Offensive Air Strikes not worth it

[abulbulian]

I think that attacking air units are losing too much to ground units that have no defensive air support.

example: german air str 8 lvl 3 attacks russian inf str 4 lvl 4: NO ENEMY AIR: results: german air loses 2 pts and Russia unit takes loses but still at a 4 str value.


** This will cost the german play 40-60 pts to repair the air and lose a turn of its use. The Russia inf will only cost 5-10 pt to refit. Seems very non-historical for the inf unit not to get mauled. I understand the inf unit has intrsinct AA, however, shooting down 20% of the air units planes doesn't seem right.

** problem lies with air units losing whole #'s while ground units can take loses that won't decrease their actualy face value. I've seen this over and over that using my air in offensive roles with TOTAL air superiority is cause me to spend 100-200 points per turn to refit them with almost very little return. I'd be better off doing soemthing else with those pp.

** Has anybody else faced this quirk? I'm now think that having the air for defensive purposes is the best way to use

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

I think that attacking air units are losing too much to ground units that have no defensive air support.

example: german air str 8 lvl 3 attacks russian inf str 4 lvl 4: NO ENEMY AIR: results: german air loses 2 pts and Russia unit takes loses but still at a 4 str value.


** This will cost the german play 40-60 pts to repair the air and lose a turn of its use. The Russia inf will only cost 5-10 pt to refit. Seems very non-historical for the inf unit not to get mauled. I understand the inf unit has intrsinct AA, however, shooting down 20% of the air units planes doesn't seem right.

** problem lies with air units losing whole #'s while ground units can take loses that won't decrease their actualy face value. I've seen this over and over that using my air in offensive roles with TOTAL air superiority is cause me to spend 100-200 points per turn to refit them with almost very little return. I'd be better off doing soemthing else with those pp.

** Has anybody else faced this quirk? I'm now think that having the air for defensive purposes is the best way to use

It is expensive to use you air units but if you want to take a well defended position then air attacks are a must. Perhaps this is how it is intended.
In most games an air unit is used just like any other ground unit, you attack as much as you can with them at any particular target that presents itself. It seems in this game air units must be used only when needed or else you will lose out on the PP cost, almost like the units represent "effort" as opposed to actual units.

[winky51]

I noticed the hideous losses too.  But it is modable what they lose in the files.

[abulbulian]

How do you mod it? What files?

[JMass]

World War 2 Road to Victory\data\scenarios\EUROPE 19##\consts.csv

[comrade]

James Ward gave good explanation, it was designed purposfully. Otherwise air units would work like a land unit that has 20 hex attack range. Air strikes are ineffective PP-wise to balance the game, otherwise optimal strategy for resource rich countries would be to build only air units. Imagine UK building tons of air units and bombing german garrisons in France with impunity.

[mustang96]

Hi
Are there bombers in the game? Are fighters used for attacking other fighters in the game. I haven't seen any screens showing air battles?
Thanks
Mustang

[PDiFolco]

But IRL Air units WERE powerful and useful, and US did made tons of it !
What kind of rationale to nerf them is that "if they were useful they will be used ?"  [8|]

[comrade]

Of course they are useful and they should be built and used and US can build a lot. The point was HOW air units are used. IRL air units were used to support ground operations, to achieve a breakthrough or support an assault on heavily fortified points. Current game rules prevent using air units as land unit with 20 hex attack range i.e. air units kill everything in range and infantry only gives support, mops up and garrisons. Note, that it is still possible but very costly. In game, infantry/armor must fight and aircraft provide support.

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: JMass

World War 2 Road to Victory\data\scenarios\EUROPE 19##\consts.csv

I've tried to change these figures, encouraged by your post here, but nothing seems to happen. Have you succeeded in changing anything yourself, or do you simply acknowledge the existens of this file?

[JMass]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge
Have you succeeded in changing anything yourself, or do you simply acknowledge the existens of this file?

Yes, I have changed some values (i.e. "No supply effectivity modifier" from 15 to 30) and them work.

[Uxbridge]

I suddenly chanced upon the solution to the problem! When I started to change things, I first copied the entire 1939-scenario and placed it outside of the scenario-folder. There I gave it a new name and then placed it back into the scenario-folder, thus having 2 1939-games. I changed colours, altered values of and added some extra units to the new one. This worked fine, but when I tried to change things in the consts.csv nothing happened. Now I got it! You have - for some reason - to change the figures in the original 1939-scenario. That was it! It takes effect in both the old and the new scenarios!!

[jeffreysutro@jeffreysutro.com]

Of course they are useful and they should be built and used and US can build a lot. The point was HOW air units are used. IRL air units were used to support ground operations, to achieve a breakthrough or support an assault on heavily fortified points. Current game rules prevent using air units as land unit with 20 hex attack range i.e. air units kill everything in range and infantry only gives support, mops up and garrisons. Note, that it is still possible but very costly. In game, infantry/armor must fight and aircraft provide support.

[font="Times New Roman"]comrade:

I understand your reasons for this design decision, and entirely agree that air units should not be just like land units with a 20 hex range. However, I think a perhaps a better way to simulate the actual effects of air power would be to make the main effect of air attacks be a reduction of effectiveness of the target unit, with just a small actual strength reduction. The effectiveness could then be gradually recovered over the next several turns. This would make air power very useful, but only in conjunction with a ground attack, which is how it was historically used. I think that your mechanism of variable effectiveness is a very good and versatile game mechanic, and this seems like an instance where it could be used to good effect.[/font]

[Mickrocks201]

[font="arial"]Just for grins I played both sides of the  "europe 39" scenario to get a good feel of what is going on.  Obviously I can't surprise myself, but I tried to be as fair to both side as I could.   I found that the Russians have absolutely no use for air units at all at least up thru '42, they need as many foot infantry as they can produce to make lines and then perhaps spend some resources on big armor units.  Much better to plow what you can afford into artillery and armor research.

The Germans should use air very lightly - only to get breakthrus that can't be gotten any other way- else replacing air will bleed you dry.   I can see it truely useful for amphibious landings since that is the only way you can eek your way to a port.  but it is hideously expensive to try to break thru a well defended beach and then doubtful that you will suceed. [/font][font="arial"] (The whole invasion/supply thing is one of the weakest parts of the game - but that is for another thread).

[/font][font="arial"]All in all the best thing to do is never use airpower unless they is no other way.

Strategic bombing is another issue!!  The economics are not even close to being worthwhile so don't bother.[/font]

[alaric318]

greetings, i do not know if it is said before, as air factors are more expensive is better exchange the way to use, allways is not a good option to make air strikes against a city, but aside it, air units can help to surround the city and concentric land attack and lack of supply with new isolation rules can do the needed to take the city, i mean that is better soften a land enemy unit with powerfull land attacks and then destroy the unit with air strikes, it work very fine in my given games, replace an infantry corps with added cost in set it to a fine level can be much more expensive than replace losses on a deployed corps that have been not destroyed, mid game, russia and united states will have much prod points income to field enough air units, simply you go to better air to land tables when you previously soften the target unit with armor/panzer plus infantry, armor and motor troops can make attacks sometimes after the main land attack but can turn bloody choice aside it can left lesser toughness against the upcoming air attacks, air combat i think is fine portrayed and adressed for the scale of the game, the main scale is land division level, some thing that can be needed when you try to make a continous land front that in place soften an attacker given this attacker will have less chances on concentric attacks, wich is the key to destroy enemy formations and air units can be much dangerous to enemy divisions instead of enemy corps, about costs i find air replacements and builds somewhat expensive, but is historical and go for the reality factor, allways is to make the balance ok between realism and playability, strike ranges for air units is, as said some extra firepower with very long range can make difference between damage the enemy target unit or be able to destroy it, remember, again, air units work better against a previously damaged unit than an enemy unit at full strenght,
 
best regards,
 
murat30.

[James Ward]

"I found that the Russians have absolutely no use for air units at all at least up thru '42, they need as many foot infantry as they can produce to make lines and then perhaps spend some resources on big armor units.  Much better to plow what you can afford into artillery and armor research."

I agree yet the Russian AI build 4 or 5 of them early on.

"Strategic bombing is another issue!!  The economics are not even close to being worthwhile so don't bother."

I think it depends. By the time the US enters the Allies should be way ahead on PP per turn. If you bomb a 20 pp city to zer0 it might cost you 4-5 strength points of strat bombers but the loss to the Axis is 20 +19 + 18 etc. which may be a big hit at a time they can't afford it. It is sometimes worth it as long as it's a big target. Bobming 4 pp targets is just a waste.

[Mickrocks201]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

"I found that the Russians have absolutely no use for air units at all at least up thru '42, they need as many foot infantry as they can produce to make lines and then perhaps spend some resources on big armor units.  Much better to plow what you can afford into artillery and armor research."

I agree yet the Russian AI build 4 or 5 of them early on.

"Strategic bombing is another issue!!  The economics are not even close to being worthwhile so don't bother."

I think it depends. By the time the US enters the Allies should be way ahead on PP per turn. If you bomb a 20 pp city to zer0 it might cost you 4-5 strength points of strat bombers but the loss to the Axis is 20 +19 + 18 etc. which may be a big hit at a time they can't afford it. It is sometimes worth it as long as it's a big target. Bobming 4 pp targets is just a waste.

[font="Arial"]
That is an interesting point - perhaps the AI for Russia would produce a better result by not buying any air units until 1943 - the PP saved could be spent on ground troops to defend a line instead of allowing themselves to surrounded around cities in the early going. [/font]

[comrade]

ORIGINAL: jeffreys

Of course they are useful and they should be built and used and US can build a lot. The point was HOW air units are used. IRL air units were used to support ground operations, to achieve a breakthrough or support an assault on heavily fortified points. Current game rules prevent using air units as land unit with 20 hex attack range i.e. air units kill everything in range and infantry only gives support, mops up and garrisons. Note, that it is still possible but very costly. In game, infantry/armor must fight and aircraft provide support.

[font="Times New Roman"]comrade:

I understand your reasons for this design decision, and entirely agree that air units should not be just like land units with a 20 hex range. However, I think a perhaps a better way to simulate the actual effects of air power would be to make the main effect of air attacks be a reduction of effectiveness of the target unit, with just a small actual strength reduction. The effectiveness could then be gradually recovered over the next several turns. This would make air power very useful, but only in conjunction with a ground attack, which is how it was historically used. I think that your mechanism of variable effectiveness is a very good and versatile game mechanic, and this seems like an instance where it could be used to good effect.[/font]

I considered exactly this solution when designing and even tried to implement it. I cant recall now the reason why i gave it up (it was a while ago), I think it was about game balance issue or some possible exploits. For the time being we'll stick with current model but I'll keep this idea in mind for future.

[comrade]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

I suddenly chanced upon the solution to the problem! When I started to change things, I first copied the entire 1939-scenario and placed it outside of the scenario-folder. There I gave it a new name and then placed it back into the scenario-folder, thus having 2 1939-games. I changed colours, altered values of and added some extra units to the new one. This worked fine, but when I tried to change things in the consts.csv nothing happened. Now I got it! You have - for some reason - to change the figures in the original 1939-scenario. That was it! It takes effect in both the old and the new scenarios!!

Check out the misc.csv file. There's a value called "scenario folder name" there (or sth like that. Whenever you create a new directory for a new scenario, the first thing you should do is to modify this value in misc.csv to point to that directory.