new aircraft

[Michael the Pole]

I'm trying to catch up after being on vacation without internet connection for the last month, and I understand that Doomtrader, et al are going to differentiate aircraft units to seperate bombers from fighters and TAC air. While I think that this is commendable, I'd like to make the point that all fighters have some (at a minimum) ground attack capability. Bombers dont make good fighters, but any fighter can become a bomber by strapping on a bomb. In fact, the AAF in the last two years of the war routinely assigned ground attack missions (targets of opportunity) to all or nearly all fighter escort missions.

[doomtrader]

Does it really matters with this scale?

EDIT: In other words, does a fighter unit is able to make any serious damages to a division?

[Michael the Pole]

Well, it depends on how you look at it. I guess I was saying that there is no difference between a fighter unit and a TAC unit. (If you're thinking about having three types of air units.) I'd restrict myself to only fighters and bombers, but allow fighters to fly both air superiority as well as ground attack missions (sort of like it is now.)

[doomtrader]

Michael, are you saying that there is no difference between Me Bf 109 and Dornier Do 17?

[Anraz]

Micheal, I afraid that if we had followed this way the whole change would become unnecessary and as effect players would buy only fighters as universal units. Rock-paper-scissors rule has its own flavor and logic.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Michael, are you saying that there is no difference between Me Bf 109 and Dornier Do 17?

Sure there are differences, but there are numberless examples of the Germans using "Gustav" as a ground attack aircraft, just as the Allies used the P-51. I would hate to be assigned to fly a "Flying Pencil" as an interceptor, but it was used as a night fighter. Come to think of it, so was the Ju-88.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: Anraz

Micheal, I afraid that if we had followed this way the whole change would become unnecessary and as effect players would buy only fighters as universal units. Rock-paper-scissors rule has its own flavor and logic.

I agree, but I'd suggest that we should allow them to fly TAC missions at a reduced ST (say a third). There just arent that many "pure" TAC aircraft. (I can only think of 2 or 3.)
Strategic (heavy) bombers have VERY limited ground attack usefullness and no interceptor value, medium bombers have a great deal of ground attack value and no interceptor value, and fighters have moderate ground attack value and are great interceptors. You cant say that P-37's or 38's cant be used as TAC aircraft, but they certainly arent bombers.

[doomtrader]

OK, here is a list for German Tact bombers (or rather theirs graphical representation)

lvl1 - Dornier Do 23
lvl2 - Junkers Ju 87
lvl3 - Dornier Do 217
lvl4 - Junkers Ju 188
lvl5 - Arado Ar 234

It might give you a cle how do we imagine this feature.

[PitifulGrunt]

Has anyone ever played the Panzer General games? I thought those games did a pretty decent job with balancing the differences between tactical air and more purely air to air fighter units. Because of the heavy damage the TAC planes could do, the opposition was nearly forced to provide some sort of interceptor or ground based air defense. While the same time, the TAC air components were pretty expensive. It was good stress on both sides of the battle, always being somewhat of a double-sided blade.

[Anraz]

Has anyone ever played the Panzer General games?

From time to time I still play them

[Chocolino]

The air units modeled in ToW are so large (e.g. air army, Luftflotte etc) that they contained a variety of aircraft supporting each other incl. Tactical bombers and Fighters / Interceptors. So it may be reasonable to assume that TOW air units can perform all these missions (imagining that they used a different mix of their aircraft).

It is hard to image a unit of several hundred Tactical Bombers without a fighter. That is the same as an Infantry corps being also equipped with artillery or a Tank corps was filled with more Infantry than one thinks - the latter sometimes also for lack of tanks - but that is a different story.

If we think we need more variety in air unit mix we may want to consider smaller unit sizes. Or keep the larger ones and have them do multi-purpose roles.

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: Anraz

Micheal, I afraid that if we had followed this way the whole change would become unnecessary and as effect players would buy only fighters as universal units. Rock-paper-scissors rule has its own flavor and logic.

Exactly!

The main problem with putting fighters and medium bombers into one unit, is not wether they can make ground attacks or not, it has to do with ranges. In time, when the long-range capability of the fighters became better, the difference wasn't so great anymore. But in the beginning of the war, the range of a fighter dictated the range where the bombers could operate with a certain degree of safety. Beyond this range, the effect of attacks made by bombers would be lessened and the losses would be greater if in enemy airspace covered by fighters. After the fall of France, as an example, German medium bombers were well withing striking distance of Scapa Flow, but since the fighters couldn't get there protecting them, day-light attacks were never a sound option. Gradually, the range of the fighter was increased with drop tanks and better models, but even as late as 1944, the range at which the fighter umbrella could be effective was an important issue when planning for the D-Day landings.

Apart from the above, having different types of units here also leads to a much more rewarding gaming experience. The players have to use their fighters in forward positions if they want to gain air superiority in areas where they like to use their medium bombers to support offensives. The air component of the game will be much more interesting.

In short, as it is now, the fighters have the range of bombers and the bombers have the defensive capability of fighters. The change is much welcomed.

[SeaMonkey]

What you want to do is produce a set of aircraft types that have their own unique upgrades so that the player, using tech, can engineer the type of unit he wants. All aircraft have some basis for multi-role, but if you manage the upgrades you essentially produce a dedicated mission type airframe.

For example, sure fighters can ground attack and can inhibit supply flow to the front, but if you take a fighter unit, add sophisticated airframe and engine mods for interceptor capabilities, you're not going to use a valuable unit as this for ground attack, although you could. Now you add long range tech like drop tanks and you have an escort for your bombers and after paying for these upgrades I'm not likely to use this unit in a ground attack capacity....get my drift, the cost of replacements precludes it from a mission it is not designed to do, although you have the choice.

Its the same for all the types, make the tech upgrades available to emphasize the traditional role that each unit performed even though they can all be used in many mission types albeit not as effectively as the role oriented one.

[Mike Parker]

There is a huge benefit to differentiating the units, namely tailoring your air strategy.  While I agree at this level there is little realism in having Air Armies of only Fighter aircraft for example.  But on the other hand, currently by building air armies, I am forced to buy a mixed bag of fighters and Tac bombers.
 
By differentiating the types I can choose to more focus on Fighters over TAC if I wish, rather than this melange of blended types I have now.
 
I do believe fighters should have some effect on the ground war.  In fact a wonderful addition would be an effectiveness penalty for air supperiority/supremacy.  We already calculate it at least for cites now.. so we could apply some sort of modifier to a units effectiveness depending on the air superiority level.  And fighters should be the absolute KING of gaining superiority/supremacy.  On this scale a group of fighters attacking a division or corp and doing damage is likely unrealistic, but fighters gaining air superiority and therefore reducing that corps/divisions effectiveness sounds VERY much like fighters straffing truck convoys to me!
 
 
 

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

I do believe fighters should have some effect on the ground war.  In fact a wonderful addition would be an effectiveness penalty for air supperiority/supremacy.  We already calculate it at least for cites now.. so we could apply some sort of modifier to a units effectiveness depending on the air superiority level.  And fighters should be the absolute KING of gaining superiority/supremacy.  On this scale a group of fighters attacking a division or corp and doing damage is likely unrealistic, but fighters gaining air superiority and therefore reducing that corps/divisions effectiveness sounds VERY much like fighters straffing truck convoys to me!

I suggested something like this in an earlier thread:

tm.asp?m=2162802

It seems, however, that the current game engine is just insufficient to handle such ideas, or that it has to be changed to such degree that it would overburden the limited time of the developers. It would have been a nice touch, though.

[H. Hoth]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

I'm trying to catch up after being on vacation without internet connection for the last month, and I understand that Doomtrader, et al are going to differentiate aircraft units to seperate bombers from fighters and TAC air. While I think that this is commendable, I'd like to make the point that all fighters have some (at a minimum) ground attack capability. Bombers dont make good fighters, but any fighter can become a bomber by strapping on a bomb. In fact, the AAF in the last two years of the war routinely assigned ground attack missions (targets of opportunity) to all or nearly all fighter escort missions.

you really had to read that? last two years of war the Germans could muster few fighters...what else would they attack?