A warning

[macgregor]

I realize that Lava (and to some extent Rhinobones) are correct that scenario design can compensate for game engine quirks. But that's bush league. Bioed was a great tool which really needs to make the transition as that would be the way to more 'encorporate' game engine behavior.That's still not as good as tweaking the engine. Larry you're billiant. I loved your idea for the clone.But you're wrong. This 'strategic vs. operational' is a bunch of semantical bs. Their are elements of strategic warfare in almost every operation. How would you effectively represent the Kosovo campaign? I guess just keep it 'what if' there were a ground war? And what of the operations in the Pacific during ww2? You're talking about making TOAW more like many other games of this genre(check the discount rack.) Don't mind if I do. This is a superflous argument however. We're talking about getting the air engine to work effectively.If I didn't feel so strong about the potential of this game I wouldn't be posting.I have invested hundreds of dollars in this game's developement.The game could, and probably should, be a lot better. Unlike the newcomers, I don't compare this game to nothing.I compare it to aCoW. If Matrix and the development team want to look at me as complaining then it's only because they're completely satisfied with the product.Well I'm sorry but I won't lie, I'm not.

[Veers]

I would love to see Jamiam's opinion on this.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

It's largely the fault of the air superiority engine.In EA for exmple, the allies have 2 to 1 air superiority in Aug 39 OVER POLAND.

Only if they have a/c with range to reach Poland - it seems unlikely that the RAF and Fr A/f have such a/c at the time, so what's the actual problem?

As explained above "theatre air superiority" is only a number that has no influence on the game at all - actual air superiority is what you get by massing fighters close together, and it is real.

If your 111's are being intercepted over Poland then you need to shift more 109's there to escort and shoot up the PZL-11's. If your invasion of Norway gets hammered by Blenheims and Wellingtons then you ned your 109's based in Northern Denmark to cover them.

You've written a lot - but not really said anything.

[TOCarroll]

I always love a good fight! Personally, and I'm neither the world's best player or designer (although I have had the game since 1999 as TAOW1), the game engine does not excell at large MULTI THEATER scenarios. PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO AIR FORCES. This point has been made about almost every WW2 full scale scenario created, including the one's for CoW. Sorry dude, but in my view, the Eueropean Theater Of Operations, or the Whole World, for that matter is STRATEGIC! Not OPERATIONAL.[:'(] That being said, I have got thousands of hours of play out of this puppy. If a scenario has bugs, I tweek it or go elsewhere. I don't think it is realistic to expect Matrix to take an old game, and invest the same amount of time and money in it as a new title, completely recreating the engine, scenarios, ect. What they have done is make basic changes to a system (designed in the 90's) to make it more fun. If you are as old as me, the parallel would be Avalon Hill buying Panzergruppe Guderian or Panzer Army Afrika, debugging the rules, and offering a fun playable game.
 
That said there are playable monster games out there, and Matrix may have one coming with their WW2 simulation (World Ablaze?) [&:]. But the playable, full scale WW2 simulations I have seen tend to be pricey ($100) and are available only on the web, because it is a niche market. Most of us are happy with the "dumbed down" game TAOW3.

[SMK-at-work]

Ultimately for a/c whether they are "strategic" or tactical is of little importance - they deliver ordnance onto a target, the target has to be in range, and that's about it.

As far as I can see TOAW does that fine.

[Veers]

Ultimately for a/c whether they are "strategic" or tactical is of little importance - they deliver ordnance onto a target, the target has to be in range, and that's about it.

As far as I can see TOAW does that fine.

 
Agreed.

[TOCarroll]

I have to respectfully disagree with Veers & SMK. 1) In a War in Europe or WW2 scenario, the game engine decides air superiority/interdection effiency for the entire scenario. In actual fact, there was the Russian Front, Afrika/Italy, and France, not to mention the Pacific. Air superiority in France certainly had no effect on air superiority in Russia. 2) My main poin was stated poorly. This game was originally disigned for operational level simulations. Hard working designers have managed to fit entire campaigns in, but it is best at simulating battles (Crusader, Stalingrad, Cobra, Bulge, ect). I have even seen some WW2 scenarios that are pretty amazing. But you can only push the engine so far. The level of detail and interaction on the operational level is so deep that I think it is foolish to carp about the limitations of simulating a global conflict. The game can do it to a point, but it was not originaly built for that. It would be nice if Matrix stuck millions of man-hours to completly redesign the game for grand strategic scope (I'D LOVE IT)., but they are in business to make money (and I feel they give good value). To get what the original poster wants, Matrix would be better off starting from scratch.

Tom OC

[Veers]

1) In a War in Europe or WW2 scenario, the game engine decides air superiority/interdection effiency for the entire scenario. In actual fact, there was the Russian Front, Afrika/Italy, and France, not to mention the Pacific. Air superiority in France certainly had no effect on air superiority in Russia.

 
The Air Superiority, as stated in the air briefing is nothing but a rough guide for the player. If I am playing EA and I want to know, globally, who has more aircraft on air superiority, I look at the briefing, because that's all it tells. However, local air superiority is determined locally. ie: my paras get interdicted by air craft that are in range, evidence of this being: take a para from England, fly it to Norway, if you still have control, there is very little chance of it being interdicted. Now, do the same, btu fly it over Germany. Damn near definate chance that it will not make it to its target early in the war, because of the mass of German aircraft.
Another thing is looking at the detailed combat reports: How often, when fighting in the east and the English fighters are in NA and England, do you see English fighters covering a Soviet attack? Never. Why, because they don't have the range and therefore do not fly air sup missions over there.
Furthermore, the interdiction level in the air briefing is also just an indicator. Interdiction levels are also determined locally.
 
Specifically to Macgror's comments: A) 2 to 1 air sup over Poland in '39. It would appear that the Allied player is using his air craft very effectively, placing them all in Poland, or you have placed your air craft very poorly, with none close to Poland.
B) The situation in Norway sounds like the Allied player is using his forces very efficiently, placing masses of fighters in Norway. However, if this is the case on the first turn you have attacked Norway, you may wish to mention to your opponent that they should not be placing air craft in Norway until after you have taken the DoW theatre option, as placing air craft there before hand, or turning the Norwegian fighters to air sup, would be against the house rules.
 
Further, I would like to here Jamiam sum up just what they changed on the air model, as, if I remember correctly, they changed the effectiveness of things like AA, and did nothing to the ranges of air craft.
 
Macgregor, I would love to see some saved game files form yourself and your opponent, so that I could offer more imput as to exactly what has caused your current air superiority problems. If you cannot zip and attach them here, my email is veersw (at) gmail dot com.
 
Lastly, I say this all in a very non-combative way, as I would foremost just liek to clear it up.
Thank you.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Lava

However, to address your problem, the modeling actually, I believe, works a little better in TOAW 3, as one is forced to move fighter units very close in theatre if he wants to conduct an air drop. One just cannot have fighters stationed all over the map anymore and expect to move by air without problem. You have to concentrate to do that now.. and that is IMO a much better simulation.

? Air superiority has always been local.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

In a War in Europe or WW2 scenario, the game engine decides air superiority/interdection effiency for the entire scenario.

Sure, but apart from the impact of interdiction on supply (which is theatre wide) the effects of air superiority and interdiction are carried out by individual units within their range. There is not a global air superiority or interdiction pool which acts all over the map.

[Veers]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: TOCarroll

In a War in Europe or WW2 scenario, the game engine decides air superiority/interdection effiency for the entire scenario.

Sure, but apart from the impact of interdiction on supply (which is theatre wide) the effects of air superiority and interdiction are carried out by individual units within their range. There is not a global air superiority or interdiction pool which acts all over the map.

Ahhh...finally someone who is known and trusted has put the word down.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Veers

Ahhh...finally someone who is known and trusted has put the word down.

Very kind of you. I'm still curious to see what JAMiAM has to say- but really I don't think the way air units work has actually been changed for TOAW III. Macgregor is barking up the wrong tree.

[alaric99x]

Sounds like macgregor's problem is in his operator head-space.

[Veers]

Sounds like macgregor's problem is in his operator head-space.

Now, now, be nice. All that will do is encourage an emotional reaction, which is very unuseful on this forum.

[alaric99x]

OK, I'm now in "nice mode" again.

[Veers]

Excellent!! [:D]

[macgregor]

Alright then. I'm wrong for expecting more. Those that tell me I should find another game are right. Almost sounds like my original statement should've been directed...at myself. Regardless, I can see I've pushed this as far as it's going to go.Jamiam isn't going to say anything Rhinobones hasn't already said.Thank you all for your help.

[Veers]

Not once did I say to find another game. The trouble is, it appears that your problem with TOAW III is an incorrect assumption about how air superiority is handled. I'd much rather be able to work through the problem with you than see you leave in a huff...Has what we've (Golden Delicious and myself) said not answered your comment?

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

Alright then. I'm wrong for expecting more.

No - you are wrong in how you think the game works.

[Chuck2]

I did a quick test and the initial Europe Aflame air superiority values broken down on the fifth turn:

Germans: 36
Soviets: 25
British: 21
French: 12
Poles: 2
Allied Total: 60

You might want a house rule that prohibits the Allied player from using the Soviet aircraft until Barbarossa begins. Otherwise the Luftwaffe air superiority is about equal to the British, French, and Poles combined.