Air power

[ncc1701e]

I am still puzzled by the disbanding of all planes to get the PP.

Any idea on how to improve air power in the game?

Such a move should have consequences.

[AlvaroSousa]

it's due to armor being so strong

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

it's due to armor being so strong

With respect Alvaro, it is not because Armour is too strong but because air units are too weak. Even if you nerf Armour players will still disband air units and instead build infantry units. At least that is what I plan to do, especially with Russia. But even for players who don't disband their air forces I think you will find that players will not build any new ones. So my prediction is that nerfing Armour will simply result in players building more infantry not air.

[MagicMissile]

Yes I think HB is right. As is a land unit feels more valuable than an air unit. I think air units are not worth the cost at the moment.

/MM

[ncc1701e]

I agree. Air units are costing too much for nothing.

[AlvaroSousa]

Air power is accurately reflected in the game as to its importance.

It reduces effectiveness
It interdicts movement
It provides ground support.

But it could be made more cost effective possibly or deal more effectiveness reduction.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

It interdicts movement

Air Strike Military Units – Players may use an air unit to attack another unit. Air units damage the effectiveness of other units. Some hits damage the strength of a unit. An air unit can’t destroy another unit except a naval unit or a unit that is being transported by sea. An air or land unit destroyed at sea also destroys the transport points it is using. Land units subject to an air strike have diminishing returns on their effectiveness from further ground strikes. Each air strike on a land unit also has a fair chance to interdict its movement. If a unit becomes interdicted, it will lose 33% of its operation points on the opponent’s turn. An interdicted unit’s Operation points show as a red down arrow on the unit information panel of the opponent. It will not show up on the attackers turn. Any land unit on a beach hex will take three times as much strength damage from air attacks as land units on a partial or full land tile.

Not sure I have seen this before, thanks for the tip.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

But it could be made more cost effective possibly or deal more effectiveness reduction.

I think so yes.

[ncc1701e]

Air Strike Military Units – Players may use an air unit to attack another unit. Air units damage the effectiveness of other units. Some hits damage the strength of a unit. An air unit can’t destroy another unit except a naval unit or a unit that is being transported by sea. An air or land unit destroyed at sea also destroys the transport points it is using. Land units subject to an air strike have diminishing returns on their effectiveness from further ground strikes. Each air strike on a land unit also has a fair chance to interdict its movement. If a unit becomes interdicted, it will lose 33% of its operation points on the opponent’s turn. An interdicted unit’s Operation points show as a red down arrow on the unit information panel of the opponent. It will not show up on the attackers turn. Any land unit on a beach hex will take three times as much strength damage from air attacks as land units on a partial or full land tile.

What is the fair chance % exactly?

[ncc1701e]

Because, ground strike was made on the 10th Guards Army a first time.

[ncc1701e]

A second time.

[ncc1701e]

A third time.

[ncc1701e]

And one last time.

[ncc1701e]

But I see no red down arrow on the unit information panel of my unit.
Perhaps the % is too low.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Air power is accurately reflected in the game as to its importance.

It reduces effectiveness
It interdicts movement
It provides ground support.

But it could be made more cost effective possibly or deal more effectiveness reduction.

With respect Alvaro:

1. In my experience, air units reduce enemy effectiveness by less than attacking that same enemy unit with a small infantry corps which are less than half the cost of an air unit and can make 5 attacks and hold ground. And this is for the first attack, successive attacks reduce enemy effectiveness even less.

2. As pointed out by ncc1701e, my experience is that a single air strike never reduces enemy OPs and even multiple attacks seldom have this effect. And even when enemy OPs are reduced it is just a single unit and the loss of OPs is seldom critical.

3. I am not convinced that ground support is working correctly. For example, if I plan to attack an enemy unit with a defense strength of 3 with my 9 strength infantry, the initial odds may show that I will have 3-1 odds. I don't like this so I add in a 6 Tactical strength bomber which should increase the odds to 5-1 (9+6/3). But when I make my attack the post combat odds still display as 3-1. I know you say that air units providing ground support don't show up in the post combat results; but if adding the air unit actually did increase my odds to 5-1 than why is that I don't seem to get more retreat results using ground support than I get without using it. I find this is even more noticeable on defence. I have had situations where a 9 strength enemy unit has attacked my 3 strength defending unit and I have had a 3 strength bomber fly ground support for my unit. The odds should only be 9 to 6 (3-2) but the combat report shows odds of 3-1 and my unit is retreated more frequently than it should be if the odds were only 3-2. Even if ground support is working properly, it is seldom that vital because the tactical strength of most air units is pretty weak. Most attacks are made with the attacker having something like 30 total strength to say the defenders 8. In my experience adding in a 3 strength bomber to the attacker is not going to make any difference. Perhaps I will run some tests.

Also why does shore bombardment show as having increased combat odds, but ground support does not? And why is shore bombardment so much more effective than air strikes and ground support? I am not saying that shore bombardment should not be more effective than air support, indeed I think it should be. But the difference between shore bombardment and ground support is like the difference between superman and my uncle Fred.

So yes, I agree that air units need to be made way more effective. But I do like the fact that only the first air strike can cause casualties.

[AlvaroSousa]

#1 I will investigate.

#2 The OP loss is only noticed on their turn.... BUT I could make it noticeable on YOUR turn which would improve air power for the game.

#3 GS doesn't show in the odds but shore bombardment does. I'll see about fixing that. Air power does add to the combat and for each odds it shifts it does add +15% retreat chance if I remember.

#4 you don't have to say with respect. I am not a Klingon or a brutal leader that will execute players if they don't bow to me lol.

[Nirosi]

I’ll take the opportunity here to ask Alvaro if he can confirm (or not?) my understanding of how combat work (as I take it from page 73 of manual). It might also remove some possible misunderstanding on ground support.

From my understanding, the odds do not determine combat (in the sense there is no such thing as the 3vs1 table), but just give us a general idea of our chances and also determine some side effects such as retreat and chance to be overrun (but not the loses). Loses are actually “micro” fought by our steps in the order of Artillery to, eventually, Firearms with loses implemented after each round. So, if you have as an attacker 30 strength vs 10, the 1 point from 20 to 21 is no more different from the 1 point from 29 to 30. It might have some good side effect because of the extra odd it gives (maybe better retreat), but will have the exact same chance to inflict damage as any other point.

So, if my understanding is true, any extra point from air (or frankly any other unit) is worth it and might make a difference in combat whether they change the odds or not (they will still inflict the same damage). If so, air strength (tactical), on equal footing with artillery, are actually the best strength points (if we just look at a single battle) in the game since they fire first and can inflict damage before the second and follow-up rounds (defender guns etc.).

Is that reading of the rules, more or less, correct?

QAPLA'

[Nirosi]

BUT I could make it noticeable on YOUR turn which would improve air power for the game

That would be nice.

[Harrybanana]

I have run 4 Tests on the effectiveness of Ground Support. I ran the Tests by starting the 1942 scenario and moving around some ground units so that I ended up with 9 Attack Strength German Infantry and an 8 Attack Strength Rumanian Infantry adjacent to a 3 Defense strength Russian infantry that was in clear terrain, not entrenched and not behind a river. I ran each test 20 times, which I figured would give me relatively accurate statistical numbers.

For the First Test the German Infantry attacked the Russian Infantry by itself without any Ground Support. The Results were that the Russian Unit was retreated 25% of the time (5 times out of the 20 Tests), the German units sustained an average of 1.1 casualties and the Russian unit sustained an average of 1.9 Casualties.

[Harrybanana]

For the Second Test I added in the 8 Strength Tactical Bomber shown in the screenshot above to add ground support. I chose this 8 strength bomber because this is as good as it is ever going to get for any Attacker. I don't think I have ever seen a 9 Strength bomber even when at 45 Tech. This one is at 8 strength only because it has 70% experience, which in my gaming experience even the Germans don't have by 1942. Pretty much everybody (except the poor Russians) are flying around with 50% experience pilots. So I figured if this air unit couldn't make a difference than nobody could.

By adding in this TAC Bomber the odds should have been increased to 5:1, but they continued to display at 3:1 on the Combat Logs. The test results validated that the TAC Bomber did not increase the Combat Odds as the Russian Unit was only retreated 25% of the time. This was the exact same as when the bomber was not used. The losses to the Attacking German Unit were about he same. The Russian Unit did take slightly more casualties as they averaged 2.2 Step Losses.

Below is a screenshot of one of the 25% successful Attacks.