Page 2 of 2
RE: Suggestions
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:08 pm
by Harrybanana
Oops, double post.
RE: Suggestions
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:10 pm
by Harrybanana
ORIGINAL: ComadrejaKorp
Your treatment of ´´shatters´´ is interesting, it is a possible solution to the problem that they break so easily, but personally I do not like that tanks come back to life, nor do I like that there is only one way to end them.
I liked it a lot as in previous versions it was very difficult to destroy them, it faithfully reflected the terror when seeing them, but this disappeared with the latest changes in the ratio of casualties / effectiveness, now they break easily, they are no longer scary.
I don't believe a Shatter is supposed to represent all of the tanks, guns and personnel of a particular units being destroyed or killed. I believe it is supposed to represent a unit losing total combat effectiveness as a result of losses, exhaustion, disorganization and morale loss. So placing that unit back on the build queue, albeit at reduced strength, makes logical sense to me.
And there would still be 2 ways to destroy a unit. One is to cause it to surrender and the other is to destroy all of its strength.
RE: Suggestions
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:41 pm
by ComadrejaKorp
ORIGINAL: Harrybanana
ORIGINAL: ComadrejaKorp
Your treatment of ´´shatters´´ is interesting, it is a possible solution to the problem that they break so easily, but personally I do not like that tanks come back to life, nor do I like that there is only one way to end them.
I liked it a lot as in previous versions it was very difficult to destroy them, it faithfully reflected the terror when seeing them, but this disappeared with the latest changes in the ratio of casualties / effectiveness, now they break easily, they are no longer scary.
I don't believe a Shatter is supposed to represent all of the tanks, guns and personnel of a particular units being destroyed or killed. I believe it is supposed to represent a unit losing total combat effectiveness as a result of losses, exhaustion, disorganization and morale loss. So placing that unit back on the build queue, albeit at reduced strength, makes logical sense to me.
And there would still be 2 ways to destroy a unit. One is to cause it to surrender and the other is to destroy all of its strength.
Seen like this, it also seems logical to me, I would only add a roll of the dice where there is a possibility that it will be definitely destroyed to add spice and randomness.
RE: Suggestions
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:42 pm
by Harrybanana
Perhaps another way to simulate the importance of air power to Blitzkrieg warfare is to decrease the effectiveness of "tanks" in causing a unit to retreat, but adding an increased chance for a retreat based on the "tactical" strength of the ground supporting air unit. In other words, applying 50% of an air units "tactical" strength as if it were a "tank" factor. I note this will also help the Germans in France as it will reduce the chance of the Allied "tanks" from causing a German unit to retreat; while increasing the chances of a German ground attack supported attack on Allied units from causing a retreat.
RE: Suggestions
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:00 pm
by ComadrejaKorp
I like what you say, in a way I think it already works like that, but they are difficult values to calibrate.
I will look for a thread where you will see how effective air support is. You can attack without it but you pay a higher price (more casualties, more attacks, more loss of effectiveness)
RE: Suggestions
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:15 pm
by ComadrejaKorp
It is not what I was looking for, but it also explains the importance of air support and reasons for not giving more power to aviation.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4796004
RE: Suggestions
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 6:34 pm
by Harrybanana
I already ran a bunch of tests myself. Yes if you air strike an enemy unit with a ground attack prior to attacking it with ground units you will reduce the effectiveness of the enemy unit. This will result in less casualties to your ground units that subsequently attack the enemy unit. You will also inflict more casualties on the enemy unit. But you could achieve the same result by adding an extra infantry into the attack and achieve a better result by using a mechanized unit in the attack rather than infantry. I admit that air units are useful when you only have a limited number of hexes to attack an enemy from. But generally it is better to soften up a strong enemy hex with a few infantry attacks at low odds (2:1 or less) and then attack with your mobile forces. The infantry will do a much better job at softening up the enemy than air units and they potentially get more attacks. Yes, your infantry will take casualties that will cost you production and manpower to replace. But they will also cause far more casualties to the enemy.
Again, I am not saying that air units are useless. But I am saying that they are underpowered compared to historical for ground attacks. The exception is CV air which, if anything, are over powered compared to historical.
RE: Suggestions
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 7:10 pm
by Harrybanana
With respect Comrade, this post explains how air units assist in combat; but it doesn't provide any reasons for not giving more power to aviation. I understand that prior to my playing the game air units were overpowered and by using air units alone a player could outright destroy an enemy unit. That was wrong and I very much like the rule that only the first air attack has any chance to destroy a strength point. But historically, air units were generally very effective at disorganizing enemy units, interdicting their movements and lowering their morale. I don't see this adequately simulated in the game. But I have harped on this before and apparently not very many others feel as I do. So we will continue playing the game with the Western Allies and Russians building massive land armies, lots of mobile forces and very few if any air units.
RE: Suggestions
Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:58 pm
by baloo7777
The main use of airpower on a tactical scale in WW2 was to keep armor from moving, to not allow nearby units to reinforce the narrow (unless you're the Soviets) attack front. Interdiction was the first most important tactic, with reducing strongpoints a close second. The third thing was to reduce effectiveness AND morale. How this should be modeled on in a corps-level game is a much more difficult proposition. Sometimes airpower seems too effective, sometimes not effective enough in the game. The US bombed some of those Jap held islands massively to little effect. Except for massive allied carpet-bombing in the breakout of the beaches/hedgerows in Aug '44, massive level bombing did little to damage the enemy's will or defensive ability in WW2. However, tactical fighter-bombers were so deadly against armor that by mid-'43, Axis armored units mostly moved at night. Same with tactical use of medium bombers against subs. Land-based air was deadly against shipping (why the Germans tried to hide in Fjords). Strategic bombing works poorly in this game, doing little real PP damage for a major cost. In reality, bombing city's and factories, and railyards was a highly effective tactic on an enemy's National Morale and ability to produce enough, although the cost in men and material to do so was massive and it takes a long time to finally begin to affect production.
RE: Suggestions
Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:12 pm
by AlvaroSousa
Bombing air units down reduce no cement in WP
Start bombing is generally a negative return game if the opponent defends with appropriate counter force.
RE: Suggestions
Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:32 pm
by Harrybanana
ORIGINAL: baloo7777
The main use of airpower on a tactical scale in WW2 was to keep armor from moving, to not allow nearby units to reinforce the narrow (unless you're the Soviets) attack front. Interdiction was the first most important tactic, with reducing strongpoints a close second. The third thing was to reduce effectiveness AND morale. How this should be modeled on in a corps-level game is a much more difficult proposition. Sometimes airpower seems too effective, sometimes not effective enough in the game. The US bombed some of those Jap held islands massively to little effect. Except for massive allied carpet-bombing in the breakout of the beaches/hedgerows in Aug '44, massive level bombing did little to damage the enemy's will or defensive ability in WW2. However, tactical fighter-bombers were so deadly against armor that by mid-'43, Axis armored units mostly moved at night. Same with tactical use of medium bombers against subs. Land-based air was deadly against shipping (why the Germans tried to hide in Fjords). Strategic bombing works poorly in this game, doing little real PP damage for a major cost. In reality, bombing city's and factories, and railyards was a highly effective tactic on an enemy's National Morale and ability to produce enough, although the cost in men and material to do so was massive and it takes a long time to finally begin to affect production.
I generally agree with what you are saying here Baloo, but not entirely. The fact is that without the proper use of airpower the Germans would not have achieved the success they did in Poland, France and Russia. The Allies could not have won in Italy or France without airpower. Control of the skies was pretty key in all theaters at all times (except when weather grounded aircraft). I just don't find this importance duplicated in the game. It will be interesting to see in WarPlan Pacific how important air power is.