Bomber and NAV bombardment ATTACK PRIORITIES

[mikwarleo]

I'm not sure where to put this post...

Top of my WoW wish list atm is the ability for aircraft and NAV to target a particular part of the enemy army.

Wouldn't it be great if you could set your bombers and supporting NAV to attack AA/Arty/Inf/Armour at your own descretion in the same way you can select port/infra/tac attack?

This certainly would make some of my invasions easier and more predictable. The way it is at the moment it's ARTY first, then (seemingly) random after that. In different situations taking out AA gun(s) or INF is many times more important strategically than hitting the arty. Or better yet, you could set primary and secondary targets for your attack, like primary ARTY / secondary AA and then it randomises after that if all ARTY/AA targets (or whatever) are eliminated.

I think NAV shore bombardment should be able to prioritise targets in the same way. I also think NAV should be able to bombard shore without the need for another form of attack (i.e. land/air).

Maybe these suggestions would change the game balance too much? But I think not.

With any luck this isn't too difficult to implement and could be considered for an upincoming patch or in mods? [8D]

[JanSorensen]

Its a deliberate decision not to allow this. The attacker already has plenty of advantages concerning when and how to attack due to the IGOYOUGO system. I am also uncertain if the accuracy of the time would allow such "targeting".
 
A nitpicking detail. WaW is probably a better acronym than WoW - which to me would be World of Warcraft

[mikwarleo]

lol yes it would

(I've noticed myself that I have some unexplained tendency to write WoW)

but I disagree with your other comments post to follow

[mikwarleo]

Again thanks for another prompt reply. I disagree that the current set-up is better. I'm not sure if I can convince you to make a change, but perhaps some modders will agree with me and build this into their mods... hopefully that's an option. So...

re: NAV independent shore bombardment ability:
You didn't address this in your post but I want to say again I think it is important for the game. And it is historical. Ships should be allowed to bombard the shore independently. AND a player should also be able to specify how many and which NAV units will bombard in any given situation. Also, this way you don't have to waste supplies and MPs moving ships that you don't want to fire.

re: Specific Targeting for AIR and NAV: I'm not sure what you mean by "IGoYouGo system". However, I feel that 'selective targeting' does not distort game balance it actually greatly improves on the current model. With respect, the current set up is not historical nor does it serve better gameplay in any way that I can see. It only makes it excessively expensive, in fact nearly impossible, to damage AA using AIR/NAV since your units simply wont target AA (see below). Instead they waste their ammunition on infantry (for example) which is usually undamaged by the attack. Either way, realistically speaking 'targeting' of the kind I am describing was definitely widely used throughout the war, see below.

To sum up the conclusion quickly before I cite some examples: I suggest that minimally AIR/NAV units have their priorities changed. The player should be able to select either ARTY/AA priority or AA/ARTY priority for any attack with the standard randomisation after that. If a selection of either is to hard to do then basic priority should be simply ARTY/AA. The latter is a simple solution and I imagine it is easy enough to implement. With this setup, however you look at it, you'll need at least 4 AIR/NAV units to take out an ARTY/AA pair (2 units) and this is a good model. It is also historical in the sense that, from an attack perspective (in or out of the game) I can't think of a situation where this prioritisation wouldn't be better than the current system. Ideally I think people should be able to directly specify any attack priority ordering (though of course this will be more complex to implement).

TARGETING in WW2: while I've only got a rough general knowledge of WW2 I know selective targeting in terms of objectives was not only common it was the norm.

AIR:
Control of the sky was a first priority in any WW2 campaign. Take Normandy for example. The Allies had air superiority. If there was ANY AIR DEFENCE disrupting this it was (of course) the first thing to be targeted. If AIR was all that was available to deal with it then AIR would attack AA. If the NAV could do it without risk it would to save the planes. End of story. And it's still the same today. First thing to be targeted in Iraq was enemy aircraft, then AA (and no doubt ARTY after that). Likewise, Germany's failure to finish off the RAF is why Sealion was never attempted. And of course Germany failed precisely because they changed their priorities from controlling the sky to bombing London.

NAV:
In reality, NAV like AIR makes a priority of destroying targets that can shoot back. So the story is ARTY and AA again. In fact I understand that AA was routinely taken out *before* ARTY. Even for the purposes of the Normandy landings! Whether you are talking AIR or NAV it was rarely a case of go and bomb whatever you might find. Obviously this kind of bombing is inefficient for many reasons.

So that's reality, how about the game?!

This change would work fine in terms of game mechanics. If a player was able to set priorities as either ARTY/AA or AA/ARTY any way you look at it you'll need a minimum of 4 AIR/NAV units to be sure about taking out an ARTY/AA pair (2 units). If you send only 3 units one plane will likely be hit by AA and the remaining 2 NAV/AIR will fire at the first priority unit (seeing as the first will likely only damage it if it hits at all). I fail to see how this would be detrimental to the game mechanics. In fact it encourages more balanced play, it would improve the game since in the current set up it is nearly impossible to take out AA using AIR/NAV (and for other reasons mentioned below).

If the enemy has, for example, 4 units in an area, 2inf, an ARTY and an AA in the current system and you send 4 planes to attack the most likely result is 1 damaged plane (attackers) and an 1 ARTY destroyed (defenders) that's it. This means that even though you control the skies and have sent four *valuable* units to attack the enemy you've only managed to achieve EQUAL results (2 productions points of damage each)!! You get pretty much the same result from sending 2 planes (1 damaged plane and 1 ARTY damaged - in fact production wise you've taken A LOSS here but with the arty out of the way maybe you can invade).

The fact that AA only costs 2 to build, 1 to repair and air costs 3/4 to build and 2 to repair only adds more weight to my position in terms of game mechanics because AA is relatively cheap. The moment it hits one plane it has paid for itself, anything more is a bonus. Further and finally, it is a misguided system where AIR/NAV attacks will waste their valuable assaults trying (and rarely succeeding) to damage relatively *hard* targets like infantry (hard to damage and don't really shoot back) while ignoring *soft* targets like AA guns that are COSTING you big-time by damaging or knocking planes out of the sky (AA is in fact as damaging and relatively inexpensive as ARTY since it will shoot twice in a combat round at both AIR and GROUND units). Having AIR/NAV ignore AA is just as absurd as setting ships to bombard infantry first while allowing ARTY to freely return fire and sink them. It is more than enough bonus to have AA costing less and firing first. If it is that much of a concern you could tweek the AA stats (though I think it's unnecessary).

So to sum up 'selective targeting' improves gameplay and balance it doesn't detract from it.

So that's pretty much my whole point. But if you want to see an example in game try this for yourself:

An easy one to set up is have Germany invade Norway first turn. Station 1 AA, 1 art, 2 infantry there. Now what happens is rediculous imho. If you attack from England with basically everything you can: 4 Battleship fleets, 2 CAGs, 1 heavy bomber, 2 INF, a MIL and an ARTY you will most likely lose simply because that damn AA gun will refuse to take a hit and because your AIR/NAV is mindlessly wasting their firepower shooting at entrenched infantry and scoring no hits. Either way you look at it as long as the AA lives your invasion will fail. If it goes down you'll win it more times than not. I think this example shows that the current situation actually distorts game mechanics for the worse.

[magic8796]

Mikwarleo, you raise some interesting points and I'd like to offer my two cents. I am not an historian or WaW expert, but I have studied WWII extensively.

First, regarding naval and air bombardment in general: There have been many discussions on this board about the ability of naval and air units to completely destroy land units via bombardment. Historically, you need "boots on the ground" to do this. While naval/air bombardments can severely disrupt and demoralize ground units, they can rarely completely destroy them. In WaW, eliminating ground units in this manner is a huge offensive advantage. Being able to specifically target individual units would be too great an advantage. In the IGOYOUGO game system (meaning one player takes a turn, then the other player) as opposed to a RealTime system (meaning both players move and fire simultaneously), the attacker has the advantage. Yes, the defender gets to fire back, but he is essentailly fixed in place during the attacker's turn and cannot counter any of the attackers moves. This system favors the attacker enough.

Naval Bombardment vs. Arty: The design and utilization of the Arty unit in the game answers this question. This is a mobile unit that serves the dual role of field artillery and coastal artillery. Naval bombarment attacking artillery was almost exclusively targeting fixed shore emplacements. Spotters on the ground would be necessary to target field artillery that was inland of the beaches and also able to move around. Since the unit in the game serves both purposes, to allow naval bombardment to specifically target it would be inconsistent and again, too great an advantage for the attacker. A solution might be to create an additional, fixed unit of coastal artillery that could be targeted during an invasion although I'm personally not in favor of creating additional units. In WWII, look at the attack on Point-du-Hoc in Normandy. Although (unknown to the Allies) the guns were moved prior to the invasion, Army Rangers were sent to scale the cliffs to neutralize them. The shore and air bombardment couldn't get the job done.

Naval Bombardment vs. AAA: Again the scale and design of the game comes into play. To be able specifically target and destroy AAA units would be be unrealisitc and too advantageous. Historically, naval bombardment rarely targeted AAA. On D-Day, the majority of the naval gunfire was directed at bunkers, pillboxes and other fixed emplacements and it was directed at rail and road junctions inland from the beaches to interdict enemy movement. In the Pacific, naval gunfire was notorious for not being able to eliminate dug-in Japanese artillery and AAA. There are some examples of Destroyers moving close to the shore and targeting specific units when directed by the men on the beaches, but we're talking about individual ships which is not relevant to the scale of WaW.

Air Bombardment: The same argument of scale and the ability to completely destroy a ground unit with airpower applies here. This ability is tremendous and can't be overstated. Historically, strategic bombers were not designed for (and utterly useless in) a tactical role of support of ground troops. See the invasion of Normandy and the subsequent Operation Cobra for examples. Strategic Bombers were just as likely to kill their own ground units as the enemy. In WaW, you could make a case for not being able to move Strategic Bombers into a territory in which you are conducting a land attack. Also, I would respectfully disagree with your contention that Air Defenses were high value targets in WWII. Rather, running the gaunlet of AAA was considered part of the mission. The infrastructure and the units that could take and hold ground were the priorities of air attack. The "Wild Weasel" missions that you allude to in Iraq are a relatively new tactic. Not unitl the advent of highly accurate SAM batteries in Vietnam did Air Forces make the elimination of air defenses a higher priority. In WWII, Tactical Bombers did target Arty and AAA in support of ground offensives, however they were much more likely to target Arty. AAA was usually targeted after all other targets were hit. On D-Day, with complete Air Supremacy, the Allies lost 113 aircraft to AAA. Clearly, there were higher priority targets to attack than Flak guns. You could make a case for the specific targeting of units with Tactical Air, but again I would repeat that the ability to eliminate a ground unit with an air unit is already a large enough advantage for the attacker.

Just my opinion.

[mikwarleo]

magic8796, thanks for your time and interest. I believe quite strongly in what I’m suggesting and I feel you’re missing the point, or something. You are right about what you say historically and I agree.

However, for the most part, what you’re saying doesn’t apply. Most of your examples, which appear to be presented as reasons against my proposal, seem to object not to what I’m proposing at all. Instead they object to things the game already does many of which are necessary because of the scale of the game (a 3 month campaign, turn based strategy game, battle group size units … i.e. individual field examples like Point-du-Hoc or destroyers in the pacific theatre don’t apply here). To my mind the game does these ‘unrealistic’ things necessarily because of the kind of game it is, an abstract, simple chess-like game, not reality. And I think we can both agree that the current model is more or less fine as is. I mean, it’s a good game.

Regarding NAV you have made some interesting points though on a bombard mission a player should be able to select which units will fire and which will not to save from having to move units around and waste supplies to control this. I’m still not convinced that more flexibility in the NAV priority system would be a problem for game play or unrealistic but I see this point as being more contentious than the one regarding AIR priorities.

So, in terms of AIR, breaking things down that leaves us with two objections from your post that relate to what I’m saying (correct me if I’m wrong), you feel that:

1. It is unrealistic to prioritise targets in the way I’ve described.

2. If the current priority system was altered to include AA there would an adverse effect on the game balance/play.


POINT 1: Realism

I think the basic problem with your objections here is *scale*.

While you talk a lot about scale I think you miss the point of it. Of course what we have here is battle group size units on 3 month campaigns. Let’s break it down looking at the Battle of Britain for example. IIRC in 1940 the Brits had ~600 fighters (I forget exactly). Brits in the game get 2 fighter units in 1940. This means say ~300 planes in a unit. The figures work with Germany too, IIRC they had ~1200 fighters and about the same if not a few more bombers so, of course, in game Germany gets 8 aircraft units (4 fighter, 3 Hvy Bomber, 1 Div Bomber). Now I know these figures aren’t nearly exact but they’ll do as a very rough estimate for this example.

So by saying that it isn’t realistic to take out 1 ARTY and 1 AA unit using 4 attacking units (which is the example I give in my previous post) what you’re saying effectively amounts to this: 1200 bombers on a 3 month campaign couldn’t and/or wouldn’t significantly compromise a basic enemy AA and ARTY ability (meaning one unit of each in game play terms). I hope we agree that this is clearly absurd; with the absence of enemy fighters of course bombers would tear things to pieces. They might take some losses in the process but they’d undoubtedly get the job done. So in terms of realism what I am proposing is definitely viable.

To respond to your D-Day objections, the allies had *already* significantly compromised the enemy’s AA and ARTY ability months before the landing. How did they do this? Of course, with aircraft. In strategic terms (remembering this is a strategic game), to suggest that AA was not a high priority target (above other ground units) before and after D-Day is simply wrong. For an invasion first you get air superiority then you keep it.

POINT 2: Game Balance:

Now remember I’m primarily talking about air power here and objecting to the ineffectiveness of it in game terms because of the random priority system. Let’s look at the Battle of Britain example again. For all the talk of advantages I think you’ve also forgotten to be aware of the substantial disadvantages imposed upon the attacking player. For example the fact that fighters have a movement factor of only one meaning they can’t attack England. This makes them primarily a DEFENSIVE weapon (at least early in the game) and as such the attacker often has NOTHING to counter them with until later in the game and then only IF they research long range fighters. There are other numerous significant disadvantages to the attacker but this isn't the place to discuss them. The point is that this change isn't going to corrupt the game balance, it improves the game model.

This means that in a Battle of Britain type situation Germany has only their bombers to contend with BOTH allied fighters AND allied AA. How is that an advantage for the attacker?! It is neither realistic nor advantageous. Clearly it is a huge disadvantage. Yet I think it works as is. Remember all I am suggesting is that the player should be able to make a priority out of attacking the enemy AA.

Another way to look at this is to consider that an AA unit is roughly the same as a defending FIGHTER unit. They cost the same and perform roughly the same AA function and they both fire on ground forces. However, if you want to target fighters you simply send in ANY other unit that shoots at planes and what happens? They *always* shoot *first* at the planes. (In fact it would be realistic and I think also serve the game if you could prioritise which kind of air units to attack... bombers/fighters... but one thing at a time). Since each unit performs the SAME function to my mind it clearly makes no sense whatsoever to have one set of targeting rules for fighters which makes it relatively easy to target them and another set for AA which makes AA near impossible to target in some situations. It serves no purpose whatsoever. The game effectively has priority targeting for planes so why not AA?!

Also all this talk of existing IGOYOUGO advantages isn’t a good argument against the priority system I suggest bascially because the change I suggest doesn't give 'advantages' to the attacker it just gives AIR more realistic abilities and makes aircraft worth the investment instead of a weapon that is effectively neutered whenever there is ANY AA presence. If you know that your opponent has a lot of planes, with the wide scale of the map areas you simply put one or two AA in his path and that not only protects those units but everything behind it as well. And of course this AA doubles as a defensive ground unit! And it’s relatively cheap to produce. All this means it is so expensive to attack AA with AIR that any smart attacker will only use AIR against AA as a last resort. Against any defender worth their salt you can also expect them to put more than one AA near large concentrations of air power and, for the most part, you wont want to attack AA with AIR because it will be too expensive! So again, this change would not do anything adverse to the game balance. In fact, it makes for a more challenging an involved game for several reasons not the least of which being it gives AIR power back its wings so to speak and solves the problem of immortal AA. See my previous post for details of the current ineffectiveness of AIR in some situations against AA i.e. the Norway example. (Surely you'd agree that with 2GAGs, 4 heavy fleets, 1 heavy bomber, 2 infantry, 1 arty and 1 militia/arty --with various light fleets if needed and of course 11 transport units-- should have a decent chance to *force a retreat* from a small enemy force of 2 infantry, 1 arty and 1 aa unit. But in this game it is near impossible because of the difficultly in taking that AA gun out of the picture).

Another thing about AIR vs AA also is that even if you directly target AA it will NEVER ever go down without a fight. AA has a huge advantage in the fact that it fires first! Meaning that *IF* (and that’s a big if) a player decides to target AA using air it is most likely that the AA is going to damage one air group. Since it costs 2 production points to repair a bomber and only one production point to repair AA that means it is VERY expensive to attack AA with AIR even more so if you do it with carrier AIR. For example, say you wanted to attack 2 AA units with AIR you'd need a total of 5 bomber units to take them both out! That's five valuable units to take out 2 relatively cheap units and even then you will still LOSE this fight. Why? Well the most likely result is that you will have 2 damaged planes and you will destroy one AA and damage the other. This means you've caused a total of 3 production points worth of damage while you yourself have suffered 4 production points of damage with two damaged planes. So you've taken HIGHER losses than your opponent and you've tied up 5 very valuable units in the attack that no doubt could have been used elsewhere. Simply put, it is so probitively expensive to attack AA with AIR that you would only do it when it is absolutely necessary.

So to sum up, including AA in the priority system will not distort game balance or have anything other than positive effects for the game play. Either way you look at this issue, from a realist perspective or in terms of game mechanics the priority system I outline above makes a lot of sense.

Disagree if you will but please give your reasons. If you agree please say so, so we can have this change implemented.



P.S. A few nit-picking points about your post magic:

I always felt that Heavy Bombers in WaW represent both Tactical and Strategic bombers. DIV bombers represent close support planes. Of course Tactical bombers were used on Air Superiority missions i.e. during the Battle of Britian where they attacked radar and airfields etc which can be considered AA in WaW game play terms.

Also I never suggested that AIR units were or should be able to ‘completely destroy’ anything. But clearly air power (as described and implied in my above examples) was able to disrupt and damage things to the point where, in terms of a game like this, they can be *considered* to be damaged or destroyed. Your point about Normandy and not being able to fully eradicate AA is a moot point. The fact that the allies lost 113 planes on D-Day (undoubtedly with several thousand planes seeing action on the day) is inconsequential in game terms. It also carries no weight as an objection to my proposition because while those losses could have been from dedicated AA units no doubt a lot of it was also from the generic AA capabilities build into regular ground units (especially German ones). The game models this accurately with the AA ability of all ground units and in my games I sometimes take damage to planes from regular ground units (and of course a damaged air unit represents some 150 planes destroyed! So, more than were lost on D-Day and this often happens when attacking one lonely infantry group! Again this fact, coupled with the fact that AIR will seldom do any damage to ground units, is a big advantage for the defender).

[magic8796]

I originally replied to your post because I disagreed in two ares. One historical and the other in WaW. I think you have put forward good arguments but ultimately we will agree to disagree. My final thoughts:

Historically, I can find no record of strategic bombing targeting AAA. You insist on saying that it happened, but I just don't see it. Tactically, to support local objectives, it was done. But not on the scale you suggest. I have read many battle histories of the 8th Air Force (not the whole air war, but a darn good, large example) and I don't recall a single strategic raid that targeted AAA. The only thing that knocked out AAA on a large scale (like what would happen in WaW if a AAA unit was destoyed - it happens, but your system would make that easier) was ground troops overrunning their positions and destroying the factories that made the guns and shells. Now that doesn't mean that just because it wasn't done historically doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to do it in WaW, but that's another point entirely. And it's also not relevant to your thoughts on the inequities of the targeting system. I'm just a nut for history. And if I'm found wrong, I'll admit it.

As far as WaW goes, airpower currently has the ability to eliminate all of the ground units in a hex. Using Western France as an example, that's approximately 100,000 square miles of territory. Ground units can then occupy that hex with zero chance of taking any losses whatsoever. In my humble opinion, that is a great enough advantage for the attacker and any inconsistencies or unrealities in the game system regarding targeting or unit cost is a fair trade-off.

Again, I'm sure we'll agree to disagree. Good Luck.

[PyleDriver]

Boy, do I ever agree...You run into guys that build up there airforce, bomb you to death, and just walk in...go figure...There has to be a point, where it only goes to a point...In Iraq, we still had to sent in the grunts, and our airpower is a hell of a lot better than then.

[&:]
Jon

[mikwarleo]

Hi Magic,

I appreciate the pleasant manner in your posts and your interest but it seems to me you are flying off the cuff with poorly conceived objections and claims. The example of Western France you have given will do more to demonstrate the absurdness of your claims than support them; in particular your apparent main point that ‘the fact airpower can eliminate ground forces’ is a ‘great advantage’ to the attacker.

While you cite this possibility as an advantage (and seem to imply that it is relatively easy to ‘eliminate’ ground forces by AIR in WaW) I will demonstrate that, actually, what you describe is in fact very difficult in that it is often near impossible to eliminate most defenders by AIR alone.

Your Western France Example:

Attacking with 5 German Dive Bombers to dislodge WAllies force of 2 INF, 1 ARTY and 1 AA gun. (I increased the WA INF evasion to 6 through research so these results will be the same when attacking German ground units with WAllies AIR).

RESULTS from 10 trial attacks: defending force did not dislodge in any instance.

7 times: ARTY and AA damaged or destroyed (infantry undamaged).
3 times: ARTY and AA damaged or destroyed, one INF damaged.
An aircraft was damaged 5/10 times (50%).

Notice that in this example you are in fact attacking with a force TWICE the size of the defenders and it is impossible to dislodge them! (8 production points worth of defenders compared with 15 production points worth of attackers).

If you increase the attacking force to 8 Dive Bombers out of 10 attack runs I managed to dislodge the entire force only 50% of the time, the rest of the time the result was AA/ARTY destroyed, 1 INF damaged, 1 INF undamaged (occurred 5 of 10 attacks). So when attacking by AIR with a force THREE times the size of the defender (24 production points) you only have a 50% chance of dislodging the defender! (Of course 10 attack runs is a small sample size but you can try with larger samples if you wish).

To further clarify my point, imagine you attacked the above WA force with 4 Axis armoured units (i.e. *only* twice their size production-wise: 16 points). Out of 10 attacks I achieved total victory EVERY TIME (with zero damage 4/10, 1 damaged unit 3/10 and 2 damaged units 3/10 times). Remember our AIR example using 8 dive bombers (24 production points worth of forces) will only achieve this result 50% of the time! With roughly similar losses (2 production points of damage in 50% of cases)! An even smaller ground force (say 2 or 3 tanks?) would succeed 50% of the time. So this shows how much more expensive (you’re also using more supply by using more units) and relatively ineffective it is to attack ground units with air power.

The bottom line is that the game model does a good job a re-creating the reality that AIR should be used as a support for ground forces (not instead of) by making it relatively very expensive to attack the ground by AIR. This example makes a nonsense of your objections because it shows, contrary to your claims, that AIR results are both realistic and balanced in current game play.

Also, in an actual game example you’ll probably never find such a small force defending WFrance, nor will you be likely to find such a large AIR force or an all-dive-bomber Air Force (i.e. cheaper than heavy bombers or CAGs). I mean, ask yourself, how on earth is someone supposed to ‘eliminate’ a more likely force from WFrance, say 7 units using AIR? If you extrapolate the above 3:1 figures you’d need something like 21 bomber units??!! And even then they’ll only succeed 50% of the time! I mean really, if I saw my opponent spending all his production on planes I’d rejoice because it means he’s leaving holes in other places that I can exploit. It also means I can embark on a quick, cheap AA project (including AA and Fighters) to ultimately incapacitate his expensive air force and walk over his comparatively tiny army. Because, of course, I can effectively negate his production spending on bombers for half the cost spent on AA/Fighters. The rest can be invested in my army. I probably don’t even need to spend half. As shown in my previous post, it is easy (too easy currently) to counter even up to 5 bombers (15-20 production points) with a mere two AA guns (4 production points). Any defender who can’t work that out and use that fact to counter enemy AIR isn’t much of a player. The Norway example I gave in my previous post has already demonstrated the unnerving ability of one AA unit to effectively hold off a large invasion force by denying air power under the current rules.

Finally, to top it all off, when you start adding NAV units into the story these examples are even more poignant. Remember a heavy fleet is worth 10 production points. That means a single heavy fleet is more valuable than the entire group of defenders in the above example! Yet in game terms they don’t begin to fulfil their worth. An ARTY unit costing a mere 2 production points is not only a threat to your expensive NAV unit but it is also a very strong anti-invasion unit and a very strong ground unit!

IN CONCLUSION:

I leave my ‘targeting priority’ proposals unchanged and as previously stated.

The results will ‘give AIR back its wings’ and return them to the status of a unit-worth-their-cost in game terms. In the current game, the usefulness AIR power (or lack of) is out of balance in relation to that of other units and in relation to its expense and the relative inexpensiveness of counter measures (AA/fighters). The same can be said for NAV. This distorts the game balance and acts as a disincentive for players to invest in new AIR/NAV units.

A change in the priority system (possibly to include only choice between ARTY/AA as 1st/2nd priority then random after that) is not going to adversely effect game balance, nor would it be unrealistic. It will go a way toward improving the game’s current imbalance that I have demonstrated in relation to the cost vs usefulness of AIR/NAV.

Anyone who thinks this would in fact distort the game balance in favour of the attacker should notice that AIR/NAV are relatively ineffective/inefficient when attacking INF/ARM/AA/Fighters and will remain this way in comparison to other units. Before or after this change if an attacker chose to over-spend on AIR/NAV to attack ground units, let them! Any decent opponent will take advantage of this and know how to counter.


------------

To Magic specifically and some other points:

The results from your own examples are incompatible with the position you’ve taken. When tested in the game the WFrance example only gives more reasons to support the change rather than argue against it. As do most examples I can think of (though it’s possible some tweaking might be needed in some areas).

All in all, I feel your objections should have been more thought out. If you can point out a real problem with my suggestions I’ll treat it as such. Otherwise, help me lobby for the change (even if it is included only as option in game set-up, or a separate mod, or something so those of us who want it can have it).

Some other thoughts and in reply:

Also when an AIR unit ‘completely’ destroys a unit in an area which is then subsequently occupied by an enemy ground force, owing to the way the game is structured this is actually happening ‘at the same time’ more or less. Even though the battle isn’t taking place exactly at the same time in game terms. As you are no doubt aware, in the early months of Barbarossa for example, one aspect which greatly contributed to Germany’s successes was the close cooperation of German air and ground forces that allowed the Germans to smash a defending army that was superior in numbers (and equipment in some ways). This is a reality the game does not model because any large army with a rudimentary AA presence is going to make attacking with air power prohibitively expensive. But regardless of my AA point, in relation to your point, if an AIR unit can completely demoralise or otherwise disable a ground unit in reality (such that when attacked it is effectively walked over by the enemy) in game terms this unit can be considered damaged or destroyed before it is attacked by ground forces (since the ground forces will take negligable losses when attacking anyhow).

I didn't suggest that *strategic* bombing was used to attack AA. I agree with you that it wasn’t. As I said above, Heavy Bombers in WaW, imho, represent both Tac and Strat bombers (as well as Air Transports).

I don't have your knowledge on WW2 which is why I checked with three well informed friends of mine about my ideas before posting. They were all confident (and it fits with my general understanding though I could be wrong) that Air Power was used against AA as one of the higher priority targets involved with gaining and maintaining Air Superiority (which is of course a first priority).

You know what I think would satisfy your objections, maybe a consideration for WaW2: an air defence value for all units. This works quite well in HoI and would help get around the problem of untouchable Heavy Fleets. Surely the developers thought of this and decided against it for some reason.

While there is much talk about advantages for the attacker and the lack of ‘reality’ what about the ‘unrealistic’ advantages for the defender. There are too many examples to mention but consider the case of attacks ‘missing’. Imagine a real-life commander sending a heavy fleet on a 3 month mission to bombard the coast and they failed to inflict ANY damage. You’d court martial the commanders (Stalin would shoot them as traitors)! Same goes for bombers. And on that point, have you tried to damage a Heavy Fleet with AIR?! Of course, it is extremely difficult. First you need to catch them relatively alone, then you need to hit them with a minimum of 2 units (i.e. 600 planes on a 3 month campaign) and even then you’ll be lucky just to damage it by torpedo, of course the bombs wont score a hit. And these are just some off-the-top-of-my-head examples. Talk about unrealistic advantages for the defender. I only say this to address your concerns. Such concessions are a necessary part of the game, the important thing is to balance advantages/disadvantages properly and as such any discussions like ours should focus primarily on that aspect in relation to the issue at hand.

Finally, to answer your earlier objection concerning locating enemy targets and directing fire, let’s relate the game scale to reality in one last way. I think it’s not too much to assume that, in the case of NAV (same goes for AIR in many respects), a commander *could* decide he wanted to send a heavy fleet detachment to bombard coastal defenders. Now, remember they’re on a three month campaign… I mean couldn’t/wouldn’t they include some commandos or spies or *something* to infiltrate the mainland, work with partisans/sympathisers and identify/verify targets and then act as spotters?? If that is possible why can’t we assume that’s what’s happening for the purposes of the game and stop fussing with so many misguided appeals to realism? It is impossible for a game like this to be realistic. In fact, as far as I can tell the only part of your objection that carries any weight from a realist perspective (after considering the scale of the game) is the limited inland firing range of ships (still up to and over 20,000m for battleships! With those massive shells!). But given the style of the game and that it already allows ships to fire inland I can’t see that this point carries much weight in game terms.

Now for all my time on this I wonder if any change will come? But I’ve taken the time to properly answer your objections and Jan’s because I feel there will be others who will possibly agree and share your view unless I illustrate the problems with this position in terms of actual game mechanics. However, to save time in the future please consider any future objections more carefully as I’m sure you would have seen the above for yourself if you’d thought it through, or better yet, actually tested your ideas. This might sound arrogant, but it’s not meant to be. I’m serious about this change being a good thing for the game and to see sloppy objections put forward to as genuine problems with my idea is not only wasteful but frustrating.

[Petiloup]

Hi,
 
Don't want to enter into tons of discussions but I feel there should be some light changes of targetting priorities in those few cases:
 
- Carrier Air unit should strike more often against Carriers. This was their training whatever side it was and they wouldn't target transports ships if carriers were around. It's just nonsense as it leaves the opponent open to a counterstrike which is already in the game anyway.
 
- Tactical should strike at Transport fleets more often. This in the idea that they would try to repel any invasion.
 
- Fighters also as they should know they don't have much chances to sink an heavy fleet anyway.
 
- Air units should bomb artillery less often. Guns can be protected by field fortifications and bunkers, also they can be hidden. They are the one protecting against invasion and even during D-day after many bombardments from air and sea they were still firing. Now the opportunity fire is so strong that it can lead to making invasion pretty difficult so in this would have to be carefull.
 
Well in fact I'm more pro on the first one as the rest is not very important but as the US it would make sense to send his carriers with a lot of transport ships to protect them of being hit which is ridiculous of course.

[mikwarleo]

I like your ideas.

In reality with the minimal attention this post is getting and the fact those changes would actually involve changing the executable (as I understand from my post in Mod section on this matter) meaning only developer can make changes I serously doubt anything will come of this. Should have done something else with the time I spent on those posts. Kinda knew it was silly at the time but wanted to demonstrate my point instead of letting it be rejected out of hand with what I felt were such misconceived objections. [>:]

[Raeder]

I also find it frustrating that the AI so often makes poor targeting choices. What I would like to see is an optional setting to simply allow a human player to pick what each unit fires at.

Yes, I understand this would shift game balance to the attack. Yes, I understand it may not be realistic. So what. For many players, it would be more fun. I have this odd notion that playing games is about having fun...

[Timmeh]

misconceptions, tons of em!

The ability to target and totally destroy specific units with air or sea bombarment was not a reality in WWII, this practice was used to 'suppress' the enemy in order to conduct operations with a higher rate of success. ( Iwo Jima , anyone? While the bombardment did little to destroy the forces there it was still neccessary to have to simply gain the beach...)

The allies gained more in air superiority by bombing production infastructure and creating embargos to deny the axis much needed resources as opposed to outright destruction of these units. If the Germans could of avoided rebuilding and relocating most of their production due to strat bombing and had a steady flow of much needed resources ( oil, rubber to name two) they would of been able to stop an allied invasion of western Europe in the mid 40's.

Now, back to the suggested changes in this thread. To create the abilty for Air/NAV units to choose targets in WaW would most definatly throw play balance out the window ( I play mostly head to head and not against the AI) and this would allow some truly unrealistic results in its own right with the ' I go U go ' system of game play ( remember, this game is derived from a board game and tried to stay true to that in its implimentation).

mikwarleo, you say you want more certainty and 'easier' invasions, this to me, isn't a valid reasons to change the way the game plays out. Yes, there are times when the mechanics seem less then logical and the abstractions leave you wanting, but adding more certainty would spoil the 'fun' element for me, not increase it.

If anything, changes to add more uncertainty would be more of a challenge to me and also add replayability to the game, I don't want play a game where all I have to do is move X number of units to attack Y number of units and already know what the result will be. Upon reflection, the D-Day landings turned out to be a foregone conclusion, but at the time Eisenhower still penned his famous "it's all my fault" letter before the operation commenced because He couldn't be absolutly sure it would be a success.

[Heinz Guderian]

What a bizzare request, the game allready has a acknowledged bias built that heavily favors the attacker allready. If Joel says it would be un-blanceing (and understatement to be sure) then that should settle it. Its interesting to note you only seek changes that favor Naval units and Airpower mainly. Wonder what powers YOU play most often (cough Allies)[8|]. The Naval bombarment is a non-starter, maybe you think that in WW2 they had GPS and tercon-equiped cruise missles with a CEP under 15meters. Guess what-even today *with* such advances naval bombardment *Still* could not achieve the objectives you seem to think they are capable of alone. Bombardment is support fire-nothing more, it cannot destroy formations un-aided nor will the abililty ever be seen in WaW. As for air power, not sure what game your playing, but the WaW we play, its allready too easy for airpower alone to destroy Arty,AA and ground units as it stands. Milita can be easily destroyed and even regular infantry formations can be destroyed with air alone, (fyi I have objected to this facet of WaW as being un-realistic from both a realism and gameplay pov before) So really, given all that, its really hard to see what exactly it is that you want out of this. As it stands now, a good case could in fact be made that its level of abstraction and mechanices leave a little to be desired in SOME RESPECTS, this however it not one of them. In AWD from what I have been led to understand, there has been a signifigant effort made to re-tune the combat engine, thus makeing it more realistic. From what you write however, I dont think your going to like it much at all. Although it might be a interesting rhetorical exercise to go over your statements in more detail, your grasp of the nature of naval, air, and ground tactics  in WW2 seems.....lacking in many respects. Much of what you feel to be true is simply not borne out or supported by the facts. Basically its one big argument-from-assertion. Sorry[:'(] 

[magic8796]

Timmeh and Heinz:

Thank's for the support of my "misconceived and sloppy objections".

[Petiloup]

ORIGINAL: Heinz Guderian

Although it might be a interesting rhetorical exercise to go over your statements in more detail, your grasp of the nature of naval, air, and ground tactics  in WW2 seems.....lacking in many respects. Much of what you feel to be true is simply not borne out or supported by the facts. Basically its one big argument-from-assertion. Sorry[:'(] 

Not sure why the fuzz over this but if you want to speak about facts it's kinda of easy:

My requests were:

1/ Carriers seeks to strike carriers more often. In WAW (not sure about AWD) a common tactic to be used by the US is to screen his Carriers with transports or other ships so that Japanese planes would strike those instead. Unless your facts are different but Midway, Coral Sea were fought between Carriers even if there was many other ships around and this because of air reconnaissance. They were looking for Carriers first and reserving their strikes for this goal because it would mean air supremacy if successful and win the battle. And I don't remember reading about Transport ships screening the US carriers.

2/ Diminish the chance to strike Artilleries with Air units so to make invasions more difficult. This I think agrees with your statement that air support or ships guns are not that effective to strike at units but more at suppressing a zone to help for invasion landings.

Now I'd like to quote Timmeh also:

ORIGINAL:

The ability to target and totally destroy specific units with air or sea bombarment was not a reality in WWII, this practice was used to 'suppress' the enemy in order to conduct operations with a higher rate of success. ( Iwo Jima , anyone? While the bombardment did little to destroy the forces there it was still neccessary to have to simply gain the beach...)

Well this is not quite true either: look at D-Day which is the perfect example. No german units would dare to come close to the beaches because of the Navy support. Those big guns were quite effective to deter any counter attack. Same in the Pacific by the way, after the first few times the Japs were not defending strongly the beaches anymore but Inland mainly. Iwo Jima was an exception because the Volcano was heavily digged with tunnels and strongpoints overseeing directly the beaches. If you read about Okinawa "http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/okinawa/" now there was more or less no defense of the beaches because the Japanese couldn't afford it. Air and Navy support would render any defense of the beaches pointless. They weren't just suppressing the defense they were smashing it to oblivion unless there is some heavy fortifications.

Now about destroying whole units then read about Operation Cobra and the opening with the Carpet Bombing. German divisions were shattered rendering them unable to fight mostly. I think the Panzer Lehr was there and she lost more or less 90% of her tanks and other heavy equipment. "For three hours, 1,500 B-17 and B-24 bombers pummelled the target, supported by medium bombers and fighter bombers. General Bayerlein’s Panzer Lehr, which had only recently arrived in the sector, was literally blown to pieces. 45-tonne Panther tanks were lifted off the ground by the force of the explosions and torn apart like children’s toys. Infantrymen were buried alive in their shelters. The few, shell-shocked survivors either surrendered without a fight or fled."

At last it's forgetting that German tanks division would move only by night because of Allied planes making reinforcing Normandy a slower process. Now if you look at the Battle of the Ardennes you'll notice that the German were waiting for a bad weather forecast before attacking because of the Air power of the allies. They know it could render the whole offensive pointless.

Those above are facts in history books. Air power and Navy support were lethal and the lack of it doomed the German in the West and the Japanese to loose the war. Of course you still need GI's to take the ground but his life was a lot easier because of it.

Now speaking of WAW or AWD then you need to make Air and Naval units suppressing ground units instead of destroying them or they are way to powerfull. Mainly because this is a strategic game and were I agree with Timmeh and Guderian is that on a strategic level Air and Naval units can't win by themselves. They still need ground troops so to make the game work you have to find a way to integrate this in a game system.

Hopefully AWD is adressing that issue, hope to see it work soon.

PS: Reading back the whole post it seems I have to agree & disagree also [&:]

So I agree we shouldn't destroy whole units only by Air or Naval power because of Strategic level of the game but I disagree that in reality during WW2 they were not able to destroy the fighting ability of whole units at least on a tactical level. [>:]

[Joel Billings]

From the new AWD manual:

8.7.3 CARRIER AIR NAVAL ATTACK TARGETING AND COUNTERSTRIKES
Carrier aircraft were trained to attack enemy aircraft carriers as the first priority. When Carrier Air units attack Naval units, target selection will be weighted as follows (they will also double up on Carrier Fleets just as Air units double up on Artillery):

Carrier Fleet 40
Heavy Fleet 4
Light Fleet 2
Transport Fleet 1
Submarine Fleet 1

Whenever Carrier Fleet based Air units in a sea region attack an adjacent sea region that contains Carrier Fleet based Air units, after their air attack is resolved, all remaining aircraft (including Carrier Air and land-based Air units flying patrol) remaining in the attacked sea region will immediately launch a counterstrike into the sea region containing the attacking Carrier Fleet. The first combat report will only detail the results of the initial airstrike, but once this report is closed, a second combat report will detail the results of the counterstrike.


As for air attacking artillery in AWD, air still does, but it attacks using a new bombardment combat that causes suppression but doesn't tend to damage the unit. Overwhelming airpower can still make the artillery ineffective at Op-firing against invasions, but they won't kill ground units anywhere near as much as they do in WaW. Also, air units defending get to op-fire at invading troops and the transports carrying the troops, so you must get air supremacy over the beaches to invade.

[Petiloup]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

From the new AWD manual:

8.7.3 CARRIER AIR NAVAL ATTACK TARGETING AND COUNTERSTRIKES
Carrier aircraft were trained to attack enemy aircraft carriers as the first priority. When Carrier Air units attack Naval units, target selection will be weighted as follows (they will also double up on Carrier Fleets just as Air units double up on Artillery):

Carrier Fleet 40
Heavy Fleet 4
Light Fleet 2
Transport Fleet 1
Submarine Fleet 1

Whenever Carrier Fleet based Air units in a sea region attack an adjacent sea region that contains Carrier Fleet based Air units, after their air attack is resolved, all remaining aircraft (including Carrier Air and land-based Air units flying patrol) remaining in the attacked sea region will immediately launch a counterstrike into the sea region containing the attacking Carrier Fleet. The first combat report will only detail the results of the initial airstrike, but once this report is closed, a second combat report will detail the results of the counterstrike.


As for air attacking artillery in AWD, air still does, but it attacks using a new bombardment combat that causes suppression but doesn't tend to damage the unit. Overwhelming airpower can still make the artillery ineffective at Op-firing against invasions, but they won't kill ground units anywhere near as much as they do in WaW. Also, air units defending get to op-fire at invading troops and the transports carrying the troops, so you must get air supremacy over the beaches to invade.

Thanks Joel, seems like Xmas, got both of my wishes. [&o]

[Heinz Guderian]

Not to hard to figure out at all really Polo, you see, I dont think anyone was talking about anything you said....pretty easy no? I think we need to learn a new word today. Its call 'conflation'. Its a pretty safe bet that most of here do not believe air and naval power is ineffective or hasnt had its moments of glory. I certainaly dont feel that way. Again this thread gets more surreal as time goes on. Mik wants his naval and air units to walk all over the axis to make his games either some combination of easier, faster or more predicitable. I dont really see why it needs to be pointed out over and over again that WaW Air units(not so much naval) are allready over-powered as it stands. If there wasnt an issue there that deserved to be looked at...I dont think they would be implenting the changes in the combat system now would they?.  
 
Now Im not really sure what point or knowledge these examples you have pulled up are intended to impart. For every 'fact' there is also a wider context in which it belongs. Quoteing these isolated examples that seem to support a POV you find reassureing without referring to the wider context in which they occured almost borders on mis-leading. Something cannot be declared a 'fact' by simple declaration, even if constituent arguments used to support it are themselves, both factual and true. Yes there were so-called 1000 bomber raids carried out and yes, they were devastateing and things did blow up good....real good. Operation cobra was the allied attempt to break out of Normandy where the Germans were conducting a stubborn and tactically compotent defence.  Something you neglect to mention despite all Germany's self-imposed handicaps and ones imposed by constant allied air attacks, cobra was necessary to break the german defence, which it did, again...why you think any of us would dispute that tactical success(or others similar to it) is...[&:]. Thing was tho, the 1000+ air raids could not be sustained indefinately, only for limited periods of time. Even the allies lacked the front line strength and logistics to maintain that level of force in-definately. I mean really, if Air power was such a war-winner, we only have to ask ourselves why not just repeat that all the way to Berlin?. Cheaper faster, less casualties. Even the Russians could have ramped up attack aircraft production and saved themselves a few million lives. I mean Berlin alone cost Russia 130k Dead, why didnt they just bomb them into surrendering from the air? [X(][X(]. German Bombing didnt force Britain into surrendering, Even US Terror-bombing of Japan, destructive as it was, did not have the effect of makeing most Japanesse civillians, much less the generals that ruled Japan, want to surrender to the Americans. So again, what exactly is it that your trying say, that Overwhelming air and naval power is a good thing? Sure it is....we all know that allready, yet you seem to speak out of both sides of your mouth. What new information is presented by stating on the one side that Air can be really devastateing in certain contexts(not new in-formation btw) and then turning around and also stateing that Naval and air units alone cant win wars on there own...........
 
Perhaps if it were restated thus for you it would mollify you
 
Airpower and Navies can *help* win battles, but they Dont Win Wars -will that do? [8D]  Perhaps in order to explore this notion more fully, the next title in the series could be called....let me See mmmm how about>>>>>>
 
 A World at War Divided and Only Useing Air and Naval........Divisions.  AWaWDaOUAaND. Thats a pretty slick title and rolls of the tongue-its marketing GOLD I tell you.[:'(] (Its only a working title and the final one may differ-so there)
 

[Petiloup]

ORIGINAL: Heinz Guderian

Perhaps if it were restated thus for you it would mollify you

Airpower and Navies can *help* win battles, but they Dont Win Wars -will that do? [8D]  Perhaps in order to explore this notion more fully, the next title in the series could be called....let me See mmmm how about>>>>>>

A World at War Divided and Only Useing Air and Naval........Divisions.  AWaWDaOUAaND. Thats a pretty slick title and rolls of the tongue-its marketing GOLD I tell you.[:'(] (Its only a working title and the final one may differ-so there)

I'm so mollified now [;)]

Well we do agree for both ideas that 1/ in WAW as a game it is true that the ability of air units to clear a region is powerfull and create some situations that look illogical and 2/ that a region the size of France can't be wiped out clean of troops only by Air and Sea power of course not, this is silly at least in the real world.

What looks bad in WAW is that the Units even damaged just disappeared from the map, I suppose a system that give steps of losses would look less dramatic but then maybe with the right support it would lead to an overun and achieve the same results.

At the end as I say I see what you mean and we agree on the whole concept but maybe after playing AWD we will notice that nothing much did change at the end but the way Air/Navy Units are working. Maybe with enough air and naval support you'll have so much suppression on the ground units that a proper invasion would always succeed with minimal losses not counting the bonus for Integrated Arms or blowing the Rail lines.

All in all I'm sure the way the result would be achieved will look better and more logical but would that result be so much different than in WAW? Guess this is what we are all waiting to try.

At last and this is surely where it will make a big difference that now you can send your planes to attack ground troops but if it's not to follow up with a land attack then it would be for nothing (if I understand correctly the new concept) and I suppose this is where we will finally both agree (I do hope [&o]) that it is indeed a lot better that way.