Defensive air support

[ncc1701e]

Important question I am asking myself here:
fb.asp?m=5104764

The context is linked to this battle result:
fb.asp?m=5104751

What is the opinion of the player community please?

Thanks

[Nirosi]

If I understand the question properly, I would have two procedures behind the scenes (if it is possible).

1) Following with the principle that destroying steps is not odd related and that each extra step (land or air) adds chances to kill enemy steps, I would not put limits on how many air steps can add to a battle for the purpose of determining combat loses. So, I would leave it as it is for that. That makes planes important.

2) However, for the all-important purpose of odds such as retreat chances, I would put limits, if only because both sides can each send only one air (which is in a way unfair to the attacker). So, if the attacker has 3 units, everything else been equal, for odd purposes, the defender planes are worth 3 times as much. Maybe for odds purposes, the effect of a defender air could be divided by how many enemy land units are attacking? I’ll leave someone else with more patience do calculations if they deem it promising.

[Harrybanana]

As I have posted elsewhere, I think Offensive GS should be limited to 2X the unmodified attack strength of the Attacking units and Defensive GS should be limited to 2X the unmodified Defense strength of the Defending Unit. But I could live with 1X for both. But whatever is decided for GS, shore bombardment should be likewise limited.

I would like to add how excited I am about what I think will be the biggest improvement to this game since the addition of the Shatter Rule for units that have no eligible retreat hex. I can't wait for the next version to come out. Alvaro just continues to improve what is already the best WW2 Strategy Game I have ever played. Thank you.

[Nirosi]

But whatever is decided for GS, shore bombardment should be likewise limited.

I agree.

[ncc1701e]

Alvaro has limited the number of ships in a stack in WPP. And this is coming in WPE. I think this should limit shore bombardment.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Alvaro has limited the number of ships in a stack in WPP. And this is coming in WPE. I think this should limit shore bombardment.

I understand that there will be a 5 ship limit. But even 5 ships (really 10+ ships) pack a lot more wallop in the game than 300 bombers. Plus you can get around this in most cases by having 2 fleets of 5 ships providing shore bombardment.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

As I have posted elsewhere, I think Offensive GS should be limited to 2X the unmodified attack strength of the Attacking units and Defensive GS should be limited to 2X the unmodified Defense strength of the Defending Unit. But I could live with 1X for both. But whatever is decided for GS, shore bombardment should be likewise limited.

I would like to add how excited I am about what I think will be the biggest improvement to this game since the addition of the Shatter Rule for units that have no eligible retreat hex. I can't wait for the next version to come out. Alvaro just continues to improve what is already the best WW2 Strategy Game I have ever played. Thank you.

I have reconsidered this and now believe that perhaps Offensive GS should be limited to 1X the Attacker's unmodified strength and Defensive GS should be limited to 1X the defenders modified strength. This probably won't have much affect on the Attacker's total strength anyway as in at least 95% of my Attacks the unmodified Attack Strength is greater than my best GS unit anyway.

[Nirosi]

Plus you can get around this in most cases by having 2 fleets of 5 ships providing shore bombardment.

Maybe it could be limited to only one fleet max? And maybe just CAs and BBs? If "codable"..

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Nirosi

Plus you can get around this in most cases by having 2 fleets of 5 ships providing shore bombardment.

Maybe it could be limited to only one fleet max? And maybe just CAs and BBs? If "codable"..

Actually destroyers were at least as valuable in supporting the ground troops as the BBs and CAs because they could get in a lot closer to shore. I recall reading about an encounter between a German tank and a destroyer near the American landing beaches in Sicily. They traded a couple shot against each other before the tank commander decided this wasn't such a good idea.

[AlvaroSousa]

I am implementing a 1x and 1x matching for air and naval.

[AlvaroSousa]

If I didn't do it already. Frankly, I don't remember if I did.

[Nirosi]

because they could get in a lot closer to shore. I recall reading about an encounter between a German tank and a destroyer near the American landing beaches in Sicily. They traded a couple shot against each other before the tank commander decided this wasn't such a good idea.

Interesting about destroyers and cool story![:)] I guess destroyers would be closer to, in game terms, guns and BBs to long range saturation artillery? Probably too hard to code separately?

[AlvaroSousa]

Now you are getting into micro stuff that HOI3 does.

Don't want players having to worry about fleet formations.

And the scale doesn't fit it.

[stjeand]

It would have been easier to just say fleets can only offer say a percentage of the attacking value as support and not limit fleet sizes.

Actually I feel that GS should work differently...

Escorting fighters and defensive fighters should have a major effect on the bombers ability to perform ground support.
Perhaps subtracting their air offense value if they have air superiority? Basically more fighters or something like that.

Add to that defensive GS should effect attackers efficiency a bit more...as well as attacking should effect the defenders and cause movement loss.
This would make GS useful.

But defensive support is WAY more powerful than attacking.

Attacking a 15 str unit with say 2 x 15 str units, is 2 to 1...adding a 5 str GS unit is useless pretty much for attack.
BUT for defense it is INSANELY more powerful dropping it to 1.5 to 1.
Think of it this way...

You have an attack of 45 points vs 15 defense. That is 3 to 1. Adding 5 points of GS to the attack changes little if anything.
But adding 5 points to the defense changes the attack to 2 to 1.

That is a HUGE swing.
Same can be said for naval support...


To say that 300 bombers attacking 3 or 4 corps (Attackers) can do more than 300 bombers attacking a single corp (Defender) does not seem to make senese.



I am actually thinking that GS should not add attack factors more do damage to the unit, drop efficiency and effect movement based on their attack value.
Seems more realistic...

BUT you would have to increase the damage they do to units.
Spread the efficiency and movement loss over multiple attacking units.

Just some thoughts...

[Harrybanana]

I am not sure that the examples you have given create the "Huge Swings" that you have stated. A 3:1 becomes a 2:1, not that big a deal. I believe a 3:1 will cause a Retreat Result about 35% of the time while a 2:1 is about 20% of the time. So on the one hand the Defensive GS has almost halved the chance of a Retreat, but on the other hand this will only affect 15% of all battles.

Historically GS often was more effective used defensively than offensively. This is because the ground units on the offensive were generally more exposed to air attack than the dug in defenders. They are also generally more concentrated; so yeah 300 bombers attacking 3 corps bunched together and moving would have more effect than 300 bombers attacking dug in and spread out defenders. If at the beginning of the Battle of the Bulge the skies were not overcast, thus preventing Allied air units from flying, the Germans would have made far less progress than they did. Allied bombers and fighter bombers would not just have given direct ground support to the defending forces, they would have shot the German supply columns to pieces. IMHO they would have turned the German 5:1 Attacks into 2:1 Attacks.

I agree with you that Defensive GS may change the odds more than Offensive GS. But I still believe that generally the Attacking player, if he has air superiority, will have the advantage. This is because in order for the Defender to use Defensive GS he has to have his air units set to auto. So the Attacker can choose the order of his Attacks to his benefit. In other words:
1. First Ground Strike certain hexes to draw out the enemy fighters and maul them,
2. Attack first those hexes where you have overwhelming odds even if the Defender has GS.
3. Make some soak off Attacks against weak enemy units to get the Defender to commit his best ground support units.

Even if you can't do the above for some reason, my experience is that if you have air superiority (like the Germans should have in the Battle of France) it will only take a couple turns until the Defender is beaten down. The exception might be in Russia if the Russian player is willing to pay the very steep price of upgrading and repairing his air units.

Now, of course, if you don't have air superiority it is going to make Attacking very difficult; which IMO, is exactly as it should be. I can't think of a single major campaign in WW2 where the Attacking Player was successful even though the Defender had Air Superiority. Mind you, I can't think of a single campaign where anyone tried this either (maybe the Japanese somewhere) because the commanders knew it could not be done.

I am very much hoping that this will put an end to players invading hexes well beyond the range of their own air units.

Finally, none of this is new; this is how GS was always suppose to work.

[AlvaroSousa]

The banana is correct.

[stjeand]

Well for me a full odds advantage is pretty big but not a great example.
How about 5 10 str attacking units vs 1 10 defending. That is 50 to 10 or 5 to 1.
NOW add a 5 point GS for each side...55 to 15. That is 3 to 1. BIG difference.

NOW if there are some rules for air superiority then this should be adjusted.

Fighters could turn back a GS mission for sure or heavily effect them. Killing 3 steps won't do anything overall.

This is why I was thinking...

GS Defense would..

1) Effect the attackers efficiency prior to attack, in turn changing the odds. This would be a random amount.
2) Possible kills a few str points again possibly effecting the odds.
3) Adversely effect the attackers movement. Potentially causing a unit to use more movement points in the attack.
4) Have a "stun" effect on str points which would mean those str points failed to attack, effecting the odds.

GS Attackers would.

1) Effect the defenders efficiency prior to attack, in turn changing the odds. This would be a random amount and less effect for dug in units.
2) Possible kills a few str points again possibly effecting the odds.
3) Adversely effect the defenders movement next turn.
4) Have a "stun" effect on str points which would mean those str points failed to attack, effecting the odds.
5) Increase retreat percentage like Armor does.

Perhaps the air units GS value would run through each of the above?


Just some thoughts...

I don't see adding the value of any use for an attacker and all the use for a defender...
UNLESS air superiority would be able to turn back a GS so it had little if any effect.

[Harrybanana]

There are also situations where GS will be of big benefit to the Attacker. For example, if you have a 6 strength Attacker attacking a 3 Strength Defender across a river the combat odds will be 1:1. But if the Attacker adds in a 6 Strength Air Unit the odds will become 3:1.

We will have to wait until the changes have been made and a few games have been played to see what the actual results are. But I believe we will find the following happens:

1. Players will be build, repair and upgrade air units more than they have to date. IMHO this is a good thing.

2. The player that has clear air superiority (such as my game with YueJin) will benefit from this far more than to date. IMHO this is a good thing.

3. Where neither player has clear air superiority the changes will benefit the Attacker in some situations and the Defender in other situations. But I agree with Stjeand that overall this will probably benefit the Defender more than the Attacker. I also think this is a good thing. Maybe this will slow down the Axis a bit in France in 1940 and Russia in 41 and 42 while also slowing down the Allies a bit in 43 and 44.

4. Fewer invasions being made outside the Attacker's air range, but inside the Defender's air range. Also a good thing.