Page 2 of 2
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile?
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:11 am
by The Land
ORIGINAL: MemoryLeak
If the game just allowed more MMPs so that you can be more immersive in the game and conduct
a strategic bombing campaign and a U-Boat campaign. But that is totally impossible, at least to any
effective degree, because all of your MMPs are required for ground units in the Russian meatgrinder.
So Germany doesn't have the resources for strat bombing AND U-boats AND the eastern front all together?
Yet you're claiming the game in unrealistic?
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile?
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:03 pm
by ILCK
ORIGINAL: James Taylor
Here's what there is to "understand". No wargame will ever be "perfect" for everyone! Designers are imperfect humans, first strike. "Correct Skills" is a function of the person applying those skills and since everyone has an opinion and are therefor prejudice there will never be that "one" catch all wargame. Strikes two and three......you're out!
What I have found is you can hang in there with a set of designers that possess a skill set that can adjust from the input of a community and get close, but it takes awhile and it takes definitive, precise instructions and dialogue from that community to move the game along.
SC = 15 years in the making.
Problem is trying to simulate land, air and sea combat. I have seen games (uncommon valor) be good at the latter two and others be good at land but not all three.
If I had it to do I would abstract the sub war - input MPPs to attack convoys and allies input MPPs to defend differences in allocations and tek = losses. Same effect for strategic bombing. Eliminates micromanagement at least.
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile?
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 4:29 pm
by James Taylor
Just a small problem with that. Eventually we will be getting to the Pacific as we have before and we will need those mechanics to accurately portray that theater.
So, if the naval war is lacking, as I somewhat agree with, then it is up to us to collectively put our heads together and figure a way to make it work, conceptually.
We come up with ideas and Hubert & Bill direct us into what is actually applicable to the game and what is not.
Presently, I'm OK with strategic bombing, the naval aspects needs our input.
RE: Is strategic bombing worthwhile?
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 11:05 pm
by freeboy
ORIGINAL: oxford_guy
ORIGINAL: The Land
ORIGINAL: ILCK
Per turn just getting one fighter unit beat to hell will cost more than that.
Of course, if you have fighters in the defence, then the player doing the bombing is also taking expensive casualties.
Maybe AA is a more efficient method of defending against strategic bombers than fighters are?
A combination of upgraded AA, upgraded Fighters (stationed outside of counter-attack distance by Allied aircraft) and both attached to a reasonable HQ should help. The AA also may be able to gain experience, which could help also.
and thus I say mpp tug, you may lose more than axis, but you are draining away mpp they cannot afford to lose imo.. heck what do I know.. until multi this is all conjecture