Matrix Games Forums

FWIW, it may be worth giving air balance another test with the latest public beta.

The description of Russian Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from multiple clicks for airbase bombing is amusing; virtual destruction of the Luftwaffe in 1942 is not. The last time the Lufttwaffe ruled the skies over a campaign was in February 1943 during Operations Star/Gallop. I do not mind seeing the Luftwaffe get whittled down to size the old fashion way: being ground down in air combat by ever growing numbers of Soviet airplanes.
 
OTOH, the current abstraction causes the Axis player to adopt certain countermeasures, some of which may be effective. A few questions:
 
Do terrain features such as forts, cities, etc. offer the airbases any protection? I can't tell.
 
Marquo

I think the manual mentions something about "Alternate History" being part of the game's focus. [:D][:D]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

FWIW, it may be worth giving air balance another test with the latest public beta.

Initial tests appears to indicate that it's gotten worse.

As the Soviets I appear to be building enough new planes to kit out 6-8 air units per turn, with minimal losses. I refuse to enter into a battle of airfield bombing vs counter-bombing because I don't believe it's historical for the campaign, nor do I believe that the actual losses suffered in the game represent any possible actual result from real airbase bombing. I'm actually slowly overwhelming the Luftwaffe just in air to air combats, and it's simply a matter of numbers at this stage. I'm losing probably 3:2 in planes but building more than 2:1, and the Sturmoviks are really causing some havoc on the ground even when they are intercepted.

The allies in 1944 did engage in a campaign of bombing the Luftwaffe bases in France, which was actually quite effective because they already had overwhelming fighter superiority. In most cases the destruction wrought was either (a) against infrastructure, such as fuel supplies, hangars, maintenance vehicles on the ground, and parked/damaged planes, or (b) caused against Luftwaffe fighters in the air, since these raids were often launched just for the purpose of tempting Luftwaffe fighters up into the air where they could be effectively dealt with by squadron after squadron of P-51s and Spitfires. Throwing masses of unescorted bombers against airfields with heavy fighter cover is just going to get those bombers chewed up, and that's what should happen in game terms. Throwing *heavily escorted* bombers does rather better, and the evidence seems to indicate that the allies mostly used P-47s in the anti-airfield role anyway.

Level bombers hitting airfields actually do minimal damage to planes on the ground. Tactical bombers do better, but a Panzer V is a better and easier target for an Il-2 than is a parked FW-190.

I'm Ketza's Sov opponent in an ongoing server game, and am just not seeing any of this.

I only engaged in airfield bombing a couple of times, it ended badly. I realize now that I could do better if I bomb them over and over and over again, but I'm not particularly interested in taking advantage of a broken game mechanic.

On the other hand, the kind of aircraft losses I'm taking during air battles (not airfield bombing) is crazy--often 10x or even 20x.

Why would a tank be an easier target to destroy than an airplane sitting on the ground? ( The airplane has almost no armor )

ORIGINAL: randallw

Why would a tank be an easier target to destroy than an airplane sitting on the ground? ( The airplane has almost no armor )

Because the airplane is not supposed to be sitting on the ground?