cost of air units and air damage

[gwgardner]

I wonder if the high cost of air unit replacements/reinforcements (after damage) is too high. It's such a stiff price to pay that I hesitate to even use my air force at all without total air supremacy.

Either the cost of replacements is too high, or it's too easy to damage air units.

In the '39 scenario even, if the Germans go for air supremacy, knocking out the Polish air force, it can be so costly that I tend to just ground the air force entirely, and take out Poland solely with ground units. If I do go for supremacy and wipe out the Polish air unit, I then hesitate to use the supremacy for ground support due to the heavy damage air units can take from tactical strikes. That detracts from the flavor of the game, making it unwise to use combined arms as the Germans did.

Not sure about air to air damage, but I'm thinking tactical strike damage to attacking air units may need to be reduced. Alternatively, if that is indeed pretty well modeled, perhaps the PP cost of replacements should be reduced.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Am I way off? I'm no guru and have no historical stats to compare game results. Just my impression.

[cpdeyoung]

Gary,
 
They are expensive to build, and expensive to use.  The AI loves to build air units, and is not afraid to use them.  I tend to not build them, especially as the Soviets.  I use the ones I am given when playing the other powers.  I save them for when I really need them as when taking out the single supply city for a big encirclement.  Then the cost is well worth it!  I think you can say tactical air support is built into the play of land units.  The use of these big air units is above and beyond.  If you get an opportunity to use them with air superiority they can make the difference in a battle.
 
Too expensive to throw away, but useful.
 
Chuck

[James Ward]

Air units should be reserved for important tasks, such as invasions or to help take out an extremely important unit or city. In fact it is practically impossible to invade without air support unless your opponent makes a horrible mistake. The worst thing you can do with them is to attack ground units turn after turn.
Other uses are to engage enemy air units directly if you have a PP advantage and tech is at least equal. If you out tech the enemy that is even better. If you can afford to rebuild your air and the enemy can't then you can destroy his air units forever. Strategic bombing is also useful if you have a PP advantage and want to cripple your enemy. Taking out 40-50 PP per turn can have a big effect. They come back slowly so just a single turn can more than pay for your costs in reduced builds by your enemy.

[balenami1291]

to incentive use of tactical air forces could be:

Air unit attacking:
- a port: ( damage: as now)
- a city: damage: -10% as now
- other open ground's hex types: -30% as now.

simulating different AA density between urban and outdoor location

So invade can be difficult as it is but we made a more tactical use of aircraft

Just my 2 cents...

Excuse my bad english....

[gwgardner]

Good points all.
 
I do really like the idea of reducing tactical damage to air units, in order to make air a more integral part of the action.  Probably with a concommittant reduction in the effect of tactical strikes - just so long as air the units could be used more often - not just for taking out a critical city or supporting an amphibious assault.
 
Perhaps use the current full force of air units for strategic bombing, with the current limitations on action points, but reduce the number or fraction of action points and the effectiveness and the air unit damage, for tactical.