Air fleets & ships too powerful

[dicedtomato]

SC2's bombardment system is ludicrous. There is neither a fortress nor a Level 6 entrenched capital that can't be taken in a single turn by using massed air fleets. The Germans benefit from this; three or four experienced air fleets practically guarantee a drive to Suez and the Urals.

On the other hand, massed Allied naval bombardment is equally ridiculous. Brest becomes a naval parking lot as seven or eight Allied flotillas systematically bombard Brest.

The problem is the readiness and entrenchment loss inflicted by air and ships. A defender with Level 6 entrenchment and 100 percent morale can be reduced to Level Zero and 10 percent morale in a single week. It's not realistic and it's not fun.

Morale loss should be limited to no more than 50 percent in a single turn, no matter how many bombardments are made. Entrenchment loss should be limited to no more than 1 in a single turn, unless made by ground attack. This will give Moscow and Gibralter a fighting chance. It also means that instead of bombarding a target to death, the Germans will either have to wait several turns for bombardment to take effect, or go in with ground troops and take losses.

Diced Tomato

[Blashy]

I've mentioned that morale and readiness should not be affected by such attacks from an entrench fortification or city.

We all saw how units would come out unscathed and ready to go from air raids.

Once the entrenchment is gone THEN should it start affecting morale and readiness, but not before.

We need only look at D-Day and see that Germans were not really shaken up by all that bombarding and air raiding. They just sat tight and played cards (I read that somewhere).

I like the idea of no more than 1 entrench lost by air and naval attack per turn. I'll pass this along, very good idea.

[Major Spinello]

While I do not totally object ... we have to be careful not to make navy and airfleets unattractive. They are expensive to build and reinforce. And I also feel there should remain a difference if you bombard a position with 1 or 5 airfleets or naval fleets.

[Jollyguy]

I think limiting to 1 un-entrenchment per turn is too little, 1 per air attack maybe too much. Perhaps air should have less of a chance to unentrench, but ground units should have more.

If the attacker is committing ground units and takin sometimes substantial casualties, then it would seem balanced to have entrenchement reduced accordingly, one per ground attack. Otherwise Moscow would take forever to takeout. And doesn't entrenchment recover at one per turn? If so, it would be quite hard to take a six entrenchment city. And perhaps the un-entrenching could occur in reverse order. If ground sent in first, they take out one per attack, then if air sent in to mop-up, they're chance of reducing entrenchment goes up, rather than vice versa.

Bob

[Blashy]

1 entrench loss per turn by AFs, not by groundtroops.

So six troops would be -6 entrench. While 6 AFs would be -1.

[jkm]

weather doesn't play enough of a factor with air power. if ships can be damaged at sea by storms then localized squares with bad weather should be able to take down some planes.

[Terif]

Entrenchment loss by airstrikes is not the crucial point I would say. Problem is the too high readiness and morale loss since with the low readiness after several airstrikes, it doesn´t matter any more how much entrenchment/terrain bonus a defender has as readiness is multiplied with it. And a number near zero multiplied with even a high number results still in near zero .

So what needs change is the readiness/morale loss by airstrikes. Be it by a cap per turn or reduced loss for each airstrike.

P.S.:

No readiness/morale loss in airstrikes vs cities and fortresses (I would add mountains ) is a good idea . Would greatly improve defence possibilities and also increase the value of fortifications.

[StefMan]

Another point regarding fortifications:

It doesn`t really make sense to me that a unit in a fortress starts out with an entrenchment of zero. It should make a difference wether you are sitting on open ground or behind thick concrete walls. Units should start with an entrenchment of two or three as soon as they enter a fortified tile and then gain one level of entrenchment per turn afterwards.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by StefMan:

Another point regarding fortifications:

It doesn`t really make sense to me that a unit in a fortress starts out with an entrenchment of zero. It should make a difference wether you are sitting on open ground or behind thick concrete walls. Units should start with an entrenchment of two or three as soon as they enter a fortified tile and then gain one level of entrenchment per turn afterwards.

I've suggested this before. It should start at half and the next turn full strength.

1 turn is one week in the summer, it does not take one week to get in position inside a ready build fortification.

[Bromley]

What about Malta and direct assaults on fortification lines? Perhaps the airfleet effect on morale against prepared positions could be tied to the supply of the unit attacked. High supply, low effect & vv.

That way there's a chance to hold the Siegfried line with crack troops unless the Allies reduce Frankfurt and Essen. Likewise with Malta (although I've a feeling that the ability to reinforce a Malta garrison is the determining factor in that case).

EDIT: That'd also make the lack of German strategic bombers in Russia important.

[Rolend]

I agree air ops against entrenched ground units is WAY to good. Historicaly fighter bombers had their best effect when ground units were out in the open, using roads or open fields. When they were entrenched and under cover they were not only hard to hit but hard to even spot. If the Germans come to Russia with just 3 or 4 Airfleets and they concentrate them, NOTHING can stand in the way of Germany sweeping any entrenched or city position.

As I have stated in one of my other post I also think that if a ground attack is intercepted by an enemy airfleet then the effects to the ground unit should drop drastically.

[Lars]

I get your point Rolend but just how do you entrench a supply truck?

I don't care how snug you are in your little foxhole hiding from the planes, but if lunch doesn't show up, your morale is going down.

[Bromley]

In that case maybe airfleets should have a chance to damage the supply state of a fort/city? The opposite of shore bombardment, so 0 : 2(1) .

[Kelly's Heroes]

Perhaps there could more of a use for different units to do different things?

A few thoughts on entrenchment:

1) Any infantry units that are entrenched (in cities and fortifications) should be able to deal out a lot of damage to ANY units attacking it (especially to tanks - tanks attacking INTO cities should be a no no), except to strategic bombers.

2) Every attack on an entrenched unit should ONLY reduce the entrenchment level by one until it reaches zero. After this, the unit itself starts to take damage.

3) ONLY a strategic bomber can reduce entrenchment by two levels AND reduce an entrenched unit's supply/morale.

[Kelly's Heroes]

As for the effects in real life to bombing, just read the accounts of what the Germans suffered from Allied carpet bombing that was done before Patton's breakout at St Lo:

The bombing was so intense and terrifying that 1/3 of Germans in the area were killed or wounded; 1/3 went mad; and the other 1/3 dug themselves out to prepare for the Allied attacks.

Even Tiger tanks had been thrown up into the air and were found half-buried upside down in the dirt.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Terif --- I've been waiting for this moment my little green friend. This time, you're wrong. SHELLSHOCK from the USAF rules! Sitting in a trench, bunker, pillbox, while getting bombed without any defense, your morale will drop. It's that simple. It's also historical fact that US troops rallied faster then German ones after being broken.

[jon_j_rambo]

SHELLSHOCK warfare was used in Desert Storm I too!!! And through out the later campaigns. Germany was leveled by the USAF.

[ChrisND]

No one respond to him.

I agree that AF and naval damage values need to be turned down.

[Guest Mike]

Historically the main effect of airstrikes has been against rear areas - trains and trucks are their main victims.

ideally they should have NO effect on entrenchements and troop strength at all IMO - they should only affect morale and effectiveness, but that should be considerable for effective strikes.

I have no idea why JJR thinks American troops rallied faster than German ones when broken - I would guess it's his rose coloured glasses.

Germany was far from leveled by the USAAF - indeed the damage done was minor until oil became the target, and even then it was never levelled - but it was reduced enough to make a real difference. albeit that didn't occur until the war was alerady won!

Edit - on reflection I think I'd allow the occasional 1 point hit on strength from airstrikes, but probably only 1 such hit in any turn.

[ June 22, 2006, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[well-dressed gentleman]

I hate to agree with Rambo but:

The nightsight air improvement should permit aircraft to affect morale by waking people up.

See if your morale doesn't go down the morning after a neighbor's all-night block party.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by well-dressed gentleman:

I hate to agree with Rambo but:

The nightsight air improvement should permit aircraft to affect morale by waking people up.

See if your morale doesn't go down the morning after a neighbor's all-night block party.

Please, most armed forces never had a soundless nights sleep the whole time they were on the front, there was ALWAYS bombings of any kind.

You'd be surprised how much you get used to it, not the best rest, but still they somehow got used to it out of sheer exaustion during the day and slept. That goes for both sides.

[Guest Mike]

Accounts of the Russian campaigns often mention the night harrassment by obsolete biplanes that was quite effective.

but never to the point of causing any real collapse in morale AFAIK - they are harrasment, and nothing more - a way of getting some use out of a/c that otherwie have no combat value. the germans copied the tactic with obsolete a/c themselves, but never seem to have had quite as many.

And they were mainly on rear positions - campfires were a favourite target.

night raids on tactical positions are otherwise increadibly rare - few crews are trained for night flying, let alone hitting something as precisely as a front line position - heck the Brits found it hard enough to hit cities, let alone a dark position on a dark background on a dark night!

There's a phenomenum in night flying called "the black hole" that kills people fairly often - even when they can see city and airport lights they fly into the ground before they get there - into the "black hole" between them and the lights.

Flying at night is NOT a simple matter of just popping up for a bit of a sortie then coming hjome - even these days let alone in WW2 befoer there weer widespread use of radio compasses and other navigation aids.

IMO night harrassment is waaaaay below the scope of a strategic level game like SC.

[Lars]

Could just apply AA tech to AF. Currently they get a freebie, which is rather odd.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Lars:

Could just apply AA tech to AF. Currently they get a freebie, which is rather odd.

I've suggested that a long time ago.

I think with more players now it is more evident that AA affecting AFs is a necessity and would also make AA a more used tech. Right now it is the last thing on both sides mind.

If Germany needs AA tech, they are mostly loosing the game so it is too late anyways.

[Rolend]

Yep I would drasticlly reduce damage to ground units taken by airfleets and would NOT lower entrenchment, I don't mind the morale hit. As for WWII carpet bombing, it was not very effective and in fact the first time it was tried when trying to break out of Normandy the US actully bombed their own troops, even killed one of the US Gernerals if I recall.

As for stratigic bombing of Germany the real impact was not on German indutry but on the German airforce. By the time of D-Day the LW was so beat up that the Allies had complete control of the skies making it very hard for the Germans to bring up supplys and reinforcments and I think that was a very large factor in the success of D-Day.

EDIT ADDED:

I also agree with Blashy about AA, alow it to have an effect on ground troops so the higher the AA you have the less effect airfleets have on ground targets and the higher the damage the airfleets take.