Bombing HQs - overpowered?

[The Land]

Is bombing HQs overpowered?

No criticism of the player who's currently doing this against me very effectively ( ) but it does strike me that you end up with a bit of an exploit. Fighters 'scout' to soak AA unit strikes and locate an HQ, then medium and tactical bombers gang up to destroy the HQ. Even at full AA tech and surrounded by several AA units, there is no defence and no counter.

Particularly evil when combined with strat bombing of the resource that the HQ was next to - you can end up with a whole section of the Eastern Front out of supply.

[Scottydawg]

YES...I am the evil one here (while flattered, I'm not exactly proud of it). I figured this little "gem" of a tactic out in part by example from getting creamed by some of my early opponents [especially "the One whose name we do not mention..." [&o]]; the rest I devilishly worked out on my own. This tactic is EXTREMELY effective particularly in Russia where the towns and cities might be several hexes away from each other--I do have my favorites.

Seriously though, this is somewhat of a "gamey" tactic and highly unrealistic as stated. The only remedy as I see would be to enact the following:
*Allow HQs to draw supply from ADJACENT sources (just like ports currently...)
*Do not allow HQs to be destroyed by airpower--how about knocking them down to a maximum low strength of 1...or 3?
*And, perhaps much of the "airpower omnipotence" could be alleviated if there was a mechanism in place by which the air attack might be thwarted altogether following extreme AA or even an elite status fighter...this would be especially realistic where unescorted bombers are concerned.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Scottydawg

YES...I am the evil one here (while flattered, I'm not exactly proud of it). I figured this little "gem" of a tactic out in part by example from getting creamed by some of my early opponents [especially "the One whose name we do not mention..." [&o]]; the rest I devilishly worked out on my own. This tactic is EXTREMELY effective particularly in Russia where the towns and cities might be several hexes away from each other--I do have my favorites.

Seriously though, this is somewhat of a "gamey" tactic and highly unrealistic as stated. The only remedy as I see would be to enact the following:
*Allow HQs to draw supply from ADJACENT sources (just like ports currently...)
*Do not allow HQs to be destroyed by airpower--how about knocking them down to a maximum low strength of 1...or 3?
*And, perhaps much of the "airpower omnipotence" could be alleviated if there was a mechanism in place by which the air attack might be thwarted altogether following extreme AA or even an elite status fighter...this would be especially realistic where unescorted bombers are concerned.

Also very interesting and good solutions! Yeah I had this done to me once and it stopped me cold until I got fighter support. And there is the counter and the difference and also the problem with AA. I survived this tactic because I had NO AA. Why? Because if you have AA fighters are useless and do not intercept. If you only have fighters they intercept and defend against this.

So one solution to this in my opinion is to let AA and fighters coordinate?

[El_Condoro]

One of my recent opponents suggested a house rule to allow only one air attack against an HQ each turn. While this kind of makes sense, it was difficult to remember (I forgot and took out one of his HQs) and it can lead to HQs not being given sufficient protection. They can be placed in full view and are effectively immune to a significant (air) attack. Another solution is to increase the Anti-Aircraft value of HQs so that they are not such easy kills from the air.

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: El_Condoro

One of my recent opponents suggested a house rule to allow only one air attack against an HQ each turn. While this kind of makes sense, it was difficult to remember (I forgot and took out one of his HQs) and it can lead to HQs not being given sufficient protection. They can be placed in full view and are effectively immune to a significant (air) attack. Another solution is to increase the Anti-Aircraft value of HQs so that they are not such easy kills from the air.

Yeah - it's a tough one to balance.

The simplest solution with the existing game mechanics would be for air units to do less damage to HQs. HQs could have their own 'unit type' to facilitate this.

Alternatively, and with more coding needed, HQs could become invalid targets for air attack if their strength is less than a certain threshold - personally I'd go for 6, though other values could be played with.

Also, separately, I'd like to see AA guns not fire at fighters that are performing 'strikes' (or at least, make this a toggle...)

[Will952]

Perhaps HQs could be allowed to purchase higher AA ratings? Currently capped at 2 but could make it 5.

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: Will952

Perhaps HQs could be allowed to purchase higher AA ratings? Currently capped at 2 but could make it 5.

I would say the same should be possible for AA units as well - after all, Ground Attack Weapons scales to 3 so why shouldn't AA and HQs.

I'm not sure that's a solution on its own, though.

[Sugar]

Why change game basics when there`s a simple solution: air superiority?

The only issue is the supply rule: you can`t actually choose where to place your HQs, it has to be the nearest town/city/port, thus the enemy knows exactly where to attack without even reconnoitering, making strat. bombers even more op than they are anyway.

As the supply rules are far too complicated anyway, time to change them back where they were before those major changes.

That wouldn`t prevent attacking HQs, but it would be far more difficult and the result wouldn`t be as drastic.

The changing of the supply rules turned out to be the worst design decision so far, and since then needed constant adjusting. Time to get rid of it, or relate them to interstates and railways, not towns or cities.

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

Why change game basics when there`s a simple solution: air superiority?

Air superiority is not exactly a 'simple' solution for the Russians, particularly if the Luftwaffe bomb your fighters every time they appear.

As the supply rules are far too complicated anyway, time to change them back where they were before those major changes.

That wouldn`t prevent attacking HQs, but it would be far more difficult and the result wouldn`t be as drastic.

The changing of the supply rules turned out to be the worst design decision so far, and since then needed constant adjusting. Time to get rid of it, or relate them to interstates and railways, not towns or cities.

I agree that 'line-based' supply rather than 'point-based' would be preferable, and a particularly big deal on the Eastern Front where there are many hexes between resources. Though it would need a major overhaul to the game engine, so it's not going to happen in a patch.

I'm not exactly sure which changes to the system make this a bigger deal than it was - so far as I can tell, this method will always have worked as HQs have always been expensive, important units that increased supply levels nearby?

[Sugar]

I'm not exactly sure which changes to the system make this a bigger deal than it was - so far as I can tell, this method will always have worked as HQs have always been expensive, important units that increased supply levels nearby?

In the predecessor an HQ needed 1 supply to provide 8, allowing the player to place them in favorable positions not obvious to the enemy. It`s nearly impossible for strat. bombers to reduce supply lvls in this case, a role those Sterlings and Lancasters weren`t meant for anyway.

I don`t agree HQs should be indistructable btw, make your opponent pay dearly for the destruction, that`s how this game works.

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

I'm not exactly sure which changes to the system make this a bigger deal than it was - so far as I can tell, this method will always have worked as HQs have always been expensive, important units that increased supply levels nearby?

In the predecessor an HQ needed 1 supply to provide 8, allowing the player to place them in favorable positions not obvious to the enemy. It`s nearly impossible for strat. bombers to reduce supply lvls in this case, a role those Sterlings and Lancasters weren`t meant for anyway.

I don`t agree HQs should be indistructable btw, make your opponent pay dearly for the destruction, that`s how this game works.

oh, I get you. Yes. Generally I like the new supply rules. But it does create this problem.

And in principle yes, houseruling 'indestructible' units is a bad idea - but in this case HQ-destruction + Strat bombing can result in the immediate collapse of a whole part of the front, with dozens of units reduced to 0 supply and therefore helpless.

Whether the air attack or supply rules are more to blame, is an interesting question. But I do think until the game is patched a houserule is the answer. Maybe the Eastern Front just needs more towns?

[Sugar]

We`re talking about 2 different situations here: for the defending Russians supply in their own country isn`t an issue at all and therefore the placement and potential attacks on HQs, because the combat units can be supplied through ressources, allowing the HQ to be placed just in range to link the units (and probably even out of range of air attacks) - no adjustment or houserule required (even the destruction of their HQ wouldn`t change the supply for the front line units when placed this way).

For the attacking Axis the situation is completely different: you already have to wait until the recently conquered town or city has recovered to 5 or 6 supply, the max. it gets (- or link to an additional HQ, which noone can afford usually).

Every direct hit on the HQ or the ressource by strat. bombing will lead to reduced supply - and the enemy also knows exactly where to attack. That`s the difference the new supply rules make.

In general HQs are high priority targets, especially considering Manouvre Warfare Doctrine, which is the whole point of this game in difference to WW1.

The situation only changes once the Sovyets are counterattacking, in which case they also would benefit from the ancient supply rules.

[KorporalKeith]

I've played another game where you could only bomb a unit twice (unless it retreated into another hex then you could bomb again) Effectively, you can only co-ordinate two bombing missions against any one hex per turn.

[The Land]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

We`re talking about 2 different situations here: for the defending Russians supply in their own country isn`t an issue at all and therefore the placement and potential attacks on HQs, because the combat units can be supplied through ressources, allowing the HQ to be placed just in range to link the units (and probably even out of range of air attacks) - no adjustment or houserule required (even the destruction of their HQ wouldn`t change the supply for the front line units when placed this way).

This is not the case. The resources are widely spaced, very widely spaced East of Moscow. It's very possible for the Russians to be in a position that depends on having HQ supply to sustain a front in their own country - particularly with some effective use of rail guns and/or strat bombers.

Also of course the HQ does not have to be sitting on a resource to be vulnerable - air scouting by fighters has a fairly good chance of locating one.

[Scottydawg]

How about allowing BOTH fighter intercepts and AA...the effect of this would at least warrant extreme caution. In this way a genuine air-defense system might be envisaged, ostensibly centered around airfields and [HQ] supply focal points. I don't suppose its possible to make a target "go dim" (as when APs are exhausted) to denote a target that cannot be attacked by air...that would surely fix our ills.