Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

This isn't such a big deal- aircraft en-route to target are not going to get shot at by most AAA, because they're flying high and generally over open country, and can concentrate on not being shot down rather than worrying about trying to bomb anyone. What you COULD do is give range to the AAA units just the same as with SAMs.

Most allied bombers were shot down by german FLAK installations on their flightpath to the target, not directly over the cities.
AAA was shot straight into the air, it never really had any range to speak of. When FLAK (the 88's) was used as artillery it should have some range, but thats just another aspect of the game where we have to live with a little abstraction

Kraut

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..of course, only moving each unit one hex at a time also helps avoid interdiction, as does staying under the clouds, off roads and in heavy cover..

Moving units one hex at a time also has the benefit that you can check your air to see whether it's still available for CAP against interdiction. Sometimes your air units get put on rest after a CAP. This gives you the opportunity to reset.

Found this out in a game of Fortress Stalingrad 42 where rail is pretty critical for the Germans. Not to mention other things too.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Chuck2
OK, we've come full circle then. Given that this probably won't be rewritten anytime soon, it seems OK if players move around their available AA units to weaken ground interdiction by air units.

Sounds fine to me, especially since interdiction attacks are conducted on a per unit basis, and don't take into account any assets from other units stacked in the hex. I'd have to double-check, but I'm pretty sure that they are not even triggering ranged SAM responses either.

This is something I want to change. Frankly, moving AA units up and back seems not only gamey, but also like meaningless thumb-twiddling. If it's something that you just always do, then I'd like to get rid of it, it isn't fun anymore. JAMiAM has convinced me that we need to look at the bigger picture to fix it.

Ralph

What's even more gamey is to move you AA units around that are in range of enemy interdiction but out of range of their fighter coverage so the interdicting a/c get cut to pieces by your CAP.
 
I'm content to move what I want and take the interdiction hits. I wouldn't be averse to having an AA unit move along with a stack of other units so that perhaps an interdiction strike will come when stacked with the AA.
 
However, I was playing PzC Normandy the other day and took note of the fact that air strikes in that game are met with ranged AA fire. (A strike on infantry units moving NW toward Caen was met by AA fire from Caen itself). Personally, I'd like to see this added to TOAW. It would add a new aspect to the air war as players would have to think about AA coverage. As it is (in COW) I use AA as just another anti-tank weapon dug in with infantry. Or dig it in with artillery to provide, not so much AA cover, but more equipment to dilute direct bombings meant to undig my arty.

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Chuck2
OK, we've come full circle then. Given that this probably won't be rewritten anytime soon, it seems OK if players move around their available AA units to weaken ground interdiction by air units.

Sounds fine to me, especially since interdiction attacks are conducted on a per unit basis, and don't take into account any assets from other units stacked in the hex. I'd have to double-check, but I'm pretty sure that they are not even triggering ranged SAM responses either.

This is something I want to change. Frankly, moving AA units up and back seems not only gamey, but also like meaningless thumb-twiddling.

Well, I don't agree. Why is moving AA units up and down the road a little bit in a single turn (say 100 kilometers) gamey but having a single air unit make several apperances all over the map (say 10,000 kilometers) not gamey? Obviously, it would be better if the AA units didn't have to be moved to have some effect, though. Something like an umbrella of reduced interdiction effect within range of an AA unit.

If it's something that you just always do, then I'd like to get rid of it, it isn't fun anymore. JAMiAM has convinced me that we need to look at the bigger picture to fix it.

Ralph

Good.

Since stationary AA units rarely seem to be in a position to actually shoot down planes as is (which is what they are for)...maybe this tactic could be considered more "design-for-effect" rather than gamey?

there are many changes that need to be done to the air model, for example interdiction missions should be limited to fighters and figter-bomvber (imagine a B-52 flying interdiction missions *shudder*)
than friendly fighter on AS should have a % chance to interdict enemy air wings on I missions just like they have a chance to interdict a friendly moving unit (and not only interfear when the enemy fighters are acrtive actually attacking one of your units). Maybe these dog-fights can happen automatically during every combat round.
Interdiction missions should only hit moving units, not random units during the combat resolution. Reason: these random attacks will often activate formations on reserve settings which are sheduled to become active much later in the game, but are awaken by these air attacks.
Interdiction missions should have a reduced combat range, you don't fly 'interdiction missions' by moving to your uttermost range into enemy territory, looking for targets for 5 min. than having to return because your fuel runs out. These air wings should try to interdict enemy units, so they have to search for them, so need most their fuel for the search, and not for some deep penetrations. Maybe interdiction range = combat range / 2 ?

ORIGINAL: jimwinsor
Since stationary AA units rarely seem to be in a position to actually shoot down planes as is (which is what they are for)...maybe this tactic could be considered more "design-for-effect" rather than gamey?

Exactly, and for the way that the game plays now, it is a reasonable abstraction to attempt to draw fire to moving AAA units, to model an interaction that should occur, but does not yet do so, in TOAW III.

ORIGINAL: Industrial
Most allied bombers were shot down by german FLAK installations on their flightpath to the target, not directly over the cities.

True, and this aspect is not currently modeled in TOAW III. AAA fire is only added into combats where air units are directly attacking, or indirectly supporting attacks against a hex.

I went back and did some tests under TOAW III, and found that, contrary to my earlier statement, units that are already in the hex do add their AAA fire to that of the "moving" unit during interdiction attacks. In CoW, AAA was completely ineffective against high altitude bombers, and much less ineffective against low-level bombers, so straight empirical observations tended to support that assumption. However, by viewing the toawlog in a test scenario, I can conclusively say that I was wrong in that assumption, as all the units in the interdicted hex do contribute to the defensive fire.

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick
JAMiAM has convinced me that we need to look at the bigger picture to fix it.

We need to do some work on this aspect of the game, and we want to do it right. This means finding the right balance between a reasonable management of assets, and effects, both direct and abstracted within the framework of the design philosophy of the game. This will take some time and will not be done overnight.

In the meantime...game on!

What if interdiction wasn't such a set-it and forget-it aspect of the game (not that you can do that all the time)?
 
As it is now, you just put an air unit on 'interdiction' and hope it interdicts something useful. Perhaps interdiction should be set up more like an actual attack. The player selects an air unit and the clicks on ANY enemy hex regardless whether there is a unit or not in that location. During his opponent's turn, that air unit would keep watch over a specific range of hexes moving out from the one he selected (perhaps with diminishing visibility). If his opponent moves something into this range, there's a chance it gets interdicted. This range could be calculated based upon total aircraft range, minus distance to and from target hex. Not sure of the math here, but there are better people in this forum than me to suggest something.
 
This would a) give players control over what part of the map to interdict which would solve problems of deep map interdiction, b) give the other player a chance to circumnavigate parts of the map that are being "watched", c) allow the other player to counter this effect with AA (assuming they're given some sort of range ability), or if not given a ranged attack ability, players could use the same tactics (moving AA units about) they now employ to counter specific interdicted areas (rather than all enemy air units set for interdiction). This would at least cut out the gamey-er aspects of this tactic I described above.
 
Just a suggestion...the sum total of this thread will hopefully get us closer to a workable improvement.

Mensch, those ideas are somewhat in line with my thoughts. Some of the mechanics will do no good to implement now though, since we are going to do some major shaking up of the turn sequence to do away with P1/P2 asymmetries. We will have to incorporate things like properly enhanced interdiction after we've got that all taken care of. As you can imagine, this will be a substantial rewriting of the code and require a lot of testing to make sure that it is done right, and will not be a project that we can even give a preliminary date of completion, at this time.

P1/P2 issues are certainly more important. Thorough testing is definitely the name of the game becuase solving that issue could easily solve others indirectly.
 
But the peanut gallery is always on duty to give you suggestions! Kinda like a long line of ladies passing out sausage samples in the supermarket, through which you have to pass to buy what you actually want. [;)] 

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..of course, only moving each unit one hex at a time also helps avoid interdiction..

Really? I wondered about that. It seemed that if I moved a unit one hex and it didn't get attacked that perhaps it'd be okay to move it "the rest of the way" but that didn't always work out as I planned. Maybe there IS something to moving a unit one hex at a time.

Could that be classified as "gamey" though? Just working around the game mechanics instead of concentrating on the tactical / strategic "big" questions that might be "more important"?

Another thing that used to be considered "gamey" is using a single unit, usually AA or AntiTank units, to attack ( at minimum losses ) with loads of supporting arty and / or air power. Mostly to attack a MUCH larger stack of stuff. Usually the attacker gets away with minor losses and the attackee gets whacked badly. But if the attack is tried with no arty and / or airpower the result is usually lopsided the other way with the attacker getting whacked badly. This doesn't seem "gamey" to me. It's just another example of the good use of force multipliers being employed properly. What say you?

..oh dear, there goes another tactical ploy into the gamey bag...

..of course attacks should be accompanied by AA, who in their right mind doesn't take into account enemy air action and do their best to render it ineffective, and adding them as full attack units whilst occasionally costly, will ensure that the captured hex is protected against air assisted counter-attack

..but then, i'm one of those that goes for unit sub-division (ants to some, sound tactics to others) if the situation warrants it and if the scen design permits it

..screwing interdiction in general, but this is based only on toaw1 to acow experience, for me goes like this:

1/ move the AA/ air attack proof units (eg fully armoured)that are at max enemy air range by leaps of 1/3rd move*
2/ move the medium range targets in same class
..keep going till air attack ceases
3/test drive one long distance move, if air attacks restart then do same for next level vunerable units (eg mechanised), furthest out then moving closer to the front
4/test drive non-essential units closest to front, even if some get sacrificed
..no interdiction then off you go
..if interdiction then
5/ move all essential units by one hex, often sub-divided and one by one (NO STACKS), repeat till all moving is done, even so moving from cloud to cloud, avoiding by priority rail-moves, major roads, minor roads, clear terrain

*if these moves can be done in an area of high fighter cover so much the better, as a matter of course areas of own fighter cover get move priority, even if the air units have to be rearranged to create a killing zone

..and yes, i've had units go round in circles in the open in prearranged fighter-cover zones waving their bums in a tempting come-and-get-me big-boy pose, often these same units are also sub-divided for max effect. The results can be spectacular

ORIGINAL: Industrial

Most allied bombers were shot down by german FLAK installations on their flightpath to the target, not directly over the cities.

That's strategic bombing, though, which isn't modelled in TOAW.

ORIGINAL: Chuck2Well, I don't agree. Why is moving AA units up and down the road a little bit in a single turn (say 100 kilometers) gamey but having a single air unit make several apperances all over the map (say 10,000 kilometers) not gamey?

Because the air unit doesn't move in one monolithic block but rather splits up into smaller groups to make lots of attacks throughout the turn. The movement of the AA unit is taking advantage of the abstraction- these units are not actually moving before all the others, but rather at the same time. So it's ridiculous to have the interdiction all being "used up" before any of the other units move.

Obviously, it would be better if the AA units didn't have to be moved to have some effect, though. Something like an umbrella of reduced interdiction effect within range of an AA unit.

That would be better.

ORIGINAL: Industrial

(imagine a B-52 flying interdiction missions *shudder*)

Could work, but only on major transport routes.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Industrial

(imagine a B-52 flying interdiction missions *shudder*)

Could work, but only on major transport routes.

..try Curt's Vietnam, there were times there where i thought even the riverine units were flying interdiction

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..screwing interdiction in general, but this is based only on toaw1 to acow experience, for me goes like this:

1/ move the AA/ air attack proof units (eg fully armoured)that are at max enemy air range by leaps of 1/3rd move*
2/ move the medium range targets in same class
..keep going till air attack ceases
3/test drive one long distance move, if air attacks restart then do same for next level vunerable units (eg mechanised), furthest out then moving closer to the front
4/test drive non-essential units closest to front, even if some get sacrificed
..no interdiction then off you go
..if interdiction then
5/ move all essential units by one hex, often sub-divided and one by one (NO STACKS), repeat till all moving is done, even so moving from cloud to cloud, avoiding by priority rail-moves, major roads, minor roads, clear terrain

*if these moves can be done in an area of high fighter cover so much the better, as a matter of course areas of own fighter cover get move priority, even if the air units have to be rearranged to create a killing zone

..and yes, i've had units go round in circles in the open in prearranged fighter-cover zones waving their bums in a tempting come-and-get-me big-boy pose, often these same units are also sub-divided for max effect. The results can be spectacular

All very carefully reasoned out. In the real world, all these steps would have to occur simultaneously, so it is highly unrealistic.

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Chuck2
OK, we've come full circle then. Given that this probably won't be rewritten anytime soon, it seems OK if players move around their available AA units to weaken ground interdiction by air units.

Sounds fine to me, especially since interdiction attacks are conducted on a per unit basis, and don't take into account any assets from other units stacked in the hex. I'd have to double-check, but I'm pretty sure that they are not even triggering ranged SAM responses either.

This is something I want to change. Frankly, moving AA units up and back seems not only gamey, but also like meaningless thumb-twiddling. If it's something that you just always do, then I'd like to get rid of it, it isn't fun anymore. JAMiAM has convinced me that we need to look at the bigger picture to fix it.

Ralph

..so give us aircraft that have a flight path...

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..screwing interdiction in general, but this is based only on toaw1 to acow experience, for me goes like this:

1/ move the AA/ air attack proof units (eg fully armoured)that are at max enemy air range by leaps of 1/3rd move*
2/ move the medium range targets in same class
..keep going till air attack ceases
3/test drive one long distance move, if air attacks restart then do same for next level vunerable units (eg mechanised), furthest out then moving closer to the front
4/test drive non-essential units closest to front, even if some get sacrificed
..no interdiction then off you go
..if interdiction then
5/ move all essential units by one hex, often sub-divided and one by one (NO STACKS), repeat till all moving is done, even so moving from cloud to cloud, avoiding by priority rail-moves, major roads, minor roads, clear terrain

*if these moves can be done in an area of high fighter cover so much the better, as a matter of course areas of own fighter cover get move priority, even if the air units have to be rearranged to create a killing zone

..and yes, i've had units go round in circles in the open in prearranged fighter-cover zones waving their bums in a tempting come-and-get-me big-boy pose, often these same units are also sub-divided for max effect. The results can be spectacular

All very carefully reasoned out. In the real world, all these steps would have to occur simultaneously, so it is highly unrealistic.

..i thought this was the real world...[8D]

..otherwise, ever dragged brushwood behind cavalry on the other side of the hill to fool those damned romans ?