Aircraft vs Ship Attacks

[Edwin P.]

They can both have different ranges and values .....and they can be nation specific.

One key difference between Germany/Italy/Russia and the UK was that the UK was naval oriented.Another issue that JJ brought up is the different types of planes used in naval attacks.

The question arises how best to reflect this.

Perhaps creating a Naval HQ units that raises the CTV of attached Air Fleets & Bombers vs Naval, Carriers and Subs by +2, thus reflecting their orientation towards naval warfare and reducing its AA by -1. Only the UK would start the game with a Naval HQ unit and one could only attach 3 units to a Naval HQ unit. Then you could have bombers or air fleets with a naval orientation, each with its own advantage. If attached to bombers the GP would also have the advantage of its longer range.

Thus most air fleets would only be +2 vs Naval units, but if attached to a Naval HQ they would become +4. Of course these attached units would see their AA ability reduced by -1 and thus be less useful in interception roles.

Naval HQ Summary

--- Can Attach 3 units: Naval, Sub, Carrier, Air Fleets or Bombers to it.

--- No range restriction on attaching units.

--- Attached Air Fleets gain +2 NA, +2CA (from +2 to +4) and -1 AA (air attack) and -1 TA.

--- Attached Bombers gain +2NA, +2CA (from +1 to +3) and -2 RA (resource attack).

--- Attached Naval, Sub and Carrier units gain +15% combat readiness.

Essentially, if you configure an air unit for naval attacks by attaching it to a naval HQ it will be less effective at executing its other missions.

[ December 11, 2005, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Dave,

I never had a problem with the two types of air units in SC-1. I've always felt long range bombers should be separate from all other aircraft. Range is the primary reason, but also because they are, as you said, intended for one purpose only, bombing strategic resources and cities into oblivion. The problem I had in SC-1 regarding bombers is they never seemed to be worthwhile. You couldn't bomb resources with them because your own losses would far exceed whatever damage was being inflicted.

Aside from which, my opinions are never based on game play, but always historically oriented. My feeling is, if the thing is gotten right by historical standards it has to turn out right in the game itself.

My long ago suggestions in SC regarding Air Fleets were (and still are):

1) They destroy land units, which is wrong. They should weaken them but units the size of a corps or army can only be destroyed by ground combat, not air attack. So, the basic nature of air attack against ground units needed to be changed. And that was my suggestion.

2) They were routinely built in absurd quantities and, once long range abilities were achieved, became the only unit that counted. I played a couple of PBEM games against people who had something like 30 air fleets! Many times I built over 20 myself, I had no choice.

-- My suggestion in this regard was to make them increasingly more expensive according to how many existing airfleets the owning player currently had. Or, incrementally more expensive as they were built. If, at Jet=0 the cost was 400 for the first five air fleets, the sixth should have been 500, the sixth 600, the seventh 700 on up, till the cost of making more than ten would have been too high to afford. Naturally, at higher techs they'd cost much, much more. This would have reflected not only the cost of ever scarcer materials, but also the lessening availability of qualified personnel; air units require large numbers of skilled technicians, that pool would grow steadily smaller as the size of an air force increased.

Heavy Bombers,

Of course they can drop bombs on defensive emplacements, but as was demonstrated at Normandy, the chances are they won't be able to hit very much of what they're aiming at. Of course, the move bombs that are dropped the greater the chances of destroying bunkers, minefields, barbed wire and other objects, but doing so would always be an unpredictable and unreliable process.

They were used with some success against dug in ground troops, as stated earlier, at St Lo, where they were instrumental in blowing a gap in the German defenses. Contrary to an earlier statement, I believe by Lars, direct hits on tanks were not required. German accounts tell repeatedly of panthers and tigers being tumbled over by near misses and rendered useless. In many cases the crews were killed even if the tank itself wasn't destroyed but merely turned upside down or on it's side. Of course they could have been righted again, but presumably the defenders would not have been given enough time for that sort of repair work.

Instead of going on, I'll state simply that I see heavy bombers as having one prime function, to conduct strategic bombings. They didn't begin doing this effectively till 1943, but even before that they had a considerable effect on areas that were targetted on a regular basis. Whether or not the cost of conducting those missions was proportionate to the damage and loss inflicted has been debated ever since. In a sense that was reflected in SC-1 and most players chose not to spend the large number of MPPs on them.

I don't believe the game should need to artificially combine functions the units didn't possess in order to make sure they're worth using. Their strategic bombing ability should in itself be worth the cost, and to me that's it.

As to the range issue. Yes, I like that suggestion. If Strategic bombers had a reduced attack range against naval units I'd have no complaing whatever. Presumably they'd still be able to spot them at their full range, and that would be perfect.

[Desert Dave]

As to the range issue. Yes, I like that suggestion. If Strategic bombers had a reduced attack range against naval units I'd have no complaing whatever. Presumably they'd still be able to spot them at their full range, and that would be perfect.

JJ,

Well then!

Bill has noted your (... and a few others') concerns and posted a suggestion, a request in the Beta Forum.

It's all we can do.

Hubert is so very busy coding for AI that I don't know if this could even be done, coding wise or time wise - for now.

Post release, who knows?

WRT to your other comments, I'd say this:

1) Air Fleets will no longer be so powerful no matter how we look at it; they will reduce morale and readiness, primarily, with some SP loss.

2) Air Fleets simply CANNOT dominate anyway (... so I admit, part of my own argument is incomplete, thus slightly askew)

BECAUSE there are force-pool limits. :cool:

Not only that, but once you start researching, then upgrading, the COST is going to be VERY extensive when it comes time to reinforce, most especially for "elite reinforcements," IE, over and above size "10," which depends on "experience medals" earned.

Having played the '39 game through a couple times now, I can tell you this:

a) Since spotting for Bombers is reduced, they do NOT have dreadful impact on subs @ Sea in the Atlantic, UNLESS there are surface units out there which can spot for them

(... also, the surface units have reduced spotting, AND, U-boots are not likely to head for the convoy lanes within SB range! and, plenty of room for them to avoid notice, since the Ocean is larger too).

In the Med, well, there you'll need AF interceptors and/or escorts so to assist or deflect naval bombing raids on surface ships.

Not a problem, as the Med is small enough to allow judicious placement of AF and Bomber alike. More of that chess-match, and more GP choices to make. :cool:

There are FEWER units on board, but there is MUCH MUCH more variation in kinds of units, EVEN within the same category.

For instance, as GErmany I bought a lot of 0-0-0 (... for I/W, A/T, Motor) Corps so to place as garrison or partisan-preventing units.

Or, a L-0 tank unit used as recon, even though I had L-3 tanks for the purpose of "blitz and krieg!"

So, all in all - and as you, I absolutely favor a "historical approach" in almost all aspects of game design, the AF vs Bomber problem is truly less of one than might be imagined.

Doesn't mean there still won't be some tweaks.

And, you CAN edit your game to be PRECISELY how you like it.

For instance, I may well have one '39 scenario where the Air Fleets are ONLY fighters & interceptors (... and costing ~ 275 MPP ea)

Whereas the "bombers" are three-fold:

1) TAC

2) Naval

3) Strat

Just for the heck of it, with appropriate cost and CTV changes... so to see how she plays!

We CAN... do... just about... anything!

[ December 11, 2005, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[JerseyJohn]

Dave,

Thanks for clearing that up and also my thanks to Bill for making that suggestion. I'm sure Hubert will at least consider it and, as you say, with the editor as powerful as it is now, we can always choose our own parameters. We'll have to anyway if we want to create scenarios from earlier decades or eras.

After reading all those posts of yours, it's for certain that you've always been as concerned with having an historical view as the rest of us.

SeaMonkey,

Great info back there. I enjoyed reading through it and am sure I'll be using it down the road. Thanks for posting it.

Edwin,

I don't know if they'll be used, but I like the ideas you posted on these issues.

[SeaMonkey]

Alright, I am going to rethink my values based upon the original definition but take a different approach.

Instead of a TO&E perspective, I'm going to approach it from the conceptual orientation of the effects historically recognized from each major WW2 participant.

In other words, in relation to each other, how effective were German fighters overall in the role of interceptor, TAC(SA & TA), strategic, naval. Add that to the German ground attack and level bomber effectiveness in each role and that equals to the AF's values. An AF equals approximately 500 to 600 effective aircraft, two thirds of those being oriented to air supremacy.

Now bombers, they are 100% oriented to dropping explosive ordinance in a multitude of attack roles. Some nation's designs and doctrines more effective at certain attack roles than others. Same number of aircraft as AFs.

What else is there to consider from the historical attack role effectiveness recognized as characteristic of each nations airforces when divided into these two categories?

[Ottosmops]

Let's assume, that in a bomber unit are different kinds of planes, like short range dive bombers, medium range two engine bombers and long range four engine bombers.

But even then not a single plane can fly 2000 miles, attack a ship effektively as a dive bomber and return safely to its base.

One solution would be, to reduce the attack value according to the distance of the target.

If the target is farther away than the strike range of an air fleet, the attack value could be reduced by 50%, simulating that only the long range aircraft can participate in this attack.

And yes, I know, such an ad hoc solution would be a horror for the programmer of the game. :eek:

[Desert Dave]

3. Ju87B,1&2, 490 miles, 1100lb bombs, 3x7.9mm mg.

4. Ju87D-1, 950 miles, 4000lb, 3x7.9mm mg.

Thanks, SM, for the above Ju B & D ranges.

But even then not a single plane can fly 2000 miles, attack a ship effektively as a dive bomber and return safely to its base.

What naval plane is going to be asked to perform such an extraordinary feat?

Let's say that the Bomber, at start of game, has a range of... 8.

Each tile= ~60 miles.

8 Xs 60= 480 miles.

According to the data supplied by SM,

Ju87B range= 490 miles.

So, whether you consider the Ju/B as part of an air fleet, or as naval bombing squadron (... as with "Fleigkorps X" which dominated Central Med for a good while in 1941), it does indeed closely conform, true?

[SeaMonkey]

My values are as follows: UK and USA are the same=WA, Germany=G, Italy=I. Values are for AF/Bombers.

SA, G 2/1, I 2/1, WA 2/2, USSR, 2/1

TA, G 2/1, I 1/1, WA 2/1, USSR. 2/1

NA, G 2/3, I 1/3, WA 2/4, USSR 2/2

RA, G 2/3, I 1/2, WA 2/4, USSR 1/2

CA, all 2/3, except USSR 1/2

UA, G&I 2/2, WA 2/4, USSR 1/2

AA(air attack) G 4/1, I 3/1, WA 4/2, USSR 3/1

For the omitted CAG(carrier) AA value, all at 2, which represents the fighter contingent as well as the supporting task force's TripleA.

Pretty close to the proposed normals with one notable exception WA SA value of 2 for the Bomber unit. One word, innovation, the tendency of, the example...the early development of the technique known as "Tedder's Carpet" and the continued application of such concepts, not to mention Lars' reference to the proximity fuse.

[Ottosmops]

DD

Let's say that the Bomber, at start of game, has a range of... 8.

Each tile= ~60 miles.

8 Xs 60= 480 miles.

According to the data supplied by SM,

Ju87B range= 490 miles.

So, whether you consider the Ju/B as part of an air fleet, or as naval bombing squadron (... as with "Fleigkorps X" which dominated Central Med for a good while in 1941), it does indeed closely conform, true?

I agree.

But when long range Tech becomes researched to level 5, simulating the B-17 with its range of 2500 miles, how can such a bomber unit keep its good NA values?

Here is my proposal:

(Bombers / AF)

SA = __2 / 2

TA = __2 / 2

NA = _*4 / 4

RA = __4 / 1

CA = _*4 / 4

UA = **4 / 4

NA and CA for bombers (marked *) should be reduced to 1 if the target is out of range for most bombers, i.e. more than 2000 miles away.

(2000 miles or whatever the range of the best dive bomber or torpedo planes may be. )

UA should become 3 in this case.

I think bomber units and Air Fleets should have mostly the same aircraft. (2/3)

The last 1/3 of the AFs are the fighters and the last 1/3 of the bomber units are the largest planes available at this time.

[SeaMonkey]

Well since my figures are being quoted, understand that this is the maximum range allowable under ideal conditions. Meant to be for comparison of aircraft types only.

In terms of gameplay, the more realistic approach is to apply a 40% operational radius to the range.

So .40 X 490 miles for the Ju87B is what the actual mission range would more closely resemble, hence 196 miles. (3.27 SC2 tiles)

Weather conditions, ordinance loads, aircraft fuel efficiency, plus other intangibles(maneuvering), not to mention the need to return to base, all have to be accounted for.

[JerseyJohn]

Also, I think range has to be calculated as 70-80% of the total figure as fuel was consumed more quickly in combat than straight travelling.

[Desert Dave]

Well, all I know is that one of them JU 87 models was modified to be a naval bomber.

.... M, N, O, P, Q?

R, S, T, U, V?

W, X, Y or was it - Z?

"R" I think it was, ya, with a range of 8 tiles.

It was on a recently declassified manifest that I read using that Freedom of Information Act.

The JU87® pilot had asked ground control:

"How many miles die Tagen canst Ich machen?"

Ground control hadst replied:

"Du canst machen, ummm, about... 8 tiles, given der prevailing SM variables!"

So, there you have it, it's now official.

[JerseyJohn]

Ah, what a relief it is to know for sure!

[SeaMonkey]

Given those SM variables, as I recollect, there was some secret prototype, I believe the PP234, based loosely on that Ju87 design... or something to that effect, details are still sketchy.

Now this protoype's range was also classified, but again as I remember it, it flew to an accompanying Axis power where a large lizard resided.

Rumor has it, that training exercises with PP234 against that lizard so confounded the giant beast that it was last seen swimming away from the island inhabitants in sheer pandemonium.

And thus the legend of "The Savior of Tokyo" was born.......the PP234.

[JerseyJohn]

But the prototype was ditched by Goering who said, "Of what possible use to the Luftwaffe would a naval assault aircraft be? So it's able to fly around the globe without refueling, what's that to us? All the more reason to make sure Raeder never has access to it!"

[Lars]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

Having played the '39 game through a couple times now, I can tell you this:

a) Since spotting for Bombers is reduced, they do NOT have dreadful impact on subs @ Sea in the Atlantic, UNLESS there are surface units out there which can spot for them

(... also, the surface units have reduced spotting, AND, U-boots are not likely to head for the convoy lanes within SB range! and, plenty of room for them to avoid notice, since the Ocean is larger too).

Some thoughts, starting with this. It's bass ackwards.

Recon spots for surface. How do you think the Army got all those B-17's anyway? They sold it as coastal defense, not strategic bombing.

The spotting range should be increased for Bombers, reduced for Destroyers. Would be nice if Hubert could code it to take account of range, i.e. pretty much guaranteed at 2-3 hexes, and dropping off steeply the further out you get. And of course, those spotting ranges chances need to be upped when you get advances to reflect radar and whatnot. Reduced again if your Bomber unit isn't at full strength to reflect holes in your search pattern.

Also, maybe DD and CA should be the only unit that can finish off a Sub, much as JJ suggested for AF not being able to finish off land units. Would give you a reason to build DD and would reflect historical practice of hunter/killer groups.

Perhaps we should be considering the spotting ranges in addition to the attack values in this debate a bit more. Can't kill what you can't see. Wouldn't matter for RA, but would for everything else.

And SeaMonkey, you got on the right track when you quit considering aircraft types/ranges and started considering effects. That's all we worry about with Inf and Tank.

[Desert Dave]

Some thoughts, starting with this. It's bass ackwards.

Lars,

Sure enough, in a certain sense you are right.

However, what we want to AVOID is a situation where a stationary Bomber, with spotting ability that is VERY high,

Could, in effect, see EVERYTHING that goes on, naval sortie wise, see what I mean?

As with SC-1, where all you had to do was place a bomber in Scotland and you would ALWAYS know what the GErman Navy was up to, ANYWHERE in the North East Atlantic area.

Sure, would be great to have "search patterns" and percentages of success based on # of patrol craft and fog-banks and profile of task forces and etc.

But, that's quite unlikely to happen.

So. A ship that is beyond the spotting range of the Naval Bomber will "see" the enemy formation and THEN the NB can join in, should it be within strike range.

I understand what you are saying, and it does make meta-logical sense.

Yet, not everything in war-games, board or pixel, proceeds precisely according to every actual demand of "the physic."

And so, that is a little bit more micro-managing of the naval wars than is currently implemented, or planned.

Good commentary and suggestions though.

[Lars]

Wouldn't having the spotting range ramp up avoid the uberBomber?

You get both then. A DD spots something, the Level 0 Bomber can join in. (or vis versa).

Later in the game, a Level 5 Bomber spots everything, the DD's can join in.

But by that point, I'd think the seas would have been swept clean.

[Desert Dave]

But by that point, I'd think the seas would have been swept clean.

Yep, no doubt!

This system is not perfect, very few are, but what it DOES do is allow some "secret sorties" to take place, where the GP can launch surprise Carrier attacks on ships at sea, or in port, and permit the various navies to operate in wider, more wide-ranging arcs.

In the Atlantic, the U-boot VS convoy conflict is by far the more important aspect.

Thus, with reduced spotting all around, those boats can actually get to the convoy lanes and wreak real havoc once arrived.

In the Med, well, that "little Lake" is so small, that it is going to be VERY interesting in terms of tactical maneuvering.

IE, where to place the naval bombers and/or land based air, and when.

All in all, as said, I find the new game to replicate all the actual (... and what-if) naval wars pretty doggone good! :cool:

Later, after some serious game play by all the Admirals and Ack-Ack cats out there, well, who knows what might be tweaked further?

As with spotting & strike ranges of various craft, or even, some variation of your fine idea of simulating "search patterns" with random chances of success based on distance and weather and the like.

Let's get the game out there! First.

[Lars]

Sounds good to me!

[JerseyJohn]

DD - Lars

Reading the above post had me thinking more in terms of the Pacific than the Atlantic. Because, with SC-1 type spotting rules, considering there were flying boats and some B-17s (at least incoming but I think a few already on the island) the Japanese fleet could never have arrived undetected. Add to that, the large aircraft at Midway and they'd have been spotted for sure (weather in SC-1 doesn't seem to be that significant a factor).

Speaking of large aircraft as spotters. The Battle of Midway could never have been replicated in SC-1 because both sides had long range search aircraft. Those used by the Americans got in the first sightings of the the enemy with the Japanese finding the US ships a little too late to be of much use. But if it were SC-1 conditions, both fleets should have seen all of one another from the outset and all the way through.

I like Lars suggestion of 100% for a three tile radius and it drops off sharply afterwards. All anyone needs to do is see the scene in Tora, Tora, Tora where Admiral Kimmel becomes short tempered at a report stating the Hawaiian Islands can have good spotter protection provided it were given an impossibly large number of B-17s.

But, as Dave said, and I agree with, no game (at present) can take all of these factors into account.

Getting back to what Dave said a few days back regarding Hubert's reading these posts, I can't help but think this discussion has already had a positive effect on the final game design. Wish we'd have had it months ago.

[SeaMonkey]

I have always been an advocate of introducing features that contribute to "The Search" as that is the compelling aspect of games of this genre. It is also one of the predominant factors in who wins the battle...who gets discovered first.

Good suggestions Lars, but probably a little to specific for the abstracted game scale. Still there is some room in the editor to simulate the effect, if not the mechanics. Perhaps a spotting defense value could be introduced for each unit type simulating a % chance of being found, depending on the strength(less than 10 equals a smaller footprint), size(initial footprint), and experience(camouflage ability) of the unit.

As far as the actual battle, the air defense and naval defense values of the sub unit in conjunction with the UA values of the Bombers and DD/CA/CV/BB task forces could be configured to give the desired effect.

I agree that the naval task forces should be more competent at killing off subs than aircraft.

[Lars]

I would hope Hubert would be able write algorithms to do all these things.

For instance, Spotting Chance = (Strength + Readiness + Tech - Weather - Range) +/- Target Type

Complicated, but that's why he makes the big bucks.

And that's why I'm going to pay him.