Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Question:

Is there any difference in 'Air Shock' and 'PGM Modifier' for PGM equipped aircraft (assuming both are set to the same level). In other words, can I achieve a better Air to Ground result for ALL aircraft (not just PGM equipped ones) simply by increasing the 'Air Shock' to a similar value?

If the Air Shock value is increased on both forces, will that result in a wash when it comes to Air to Air combat or will it still be substantially more lethal with a higher Air Shock value?

Thanks in advance!

Now these are admittedly solid points to look into, is my thinking...I've wondered about the same thing.

rather than say it's your PREFERENCE that air be modelled more powerfully, you argue that the engine is "broke".

I say is 'broke' because the power already exists, just not in the hands of the player. In a GAME is that really the best way to handle it? This has NOTHING in the world to do with airpower in the 'real world' anymore. Its simply the way the game handles it that I dont care for...AI controlled airpower (ie, random interdiction strikes) work fine (and some say too well), but player designated strikes accomplish next to nothing.

My original complaint still stands...why are BOMBARDMENT ATTACKS (especially using airpower) so weak vis a vis computer initiated INTERDICTION ATTACKS (which appear to be quite effective and even dont seem to suffer losses like the Bombardments).

So, once more, for the record...Air power AS A WHOLE seems OK in its effects....this is largely because Interdiction IS effective. Bombardment by air is completely ineffective, even when called in on the SAME target status (ie, mobile and moving along a road or clear area). I contend that the disparity should not be anywhere NEAR this great.

But nowhere in the above does it matter what REAL WORLD air power can or cannot do...I just want one part of the engine (ie, the player controlled) to be consistant with the other part (ie, the random AI controlled).

Is that such a bad thing for a game that the PLAYER is supposed to be playing?

Good points, I think it is impossible to except everyone to agree - especially for hypothetical situations. However, the tools are there for designers to modify the scenario environment more along the lines of their views.

There'll always be opponents to any views, even things like "earth is round" were difficult to pass .
Just add my vote to the proponents of air model changes...[:'(]

Excuse me, the world is flat:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/037429 ... e&n=283155

[:D]

I'm all for making the disparity betwen interdiction and strike results smaller...however, I think that toning down interdiction (in pre pgm scenarios, at least) is the way to go, rather than upping strike results to any great degree.

I hope I haven't come across as contrarian, and I've enjoyed the debate. The free exchange of ideas about TOAW is half the fun!

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

Excuse me, the world is flat:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/037429 ... e&n=283155

[:D]

Oh yeah, and TOAW air warfare is correctly modelled [:D]...

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

I demand a new TOAW tile called 'End of the World' which would allow me to push my opponents forces off the edge and into Walhalla! For the sake of realism, do it now [&o]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

rather than say it's your PREFERENCE that air be modelled more powerfully, you argue that the engine is "broke".

I say is 'broke' because the power already exists, just not in the hands of the player. In a GAME is that really the best way to handle it? This has NOTHING in the world to do with airpower in the 'real world' anymore. Its simply the way the game handles it that I dont care for...AI controlled airpower (ie, random interdiction strikes) work fine (and some say too well), but player designated strikes accomplish next to nothing.

My original complaint still stands...why are BOMBARDMENT ATTACKS (especially using airpower) so weak vis a vis computer initiated INTERDICTION ATTACKS (which appear to be quite effective and even dont seem to suffer losses like the Bombardments).

So, once more, for the record...Air power AS A WHOLE seems OK in its effects....this is largely because Interdiction IS effective. Bombardment by air is completely ineffective, even when called in on the SAME target status (ie, mobile and moving along a road or clear area). I contend that the disparity should not be anywhere NEAR this great.

But nowhere in the above does it matter what REAL WORLD air power can or cannot do...I just want one part of the engine (ie, the player controlled) to be consistant with the other part (ie, the random AI controlled).

Is that such a bad thing for a game that the PLAYER is supposed to be playing?

Just to set the record straight here. Elmer (the AI) plays by the same rules you do. He does have a slight advantage in proficiency, but that's it. Other than that, as far as I can tell, he plays in the same 'universe' that you do.

The game mechanics may make a distinction between interdiction and combat support, I haven't checked, but what I'm hearing is that there is a difference.

There are two very good reason that interdication and bombardment are of different stengths. I'll be more than happy to debate the first, but I think that resources for this are going to be hard to find.

I see interdiction attacks as being attacks of opportunity determined by intelligence or other factors, that are against moving vehicles/equipment. Bombardments are attacks against an opponent that has had a couple of hours to prepare, and is spread out and ready to mount a defense. Yes, they are going to be different, but see the flat earth discussions about 'obvious' things. If anyone has any references that prove that attacks against static postions are going to be as effective or more effective than attacks against movung units, or if you have other ideas on what these are an abstraction for, I'd be glad to hear what they are.[&:]

The other reason is a bit more pragmatic. If they were the same strength, why the heck would anyone EVER use interdiction? I'm sorry, either attack a random unit, probably a decoy, or help an existing attack... If you can sicerely pick A, I'd really like to play you PBEM.

I'm not saying that there may not be problems with the Air modeling, or that it may not be changed in the future. I can easily believe that some of the abstractions that apply for WWII don't apply in modern warfare, although the data posted from the Gulf war seem to indicate that they aren't as changed as one would think. See again, the Flat Earth references[:-]

Ralph Trickey
TOAW III Programmer

ORIGINAL: Industrial

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

I demand a new TOAW tile called 'End of the World' which would allow me to push my opponents forces off the edge and into Walhalla! For the sake of realism, do it now [&o]

How about a Mount of Doom tile first, once the LOTR scenario gets worked on again!

Anyway, I can see the combat report now...
Ist Calvary retreats...
Off the edge of the world!
And is destroyed!!!
Ring LOST!!!
-100 VP!!!

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

The other reason is a bit more pragmatic. If they were the same strength, why the heck would anyone EVER use interdiction? I'm sorry, either attack a random unit, probably a decoy, or help an existing attack... If you can sicerely pick A, I'd really like to play you PBEM.

I use Air power for CS during the first 80% of my turn and than can set them to Interdiction if I want to, has exactly the same effect as having them on 'I' during my entire turn. (Keeping fingers crossed for no turn burns or my AF will be ineffective during my opponents turn)

Maybe you can do something about that? Like, setting them on 'I' automatically sets their movement points to zero?

Oh, and could you please change the annoying behavior that air units go from 'reorganizing' back to their original mission (and thereby often straight back into ReOrg) without me beeing able to set them to 'rest'?

Just to set the record straight here. Elmer (the AI) plays by the same rules you do. He does have a slight advantage in proficiency, but that's it. Other than that, as far as I can tell, he plays in the same 'universe' that you do.

By 'AI Control', I mean Interdiction strikes, which the player has no control over, not the PO. Players cant 'order' Interdiction strikes and that is, by far, the most effective use of air power ATM.

I see interdiction attacks as being attacks of opportunity determined by intelligence or other factors, that are against moving vehicles/equipment. Bombardments are attacks against an opponent that has had a couple of hours to prepare, and is spread out and ready to mount a defense.

In theory, I agree. But this is a turn-based game. So enemy units arent moving and then stopping every time its my turn...there should be some abstraction of continuous movement. Which is I why I mentioned perhaps attacking Mobile/Tac Rsv/Local Rsv closer to the resolution of an Interdiction strike.

The other reason is a bit more pragmatic. If they were the same strength, why the heck would anyone EVER use interdiction? I'm sorry, either attack a random unit, probably a decoy, or help an existing attack

Again, granted but there are a few points:

1) There are (many IMO) times when you want to interrupt the enemy's movement. That is, by far, the most power effect of Interdiction in the short term IMO. And that isnt possible if you wait till your turn to order the strikes. So even if the results were much closer, yes, I still would use Interdiction as a method of screwing up opposing movement (and hence potentially spoiling attacks or flanking etc). Its about the timing in this case and that to me, is a valid trade-off.

2) The results dont have to be night and day like they are now. Something closer, but with the edge towards interdiction would be far superior to my mind. I agree that they shouldnt be 100% equal, but the current model is not even close!

Oh, and could you please change the annoying behavior that air units go from 'reorganizing' back to their original mission (and thereby often straight back into ReOrg) without me beeing able to set them to 'rest'?

Another thing along these lines is aircraft flying Air Superiority missions often get 'knocked off' of their mission. They are still fine and I can put them back on mission at will, but its just a micromanagement hassle. Unless the unit is thrown into 'reorganizing' or somesuch, it shouldnt 'forget' its mission requiring the player to babysit them multiple times in a turn.

Thanks for the input!

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Oh, and could you please change the annoying behavior that air units go from 'reorganizing' back to their original mission (and thereby often straight back into ReOrg) without me beeing able to set them to 'rest'?

Another thing along these lines is aircraft flying Air Superiority missions often get 'knocked off' of their mission. They are still fine and I can put them back on mission at will, but its just a micromanagement hassle. Unless the unit is thrown into 'reorganizing' or somesuch, it shouldnt 'forget' its mission requiring the player to babysit them multiple times in a turn.

Thanks for the input!

Those 2 Items I can look into.

Hi Ralph,

Thanks for taking a look at those items.

Any ideas on these?:

Is there any difference in 'Air Shock' and 'PGM Modifier' for PGM equipped aircraft (assuming both are set to the same level). In other words, can I achieve a better Air to Ground result for ALL aircraft (not just PGM equipped ones) simply by increasing the 'Air Shock' to a similar value?

If the Air Shock value is increased on both forces, will that result in a wash when it comes to Air to Air combat or will it still be substantially more lethal with a higher Air Shock value?

Thanks!

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

About five turns. Were the Germans still disorganised from the long bombardment when the British went over the top ninety years ago this weekend?

I could be wrong, but I dont believe there were B52s ninety years ago this weekend.

No- but there were thousands of barrels of artillery. The effect is the same as carpet bombing.

ORIGINAL: Chuck2
I've had read many comments from players and designers that TOAW 3 interdiction is too good now at forcing ground units into reorganization or even routed status.

It depends on the scenario. Certain maps 'dilute' the impact of interdiction over a larger area. See for example Bob Cross' France 1944 scenarios versus various Normandy scenarios. Interdiction is much less effective in the former, largely due to the large size of the map.

If air units could be targetted to a specific area, this would make interdiction much more effective in the large scenarios. Then it would probably be a good idea to tone it down. As it is, doing so would make the setting totally useless in a lot of situations.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Chuck2
I've had read many comments from players and designers that TOAW 3 interdiction is too good now at forcing ground units into reorganization or even routed status.

It depends on the scenario. Certain maps 'dilute' the impact of interdiction over a larger area. See for example Bob Cross' France 1944 scenarios versus various Normandy scenarios. Interdiction is much less effective in the former, largely due to the large size of the map.

The new issue in TOAW 3 has nothing to do this with this older, well-covered issue in COW. Well, it is sort of related in that higher levels of interdiction will cause it to occur more but that's about it. The issue is units only taking one or two hits of interdiction before being retreated or routed.

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

The new issue in TOAW 3 has nothing to do this with this older, well-covered issue in COW. Well, it is sort of related in that higher levels of interdiction will cause it to occur more but that's about it. The issue is units only taking one or two hits of interdiction before being retreated or routed.

Units get retreated from interdiction in COW already. Not routed, though.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

The new issue in TOAW 3 has nothing to do this with this older, well-covered issue in COW. Well, it is sort of related in that higher levels of interdiction will cause it to occur more but that's about it. The issue is units only taking one or two hits of interdiction before being retreated or routed.

Units get retreated from interdiction in COW already.

Not at nearly the same rate. It's a behavior that's been noted.

Not routed, though.

Don't know, but it would be very difficult under COW.