Air Combat bug log

[Razz1]

We still have this massive confusion and bug.

Either the combat tables are reversed or the log information is reversed.

I believe the latter. Why because now fighters take hits when attacking bombers. This makes interception risky.

If we switch the tables the game will be unbalanced.

Dealt is in correct. Dealt = given in English.


For example I sat at a table and gave (dealt) you some cards to play poker.

The combat log says two contradictory statements on the right hand box.

1) I gave the Allies one point in strength loss.

2) The interception was successful.

It should say:

1) Taken, as I took one point in damage

2) mission NOT successful.


If you want to convey the weather was clear, and the mission to intercept was completed...

It is not necessary to have the words as interception successful. A player can see that by reading the log. Also if the mission of the plane to intercept, we don't even get a pop up.

[Razz1]

During combat, the log is reversed.

[Razz1]

After two intercept missions, the player is confused as it said they were successful and dealt strength point loss to the enemy.

[doomtrader]

Could you send me the save game?

[JudgeDredd]

I thought Interception was successful related to the fact that they actually mad ethe interception - not that it was successful in the sense that they managed to hit the enemy.

I do find the air interception boxes confusing though - I have to agree.

[doomtrader]

Successful interception is when the intercepting fighters are able to stop the enemy from performing their task.

[JervisBay]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

I thought Interception was successful related to the fact that they actually mad ethe interception - not that it was successful in the sense that they managed to hit the enemy.

I do find the air interception boxes confusing though - I have to agree.

Hi. To second that, an excellent game but the air combat results display is confusing - might it be better if it were a panel that remained on the screen with a table showing successive results?

A couple of other related issues - the rate of attrition during recon flights is so high that you have to abandon them if the enemy has any air units at all. Would it be better to have lower losses but reduce the results by introducing more variability into the size of area revealed? and, for example to keep areas under cloud/rain/snow hidden?

Secondly, enemy units appear to able to perform far more interceptions than they have AP's for - I've had recon flights, naval strikes and bombing missions all intercepted by the same under-strength but superhuman enemy unit, whilst in the presence of what should be overwhelming fighter support.

Thirdly, there's a balance issue with carrier-based aircraft - playing against an AI Royal Navy, it used the carriers all the time to attack ports and shore-based aircraft - but surely historically this was quite rare early in the war and outside the Pacific - the RN carriers were too precious, too small and carried too elderly aircraft to be risked in that way - they were meant for naval warfare. Should carrier based aircraft be calculated as though they were one generation lower than the owner's current tech level?

[Razz1]

Jervisbay,

I believe you are performing recon too close to fighters, one or two hexes. Try changing your tactics. It helps allot.

[JervisBay]

I can't disagree with that. Just one other thought though - should there be a 'Recon failed'?, ie you've been driven off, at the moment I think I've only seen either a successful recon or a point loss which seems a bit brutal - weren't photo-recon aircraft stripped of weapons so they could run away faster? Thanks.