And from what I can understand what Josan is defending against!
Muzrub I dont try to defend nothing. I only play with Lorenzo rules. As I stated before if a player dont like a rule is better talk with your opponent , arent you? If both agree no problem.
But here there were no questions of any case. Just in a middle of a game and after more of 20 games played, a direct acussation.
I´ve no problem with play with one rule or a new one but if my oppponent dont say me nothing what hell can I do?
Anyway usually I change sides with my opponents (right loveman?) so the possible mistakes of a rule are for the two players for an equal.
P.S. Muzrub I will try no argue with you. I saw your experience in the The Art of Wargaming and your own crusade against everybody. Really I would be crushed for you in a couple of post.
SSG Korsun Pocket Decisive Battles Beta Tester
GG´s War in the East Alpha Tester
Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.
Muzrub I dont try to defend nothing. I only play with Lorenzo rules. As I stated before if a player dont like a rule is better talk with your opponent , arent you? If both agree no problem.
Are you saying you dont do what I listed above?
I´ve no problem with play with one rule or a new one but if my oppponent dont say me nothing what hell can I do?
You dont need to be told what is right and what is wrong! You're an adult and you should know with each plot or air attack!
Anyway usually I change sides with my opponents (right loveman?) so the possible mistakes of a rule are for the two players for an equal
So in theory! Two wrongs make a right? Not that I am saying you have done anything wrong! You should know yourself!
P.S. Muzrub I will try no argue with you. I saw your experience in the The Art of Wargaming and your own crusade against everybody. Really I would be crushed for you in a couple of post.
I'm not arguing. I was trying to help. I tried to pin-point the issue at hand! But once again you have taken exception! I tried to assist you in your defence, but you deny my help and lean towards your own defense!
But what have you to defended?
You only said:
Or is a cheater, right loveman?
You basically declared yourself a cheater! Not I nor loveman!
Maybe its time to look into oneself and consider what is right and wrong!
Do you feel guilt? I dont know, thats up to you!
Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.
You dont need to be told what is right and what is wrong! You're an adult and you should know with each plot or air attack!
So in theory! Two wrongs make a right? Not that I am saying you have done anything wrong! You should know yourself!
I'm not arguing. I was trying to help. I tried to pin-point the issue at hand! But once again you have taken exception! I tried to assist you in your defence, but you deny my help and lean towards your own defense!
But what have you to defended?
You only said:
You basically declared yourself a cheater! Not I nor loveman!
Maybe its time to look into oneself and consider what is right and wrong!
Do you feel guilt? I dont know, thats up to you!
1st round Muzrub wins!!!!!:D
SSG Korsun Pocket Decisive Battles Beta Tester
GG´s War in the East Alpha Tester
Originally posted by Josan 1st round Muzrub wins!!!!!:D
Josan, please relax. Loveman never mentioned you in his post, and he was not the first to use the word "cheater", you were. This thread was not an attack you, so please calm down.
As for the problem, I would just settle for a strike maximum, i.e., a unit can only be struck 3 times in a turn by airstrikes for example. The current rule is hard to verify anyway. Is it an ideal solution? No, the only solution to this is some coding changes. We've had this discussion with Arnaud before, and he eliminated the readiness losses from airstrikes which solves most of the problem, but he never tweaked the airstrike results formula to make single large raids more sucessful than many small raids. Rick, should we bring this up again with Arnaud?
I agree Dave, If the air power is there use it. It goes both ways. If the German player over extends himself from HQ's, the VVS can hurt him. Right Dave? 48th Pz Korp, he he... I've read that alot of Soviet players hide and train. Fight and train, fight and train, is my moto. The further units are from HQ's the less will intercept. The IL-2's and IL-4's with 50% + Exp. make it thru when the fighters turn back. The USAF can never succeed if the Soviets hide.
I have not the privelege to actually play anyone with the Lorenzo rules, however, after seeing the thread and looking at the rules, I can see where so many opinions can clash on the idea of bombing and the control of it. I have played lots of wargames, board and computer. I would have to say, even at the risk of getting flamed, that if multiple HQs are in range and can attack a unit, then they should be allowed do so. If your opponent hits it from 4 different HQs then obviously this must tell you that he is softening up a corridor. When I undertake interdicton missions, this is my intent, soften up a corridor, otherwise, I'm bombing cities, oil fields and airfields, with occaisional ground support missions. Ultimately you want to clarify the rules with your opponent, but limiting attacks on a unit seems unrealistic, however there is justification because of some of the programming issue. I firmly believe that multiple HQs should be allowed to hammer a single unit, but I do not agree with 3 bomber units in a single HQ making individual attacks on a single unit.
Well taking them to the edge of the map and not seeing them for months and months is hiding. I've read it in the hints, so I guess the answer is both.
Desertfox said, and others, that mulitiple attacks from the same HQ is unrealistic, consider the time frame. 1 week, WOW, alot of time. It should be the other way around, air units attached to HQ's, should only be able to support units under thier command. Alot of times I'll transfer a unit (Korps) to an ajoining HQ to bring in thier air forces to aid the ground attack.
As the originator of this particular house rule I think it is worth commenting on why I suggested it when the question of historically accurate house rules came up...
In one game my army defending moscow was hit with something like 30+ seperate interdiction attacks. As you might imagine there was not much left of it afterward.
So yes you can hit a single unit from multiple HQs but only once from each. This at the very least limits in general the maximum possible number of attacks a unit can be subjected to.
What I am not so sure of is if air units assigned to one HQ would support another one. Realistically there are a large number of coordination problems involved in something like this. A very simple solution to the problem is that air units from only a single HQ can attack a single target. This may be historically accurate or not, I am not familier enough with air operations to say. But I think this rule hurts the russian far more since I, at least, tend to disperse my airpower and it prevents the "entire russian airforce attacking a single over extended Pz Korps" which can help the russian a great deal. And I believe the russians assigned airunits either to specific units or else grouped them into air armys assigned to specific HQs which were then assigned to support specific operations.
Another choice would be to assign to an air unit only one operation (this requires a change in the game though so Ed and RickyB and Arnaud and so forth have to agree to this)...if it interdicts than it is not avialable to support ground attacks. This might reduce the tendancy to use interdiction all the time. Again how realistic this is open to question but air units designated for ground support operations would not in general be flying around doing other things I would imagine.
In the end this is a question mainly for the people involved in the game. You could for example agree that HQs adjacent to the one which has units adjacent or near to the attacked unit can support that HQ with attacks but others can not or any thing else that makes sense to you both. That would limit the number of attacks to 3 for example or just say that the number of attacks that a unit can take is 3 from any combination of HQs but that an HQ itself can not launch more than 1 attack at any target.
Regarding the use of air power , a point please to note.
1-- only recently i discovered this over use of air strikes against me. i never knew that an opponent could hit one target so many times , i.e. an hq with 1 fighter and 3 bombers could fly 3 separate bombing missions.
when i found this out , i was perhaps shocked to learn that an exploitation of lorenzos rules , if u could call it that could devastate a player no matter what entrenchment level he is at.
so perhaps the fault is in the rules.
I have a couple of thoughts to add to the airpower discussion, guys, as it is an important issue.
First, the airpower needs tweaked back down in losses, as they are just too high right now, basically they seem back to where they were in the 1.? versions. In conjunctions with this, though, the readiness losses need boosted back up some, as there basically is none now - maybe a cap at no lower than 50% readiness??? Anyway, the issues themselves have been raised by Ed and myself. Also, the idea was to normalize losses so that the small attacks did no more damage than large attacks, and this may be happening, but if so the large attacks are too strong. I also don't believe this is happening, as the small attacks still cause a significant percentage of losses compared to the larger attacks.
Regarding multiple attacks, it can be abused, but a fixed rule is hard to obey in some situations also. I have a different suggestion, which is a complete turnaround from how it has always been done. Basically, I have always felt the air ranges for ground support are overstated. Yes, the ranges cover what bombers could theorectically cover, but in actual combat were rarely attained for a variety of reasons. This I feel applies more in a ground support role (including interdiction) where the specific target location is only known at takeoff than airfield or strategic attacks, where a target is fixed and a full blown attack plan is laid out before striking. A tactical attack like this requires extra time and fuel to identify and strike the target, thus reducing the range these attacks were carried out at.
What I propose to fix this, is that air units retain their current range ratings, but for tactical combat (ie. interdiction and ground support), air units can only fly a limited range, say 7 hexes, which is 140 mile or 220 km. This would prevent the massing of air power as currently can happen, unless the HQs are also massed in which case the airpower should be massed also. If the losses get fixed, then the airpower situation should be looking really good.
One negative about this idea is it prevents the normal Soviet tactic of keeping the bombers back well in the rear and striking. This is a realistic restriction but it does have some major impact on Soviet airpower usage. I still kind of like the idea, but am not sure.
Another idea how multiple interdiction attacks by small bomber groups could probably be restricted. If it would be possible (codes), I propose to allow only ONE ESCORT MISSION for fighter groups per week (one escort mission, but it should IMO still be possible to set them on CAP after they flew their mission).
With such a change a player must concentrate fighters AND bombers to go on with the multiple interdiction tactic. But that would leave other sectors of the front defenceless against counterattacks by air. The german bombers f. ex. could only fly their deadly missions with total air superiority. To prevent that, the soviet player would be forced to hold some fighter units in the line. That seems fair to me, because a player who retreats ALL his airforce deserves being crushed by the others bombs;)
Concerning the effect of the Luftwaffe (at least in the beginning of Barbarossa): I recently read an article where a former Wehrmacht officer (lower ranks) described how german Stukas CLEANED a soviet defence line in a lenght of several kilometers. He wrote that the following land troops didn't find ANY resistance left. I doubt that this isn't a bit exaggerated, but one should keep in mind that the Luftwaffe WAS a deadly weapon (my opinion).
Hmmm, a 7 square restriction wouldn't stop the player from hitting a unit multiple times from an HQ with a fighter and multiple bomber units.
Restricting the fighters to just one escort mission is more interesting. This would effectively force the player to one large strike because he has fighter cover for only one attack. This would essentially do what we want, and will be easy to implement.
I still think the better solution is to tweak the combat routines so that large attacks produce more damage than 2 or 3 small attacks, but I have no idea whether we can get Arnaud to tackle this problem again.
Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
Restricting the fighters to just one escort mission is more interesting. This would effectively force the player to one large strike because he has fighter cover for only one attack. This would essentially do what we want, and will be easy to implement.
With some exceptions :
1. For 1941 I dont think Luftwaffe bombers need cover all the time to perform mission ( but this might force soviet players to keep at least part of VVS on line )
2. If you keep e.g. 4 fighter groups in HQ, still you can perform at least 2 misions with fighters on escort ( 2+2)
3. Once I get He177 I dont worry about soviet fighters that much (untill they get La series in production)
Just to name few, I am sure there are lots more
I still think the better solution is to tweak the combat routines so that large attacks produce more damage than 2 or 3 small attacks, but I have no idea whether we can get Arnaud to tackle this problem again.
I think RickyB's suggestion on limiting ground attack range is a good one.
But there are a couple of things that could be done to otherwise limit interdiction effects.
1. Limit air units to flying only one type of mission per turn. This is realy only reasonable. Units engaged in bombing enemy airfields are not avialable to be used in supporting ground attacks. This is even more true for units engaged in interdiction attacks. Or heavily penalise units which fly player directed air missions in terms of readiness. This would especially work well to limit things as otherwise you will find you have no fighter cover. There is a limit on what you can do with your air craft in PACWAR and so I see no reason not to limit things in WIR.
2. For interdiction attacks adjust the readiness loss by the entrenchment level. Units with entrenchment levels of 0 should suffere heavy readiness penelties but highly entrenched units should suffer virutally none. The same should be true as well with the actual equipment losses. Interdiction is primarily intended to prevent the movement of troops and supplies it is not that effective against troops that are stationary.
Is it possible to have the interdiction attack reduce the supply level of the hex rather than affect the absolute readiness level of the units?? This would more accurately reflect what is going on.
Equipment loss is also something that is much more difficult to inflict on stationary unit. It was at that time very hard to spot troops.
Ground support was also something that required significant coordination and so on so restricting the range at which it can be applied (half the range of the plane might work well) would be reasonable. Or else reduce the effectiveness of any attacks but strategic bombing by the fraction the range is over half the planes nominal range.
Originally posted by Paul McNeely 1. Limit air units to flying only one type of mission per turn. This is realy only reasonable.
Not necessarily. This has come up before. In West Front Gary allowed air units do both a mission and ground support. For some reason he didn't do so with WIR, but just about everyone agrees that in a week's time an air unit can execute 2 missions (interdict/ground support) even when the missions require multiple flights. When you watch a unit fly 4 or 5 ground support missions in one turn, its hard to say the unit couldn't also fly a player directed mission. The air units lose readiness so they will enter the ground support phase with less strength, so the player directed mission isn't "free" in that sense.
With some exceptions :
1. For 1941 I dont think Luftwaffe bombers need cover all the time to perform mission ( but this might force soviet players to keep at least part of VVS on line )
That's exactly what I meant. If the soviet player doesn't even try to fight in the air he has to pay the price for that decision.
2. If you keep e.g. 4 fighter groups in HQ, still you can perform at least 2 misions with fighters on escort ( 2+2)
Yes, that would be still possible. But you don't have infinite fighter groups. Such a concentration would leave a big part of your frontline unprotected and vulnerable for the same multiple bomber attacks performed by your enemy (who doesn't need fighter support since you assembled your fighters anywhere else)
3. Once I get He177 I dont worry about soviet fighters that much (untill they get La series in production)
With the He-177 available not before early 1943 (as disussed in another thread) you would have to wait a long time:)
I suppose I have same profile as you. Didn't play the game for some years, downloaded when saw it, didn't play it yet and asked same question on formum on air power.
I guess I may be as old as you.
other question could be : is it possible to lose against IA in new version ?
Best regards
The answer is that air units have to support troops from thier HQ's, or spend the time to transfer them. I agree, and I've done it, enemy intercepetion doesn't occur so I send bombers from across the map to aid in an attack???? Realistic? NO!
