strategic Attack

e) CA= Carrier Attack

f) UA= Sub Attack

Now, WHAT ratings would you assign to each of the AF's and Bombers and CV's?

Anyone else can insert their several cents worth WRT to this aspect, as well.

Just to get an idea of what the informed and interested members would suppose are THE IDEAL air campaigns, on land or by sea.

[JerseyJohn]

DD,

Good idea. I'll give it a shot.

4 = max, arial attack against the following targets. In all instances, strengths listed in order of Strategic Bombers / Air Fleets

a) SA= Soft Attack ... 2 / 3

TA= Tank Attack ... 2 / 3

(... these 2 comprising the TAC component)

c) NA= Naval Attack ... 1 / 3

d) RA= Strategic Attack ... 4 / 2

e) CA= Carrier Attack ... 1 / 3

f) UA= Sub Attack ... 3 / 2

Notes:

Tactical: Soft Attack & Tank Attack, there are few examples of strategic bombers being used en masse, so I'm mainly going by the attack against St Lo, in which they inflicted substantial casualties, including the mauling of the Panzer Lehr Division.

Naval Attack and Carrier Attack in both cases it's 1 / 3 on the basis that strategic bombers couldn't hit moving naval targets; I don't consider skip bombing to be in this category as that was done by medium bombers, more properly part of air fleets.

Sub Attack They were both effective. I give the edge to strategic bombers as they were used in that role over the Atlantic. Air fleets saw service in this role in the Mediteranean. My inclination is to rate them as equal, but I think bombers should have the edge due to range.

Strategic Attack Self-explanatory, it's what strategic bombers were designed to do. Medium bombers could also be effective, but the larger aircraft did it much better, literally destroying cities.

[ December 10, 2005, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Desert Dave]

Valid rationales all around JJ.

Anyone else?

SM, CT, Lars, CC, EP, rambo, Kuni, Terif?

See, the REASON I propose this hypothetical modification,

Is BECAUSE very many, MANY members

Just did NOT like how POWERFUL!!

The Air Fleets used to be.

**PROVISO: Naturally, we all recognize that Hubert will have final say, and it's most probably going to remain AS IS,

But, here is YOUR chance to give an opinion on the coming SC-2 air wars.

What say?

[JerseyJohn]

Thanks Dave.

I have to admit, this is a fine exercise as it forces us to closely examine the basis for our remarks.

Looking forward to seeing the opinions of others.

[Edwin P.]

Bomber/Fighter

a) SA= Soft Attack ..... 1 / 2

TA= Armor Attack .... 1 / 2

c) NA= Naval Attack ... 1 / 3

d) RA= Strategic Attack ... 4 / 1

e) CA= Carrier Attack ... 1 / 2

f) UA= Sub Attack ... 4 / 2 (1?)

Naval Attack - During WWII fighters were very effective against naval targets and as JJ pointed out Bombers much less so.

Carrier Attack - in my view carriers would have a better chance of being warned about incoming attacks due to their air patrols, thus fighters should have a lower rating vs carrier groups than other surface naval fleets as they would be less likely to surprise them.

Strategic Attack: I tend to agree with the current strategic attack ratings as attacks by bombers were several orders of magnitude more effective than fighter attacks due to the amount and size of ordenance they could drop. The difference between 4 and 1 illustrates this best.

Submarine Attacks: I would make Bombers more effective (4) against Subs as they carried bombs in quantities that could blanket a large area. In reality, fighters were only effective against subs if they are on the surface. The question that I have is should fighters be ranked 2 or 1 vs subs. If 1 it would increase the need for building Strategic Bombers if the Axis launched a battle for the Atlantic with wolf packs.

[ December 10, 2005, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

The difference in our ratings, I think, goes back to what SeaMonkey was saying about defining what planes were talking about in the two kinds of air units.

Here are my definitions:

Strategic Bombers = 4 engine, large bombers such as the American B-17 and B-29 and British Lancaster.

Air Fleet = 2 engine medium bombers such as the B-25, B-24 and most German bombers, such as the HE 111. ... Also includes anything smaller, such as dive bombers, torpedo planes (which would be multi purpose landbased attack places, including fighter-bombers), single engine horizontal bombers and all fighter planes.

If I were talking about only bombers in one group, medium and heavy, and only fighters/fighter-bombers in the other, my ratings would be radically different.

-- Possibly you've got the same definition and used the term fighter in a general sense.

[Lars]

Well, think I’ll use JJ’s format here, then point out what I’d tweak.

a) SA= Soft Attack ... 2 / 3

TA= Tank Attack ... 2 / 3

c) NA= Naval Attack ... 1 / 3

d) RA= Strategic Attack ... 4 / 2

e) CA= Carrier Attack ... 1 / 3

f) UA= Sub Attack ... 3 / 2

I’d up the Bombers on Soft Target attack. Dumping five tons of bombs per plane tends to have a disheartening effect on the troops, but I’d lower it for Tank Attacks. If you didn’t pretty much get a direct hit on a tank, you wasted the ordinance.

Naval Attack, as stated, should match the Air Fleet number. I can find legion upon legion of examples of long range strategic type (and non-strategic types, think PBY Black Cats) aircraft delivering devasting attacks to naval shipping. Remember, you only got to hit them once to ruin their entire day.

To throw JJ a bone, maybe make the number for Bomber take that jump on a tech advance when they finally figure out the correct tactics. That would take care of the early war B-17 example.

And making a Bomber attack (land or water) with no escorts that runs into any sort of Air Fleet or Carrier air cover should lead to devestating losses to the Bomber unit. I think this would be key to avoid Bomber becoming the uber unit in place of Air Fleet. We don’t want to trade one problem for another.

But again, to repeat, it’s not really the plane, it’s how you use it. Turns out the Allies would have been better off chucking all those large four engine bombers and building nothing but small two engine Mosquitos for the strategic bombing role. Anybody want to put that option in?

[SeaMonkey]

This is a very good discussion, very relevant to SC2 playability, and very important. Its going to take some thought.

Perhaps we should examine some TO&E prospects for each class, not just types but numbers too. We are are going to have to agree on some generalities and some abstracts as all nations airforces were not organized the same and didn't adhere to the same doctrines and aircraft types.

DD and Bill, we are at somewhat of a loss as to what variables the SC2 editor will allow us in the creation of values for each different nationalities airforces, depending on those differences stated above as well as others.

For example could UK's bombers have different values then say the USSR's bombers? Can the costs be different for each nation's purchase. The idea is to be as historically accurate as possible initially, and then let the guiding hand of the player proceed with enhancements generally along their playing personna.

If all bombers are required the same values, especially range, then this might be a solidifying bases to start from,(defining the TO&E).

Anyway, I am going to have to examine some of my historical reference data to obtain some orientation to back the values I suggest.

This is way to important to post without adequate contemplation.

[Desert Dave]

For example could UK's bombers have different values then say the USSR's bombers? Can the costs be different for each nation's purchase.

SM,

Yes, and yes.

Be sure to stick in yer proposed ratings for AF's and Bombers.

What I'll do is add 'em all up after 3 or 4 days and arrive at an average,

And compare that to what now exists.

See how that computes.