Air power

[Harrybanana]

For the Third Test I wanted to see if Defensive Ground Support was useful. This time I had a Russian TAC Bomber with a 4 Tac Strength flying Ground Support for the Russian Defender. I turned off air support for the Attacker. So the odds should have been 9 to 7, or 1:1. Of course, again the odds displayed in the Combat Log as 3:1. I don't think the Russian TAC bomber helped the odds because once again the Russian Defender was retreated 25% of the time. On the plus side the German Attackers did sustain an average of 3.1 Casualties, almost 3 times what they sustained when the defenders did not have ground support.

So for all 3 Tests, whether the Germans or Russians or neither had Ground Support, the defender was retreated 25% of the time. So I am pretty confident when I say that Ground Support (unlike shore bombardment) does not increase the combat odds or the chances of a Retreat Result.

[Harrybanana]

For the 4th Test I decided to once again turn off Ground Support for all sides to see what effect the 8 Attack Strength Rumanian Corps would have on the combat. Since its Attack Strength was the same as the TAC Bomber one would think that it would not have any greater effect. But it certainly did. The Russian unit was retreated 100% of the time and sustained on average 50% more casualties (3.3) than were caused by the German Infantry and TAC Bomber. So even when the Attack Strength of a Bomber and an infantry corps are the same (which is very seldom the case) you are still much better off with the infantry corps. As the Germans you definitely don't want to build a 50% experience 42 TAC Bomber with a Strength of 6 and a cost of 325 PPs, when you can build a 70% experience 42 Assault Infantry Corps with a Strength of 14 and a cost of 234 PPs. The same goes for the Russians. Only the Allies might want to build a few, but not too many.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Nirosi


I’ll take the opportunity here to ask Alvaro if he can confirm (or not?) my understanding of how combat work (as I take it from page 73 of manual). It might also remove some possible misunderstanding on ground support.

From my understanding, the odds do not determine combat (in the sense there is no such thing as the 3vs1 table), but just give us a general idea of our chances and also determine some side effects such as retreat and chance to be overrun (but not the loses). Loses are actually “micro” fought by our steps in the order of Artillery to, eventually, Firearms with loses implemented after each round. So, if you have as an attacker 30 strength vs 10, the 1 point from 20 to 21 is no more different from the 1 point from 29 to 30. It might have some good side effect because of the extra odd it gives (maybe better retreat), but will have the exact same chance to inflict damage as any other point.

So, if my understanding is true, any extra point from air (or frankly any other unit) is worth it and might make a difference in combat whether they change the odds or not (they will still inflict the same damage). If so, air strength (tactical), on equal footing with artillery, are actually the best strength points (if we just look at a single battle) in the game since they fire first and can inflict damage before the second and follow-up rounds (defender guns etc.).

Is that reading of the rules, more or less, correct?

QAPLA'

I will wait for Alvaro's answer, but I believe you are correct that it is the artillery, firearms, guns, tanks, etc that cause the casualties not the odds. But the odds are very important in determining the chances of a unit retreating and often this is far more important than the casualties inflicted.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa


#4 you don't have to say with respect. I am not a Klingon or a brutal leader that will execute players if they don't bow to me lol.

Sorry Alvaro, but I am a lawyer by profession. So whenever I disagree with someone in authority (ie a judge) I generally preface my remarks with something like "With the greatest respect your Lordship, are you fucking kidding me."

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Nirosi

BUT I could make it noticeable on YOUR turn which would improve air power for the game

That would be nice.

Yes, it will show that your air power is doing something at least.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa


#4 you don't have to say with respect. I am not a Klingon or a brutal leader that will execute players if they don't bow to me lol.

Sorry Alvaro, but I am a lawyer by profession. So whenever I disagree with someone in authority (ie a judge) I generally preface my remarks with something like "With the greatest respect your Lordship, are you fucking kidding me."

Thanks a lot Harrybanana for all your tests. And oh, how to handle Klingons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMKtKNZw4Bo

[Nirosi]

chances of a unit retreating and often this is far more important than the casualties inflicted.

So very true!

[Nirosi]

Thanks for the tests HarryBanana. I must say I am sad to see so little impact, in attacks anyway, for ground support! Seems to make difference good enough in defense, but it should do it both in attack and defenses to be worth it and close/solve this debate on air units[:(]

[AlvaroSousa]

ORIGINAL: Nirosi


I’ll take the opportunity here to ask Alvaro if he can confirm (or not?) my understanding of how combat work (as I take it from page 73 of manual). It might also remove some possible misunderstanding on ground support.

From my understanding, the odds do not determine combat (in the sense there is no such thing as the 3vs1 table), but just give us a general idea of our chances and also determine some side effects such as retreat and chance to be overrun (but not the loses). Loses are actually “micro” fought by our steps in the order of Artillery to, eventually, Firearms with loses implemented after each round. So, if you have as an attacker 30 strength vs 10, the 1 point from 20 to 21 is no more different from the 1 point from 29 to 30. It might have some good side effect because of the extra odd it gives (maybe better retreat), but will have the exact same chance to inflict damage as any other point.

So, if my understanding is true, any extra point from air (or frankly any other unit) is worth it and might make a difference in combat whether they change the odds or not (they will still inflict the same damage). If so, air strength (tactical), on equal footing with artillery, are actually the best strength points (if we just look at a single battle) in the game since they fire first and can inflict damage before the second and follow-up rounds (defender guns etc.).

Is that reading of the rules, more or less, correct?

QAPLA'

That's seems right. The odds are a general's view of how the battle will go down. There is no chart. Other games give loss/loss stats which to me is too accurate. I prefer odds which gives a feel. Combat is computed on micro levels so every point counts.

[Nirosi]

Thanks Alvaro.

[AlvaroSousa]

Well I made some changes to air power.

#1 now interdiction will show on on YOUR turn as well as their turn with the same icon as in the unit detail display.

#2 ground strikes will now interdict movement has now increased from ~25-30% to 35-50% based on the effective tactical value.

I think this should make air more valuable while lowering armor in the process. I decided to work Monday and Tuesday on the WP games as I can't stand bugs and imbalances so we can get this to the beta testers.

Today I hope to finish other issues brought up on this thread and have a beta ready tonight.

[AlvaroSousa]

BTW an air strike does about 7% effectiveness loss on a unit. It might not be noticable on the CV of the unit but numbers are estimates and rounded. It means that unit does ~7% less damage and impacts odds.

While this seems like nothing on an individual level consider 5 air units striking once..... probably saves 3-4 manpower each turn in losses. It all adds up for the long game.

I think the upgraded interdiction rules for air units will be a positive modification that will increase depth but not complexity.

Right now I am in a late mirror game WPP game with Hadros.... It is very exciting. Lot's of action. I am losing both games because he is a better player.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Nirosi

Thanks for the tests HarryBanana. I must say I am sad to see so little impact, in attacks anyway, for ground support! Seems to make difference good enough in defense, but it should do it both in attack and defenses to be worth it and close/solve this debate on air units[:(]

Nirosi, ground support has very little effect in defence as well. Yeah the Attacker might take an extra step loss, but big deal. My understanding was that the ground support was supposed to add its tactical strength to the defender so that the odds (which are very important in determining whether or not a unit retreats) would be lower. But ground support has absolutely no effect on this, either for the Attacker or the Defender.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Well I made some changes to air power.

#1 now interdiction will show on on YOUR turn as well as their turn with the same icon as in the unit detail display.

#2 ground strikes will now interdict movement has now increased from ~25-30% to 35-50% based on the effective tactical value.

I think this should make air more valuable while lowering armor in the process. I decided to work Monday and Tuesday on the WP games as I can't stand bugs and imbalances so we can get this to the beta testers.

Today I hope to finish other issues brought up on this thread and have a beta ready tonight.

Improved interdiction may help, but it is not nearly enough (notice the no "with respect' this time).

[AlvaroSousa]

Considering GS for attacks. I can't really put that in the odds. Will if fly? Will it get blown up? What about the enemy ground support? Should I show it? That gives away information about them.

Naval support can't be stopped.

[Nirosi]

Considering GS for attacks. I can't really put that in the odds. Will if fly? Will it get blown up? What about the enemy ground support? Should I show it? That gives away information about them.

Could it be possible to put in the combat report after the battle?

[AlvaroSousa]

I think I can do that.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

I think I can do that.

I think you are missing my point. It is not a question of whether or not the Ground Support shows up in the pre attack odds popup, or whether it appears in the post combat log. My point is that Ground Support is most definitely not affecting the odds at all. If it were than one would expect that when Ground Support is used Offensively there would be more Retreats (since the Combat odds would be higher) and when it is used Defensively there would be fewer Retreat (since the odds would be lower). But as you can see from the results of my Tests this is not happening. The percentage of retreat results (25%) is identical whether Ground Support is not used, is used Offensively, or is used Defensively. So without question Ground Support is broken as the Ground Support air unit's tactical strength is not being added to the friendly ground units strength to determine the odds. It is Broken, Broken, Broken! I don't think I can say it any more clearly than that.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

So without question Ground Support is broken as the Ground Support air unit's tactical strength is not being added to the friendly ground units strength to determine the odds. It is Broken, Broken, Broken! I don't think I can say it any more clearly than that.

But with respect. [;)]

[stjeand]

In a quick test I did in Poland...I agree with Harry.

Adding Air never changed the odds and the German air should have added at least 1 odd or better against the Poles since they are stronger than the ground unit they are attacking.

So 10 attack vs 2 is 5 to 1...adding a ground attack of 4 should change the odds to 7 to 1 but they stay 5 to 1.

PERHAPS the odds are not showing in the combat displayer correctly?
We lowly players can not tell.