Air power

[stjeand]

Also I believe EVERY ground attack should interdict movement. EVEN if it is adding to the combat odds.
NOW if the unit retreats then there should be no effect, though that may not be possible.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: stjeand

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

What Alvaro is saying is that the Combat Odds are being changed by the Ground Support, but that this change is not being shown in the Combat Logs. So that even though Ground Support might, for example, have increased the odds from 3:1 to 5:1; the Combat Log will still show the odds as 3:1.

What I am saying (respectfully) is that Alvaro is wrong and Ground Support is not changing the Combat Odds. So actually the Combat Log is displaying the Combat Odds correctly. But I am also saying that this is a Bug that needs to be fixed as Ground Support is supposed to affect the Combat Odds.

[aoffen]

This is an interesting discussion.

I actually thought (assumed) that the effect of air attacks was just causing extra damage (strength loss), efficiency loss and occasional op points reduction. I had no thought of it simply adding its tactical rating to the battle to increase the odds and therefore effect retreats? Seems counter intuitive that an air fleet would have the same punch in battle as a full corps. Does it say that anywhere in the manual that I missed?

I have always felt the interdiction element was useless. Reducing a 5 move unit to 4....meh.

Just as an aside, I always play with a strong historical mind set, so I never explore the extremes some people seem to here. I was shocked at the Harry Yuejin AAR I read the other day. No British airforce and merchant marine wiped out, but a HUGE British army. TBH it was beyond my scope of reference.

[ncc1701e]

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.

Does a Ground Strike that is interdicting a unit is also lowering this unit's effectiveness and/or strength?
If so by which % for effectiveness?

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: aoffen

Seems counter intuitive that an air fleet would have the same punch in battle as a full corps. Does it say that anywhere in the manual that I missed?

This is also not logical that ground support is not changing anything as per the previous tests of Harrybanana. Perhaps not a second full corps, but still combined arms is just that: armor + infantry + planes.

The manual only says:

Ground Support – During land combat air units in support mode on the attacker’s side will attempt to provide directed air attacks toward the defending unit adding bombing factors to the attack. The defender will attempt to do the same. Only one bomber unit can be sent by either side to a single combat. Air units must have operation points to perform ground support.

These bombing factors seem not to have an effect.

ORIGINAL: aoffen

Just as an aside, I always play with a strong historical mind set, so I never explore the extremes some people seem to here. I was shocked at the Harry Yuejin AAR I read the other day. No British airforce and merchant marine wiped out, but a HUGE British army. TBH it was beyond my scope of reference.

I think the purpose of this thread is just for that to give air power some love to avoid these extremes i.e. disbanding all air units because they are powerless.

[Nirosi]

I can't remember the numbers but they are somewhere in the forum. A few months ago Alvaro did mention that the 1st ground strike with an air unit is the most optimal use against a unit one wants to attack with land that turn, but that ground support is a better use than a second ground strike. This been because only the first strike and ground support can "kill" steps (and IIRC also provoke more effectiveness loss than subsequent strikes).

[Nirosi]

These bombing factors seem not to have an effect.

In attack they did not seem to change much from Harry's testing (or very little, about 10% more kills), but they did make an important difference in defense. They did not change the odds to affect retreats etc., but they did kill more attackers steps (3 times more).

But it will be good if Alvaro look into the "odds" thing. As Harry said, the odds impact retreat, which is of outmost importance, very often more than loses. Seems to be a bug for now.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: aoffen

This is an interesting discussion.

I actually thought (assumed) that the effect of air attacks was just causing extra damage (strength loss), efficiency loss and occasional op points reduction. I had no thought of it simply adding its tactical rating to the battle to increase the odds and therefore effect retreats? Seems counter intuitive that an air fleet would have the same punch in battle as a full corps. Does it say that anywhere in the manual that I missed?

I have to disagree with you here. For one thing this was the exact purpose of Airpower in WW2; to "Shock and Awe" the enemy along often narrow corridors so that resistance was broken and the ground troops (especially Armour) could make swift penetrations and essentially "retreat" the enemy formations so breakthroughs could occur. Without airpower the Blitzkriegs would not have happened, or at least would have been far less effective. Air Power was essential to the Breakthrough and Armour alone would, on most occasions, not have been enough. For another, even if the game was not broken (and tactical strength was being added to affect the Combat Odds) an air fleet still would not have anywhere near the same "punch in battle" as a full corps. For example, a Large German 39 Tech Infantry Corps is a 10 strength, a German 39 Tech Tactical Bomber is only a 5. And of course medium bombers are only a 3. In my opinion Tactical Bombers should add as much as a Large Corps to increase the odds and Medium Bombers should add as much as a small corps.

I have always felt the interdiction element was useless. Reducing a 5 move unit to 4....meh.

I agree.

Just as an aside, I always play with a strong historical mind set, so I never explore the extremes some people seem to here. I was shocked at the Harry Yuejin AAR I read the other day. No British airforce and merchant marine wiped out, but a HUGE British army. TBH it was beyond my scope of reference.

[/quote]

I prefer to play with an historical mind set myself. But I also like to win. So this is why I lobby so hard to get Rules changed that do not reflect historical abilities. But unless and until the Rules are changed, I play with the Rules as they are and do my best to win with those Rules. For example, I would love to build the historical Canadian Army and Air force. But this makes no sense with the current rules, so I just use the Canadians to build escorts, landing ships and supply trucks. It is also why unless the Rules change I will in the future copy YueJin and scrap the Russian Air Force.

[aoffen]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I have to disagree with you here. For one thing this was the exact purpose of Airpower in WW2; to "Shock and Awe" the enemy along often narrow corridors so that resistance was broken and the ground troops (especially Armour) could make swift penetrations and essentially "retreat" the enemy formations so breakthroughs could occur. Without airpower the Blitzkriegs would not have happened, or at least would have been far less effective. Air Power was essential to the Breakthrough and Armour alone would, on most occasions, not have been enough. For another, even if the game was not broken (and tactical strength was being added to affect the Combat Odds) an air fleet still would not have anywhere near the same "punch in battle" as a full corps. For example, a Large German 39 Tech Infantry Corps is a 10 strength, a German 39 Tech Tactical Bomber is only a 5. And of course medium bombers are only a 3. In my opinion Tactical Bombers should add as much as a Large Corps to increase the odds and Medium Bombers should add as much as a small corps.

Is the simple answer here that the effectiveness reduction resulting from air attacks is too low?

Alvaro's point is that post war analysis showed air attacks didn't kill as much as they thought it did at the time. Your point above is also very valid though. Air attacks and air support currently do not have a big enough influence on combat especially considering the cost of building and maintaining air units.

A bigger reduction in effectiveness temporarily reduces the combat values of the target (thus also improving final combat odds btw) but doesn't result in big strength reductions. I am not sure that idea has even been discussed has it?

I remember at one stage air unit effectiveness loss for just flying the mission was greater than the target effectiveness loss after the raid. I think that has been patched though.

Maybe that balance just needs a little more tweaking?

[Harrybanana]

Yes, increasing effectiveness loss from air strikes is part of the fix. I don't disagree that damage caused by air attacks was exaggerated by the pilots and air commanders. But the history books are full of personal accounts from both sides where soldiers spirits were either uplifted to see their own aircraft overhead or demoralized when it was the enemy aircraft that ruled the skies. So increasing effectiveness loss is a big part of it.

But IMHO all of the following need to be done:

1. Ground Support needs to be fixed.

2. Effectiveness loss from air strikes needs to be increased (at least for the first 2 strikes).

3. Effectiveness loss to the air units performing the air strikes needs to be reduced. Or alternatively, air units should benefit from being within 5 hexes of an HQ just like land units do. In my experience air units performing air strikes often lose more effectiveness than the enemy unit being bombed and the enemy ground units (if in range of an HQ) will regain lost effectiveness quicker.

4. Air Units need to gain more Tactical Strength as they progress through the Tech Advances in order to keep up with the Infantry and Armour. For example, a British Ground Attack air unit at Tech 39 and 100% effectiveness has a Tactical strength of 5 and at 44 Tech has a Tactical Strength of 6 (a 20% increase). Meanwhile a 39 Assault British Large Corps has a strength of 8 and at Tech 44 has a strength of 12 (a 50% increase).

5. Air units need to gain experience quicker. If you play the game enough you will notice that the British Infantry Corps you start the game with at 50% Experience will, if they see some action, have 55% to 60% experience by 1944. But all the air units you started the game with will still have only 50% to 52% experience, even if they have seen lots of action.

6. Russian Air Unit National Experience needs to increase quicker. It starts at 35% and by Wars end you will be lucky if it is at 45% even if you use it extensively.

[Nirosi]

6. Russian Air Unit National Experience needs to increase quicker. It starts at 35% and by Wars end you will be lucky if it is at 45% even if you use it extensively.

Hi Harry,

I agree with your first five propositions. But I think that if the first five are done, the 6th will follow. I believe that the 6ht one will follow by itself once players will start using the Soviet air force more. It is probably low in XP because people do not care using it too much, but if they do, it does go up. I have seen it often enough.

Just two examples : In my game with Stjean, it was at 42% by October or November... 1941! Just 1% lower than land XP, because it was used extensively. With PL1, in one of our game had it was at 50% by 1943. And it it was damn annoying too!

If anything, I would actually limit it (soviet air XP) to max 45% because their air units do cost 10% less than for any other country IIRC. Seems (a little at least) unfair to let them go to 50% for lower price but same stats!

[Nirosi]

Maybe that balance just needs a little more tweaking?

Could very well be. Worth a try. My opinion is that we might not be that far from something fair. The extra chance for interdiction will help in some precise but limited cases (can be very good in defense, reducing the effectiveness of a second wave of infantry by more that 50%, or even 100% depending on terrain)! But only in some cases.

I would try first an improvement of 50% of the reduction effectiveness from strikes and ground support (and fixing the odds added from ground support to actually do improve retreat chances). So from 7% to 10% or 11% for example (IIRC) per strikes.

Or, if Alvaro is willing to consider, leave the effectiveness reduction as it is, but make air units have 3 OP instead of 2. It is a two weeks turn after all and even the infs with the oldest and more tired soldiers do have 5![:'(]

[Nirosi]

TBH it was beyond my scope of reference.

It is a question of style of play. I know because I have changed mine over the years. [:D] I could look at a map and plan 4-5 scenarios for a single attack. But it became more work than fun...

I still do it sometimes, but the role-play part that was always there is now way on top. I would rather lose a fun game than win a boring one. Disbanding the whole soviet air force is not fun, so I would never do it no matter how effective. And it certainly would not be or fell like a WWII game anymore.

Fun anecdote : once I had, for an emergency, sent an Hungarian unit to garrison a port in Western Germany IIRC (or maybe even worse, France). I worked hard for two turn to find a German units to replace it because I knew it was politically unrealistic, impossible even. I almost fell dirty during those 2 turns.

But I understand some players see the game not as role-playing but as math problems for example. So if they do send Romanians in Tunisia I would not judge them (well, not too much[;)])

[CHINCHIN]

I think it would be good to make air units cheaper, and naval surface units.

[AlvaroSousa]

Let's do some math. Real example from 1942 scenario attacking hex 195,65 with the 3 units next to it.

4-5, 11,10, 9-5
vs
7-5

4+11+9 = 24
24 * 80% due to 2 entrenchment levels something generals can see = 19.2
19.2 * 90% due to forest (if I remember that 17.28

17.28 vs 7 = 2.46 rounded down 2:1 which displays on the hover.

Say both sides has a GS unit with an 8 modified tactical.... This figure is taken from the unit at 201,50 in the 1942 scenario stuka

If ONLY the defender adds his GS it is twice as effective mathematically on the odds.

17.28 vs 7 + 8 = 1.15:1 = 1:1 displayed

If ONLY the attacker adds his GS

25.28 vs 7 = 3.6:1 = 3:1 displayed

If BOTH add their GS value

25.28 vs 15 = 1.6:1 = 1:1 because it rounds down.

Defender GS is always twice as effective as attacker in terms of odds.

They both add equal damage to the attack though.

It only impacts odds and retreats.

Due to the armor being the main cause of the destructive force in the game creating extreme conditions the new patch will include these changes in a long list of fixes.
These primary changes should slow down the game on both sides for games that last into 1945 which is really the goal for the MOST exciting games with a cliffhanger.

#1 Swapping unit now does not remove entrenchment
#2 air movement interdiction will be displayed on YOUR turn you attack ON the enemy unit
#3 air movement interdiction change 25-30% -> 35-50% depending on the condition of the unit assuming full strength and 50-100% effectiveness.

These 3 give air power a good boost and create another level of depth without adding complexity to the game.

I will remind everyone even Hubert from SC3 is still balancing his games and they are over 10 years old and well established. This kind of game takes a long time to balance right. Even World in Flames took forever to balance.

I do think these changes will be good.

The last one I am considering is reducing port supply for the Allies slightly in France to force more infantry units. But this would be a last resort.

I have played a good number of games with Hadros who is better than I am. I always play an opposite strategy to what he does to test things out. So I got a good feel for what is going on. We are in a WPP game late in 1944. It got really exciting. 1943 was kind of a dud year oddly.

[Nirosi]

ORIGINAL: 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

Actually, this works only with Starfleet Klingons. In other places, it seems this technique is more widely used :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFX6l8F ... l=CarolBee [:D]

[Nirosi]

Even World in Flames took forever to balance.

I sometimes wondered for WiF if it did not take forever to... unbalance! [8|]

[Nirosi]

It only impacts odds and retreats

Hi Alvaro,

Thanks for all the info. But could you check if it actually works for modifying the odds and therefore affect retreats (and overrun). Because HarryB made quite a few tests and did indeed see the extra kills (especially for defense where they were very high), but from his tests, retreat was never affected, no matter who sent GS.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Let's do some math. Real example from 1942 scenario attacking hex 195,65 with the 3 units next to it.

4-5, 11,10, 9-5
vs
7-5

4+11+9 = 24
24 * 80% due to 2 entrenchment levels something generals can see = 19.2
19.2 * 90% due to forest (if I remember that 17.28

17.28 vs 7 = 2.46 rounded down 2:1 which displays on the hover.

Say both sides has a GS unit with an 8 modified tactical.... This figure is taken from the unit at 201,50 in the 1942 scenario stuka

If ONLY the defender adds his GS it is twice as effective mathematically on the odds.

17.28 vs 7 + 8 = 1.15:1 = 1:1 displayed

If ONLY the attacker adds his GS

25.28 vs 7 = 3.6:1 = 3:1 displayed

If BOTH add their GS value

25.28 vs 15 = 1.6:1 = 1:1 because it rounds down.

Defender GS is always twice as effective as attacker in terms of odds.

They both add equal damage to the attack though.

It only impacts odds and retreats.

Alvaro, in your example above you say that each of the Attacker GS and the Defender GS are added to their respective sides. I understand that this is what is supposed to happen, BUT IT IS NOT HAPPENING!! NEITHER THE ATTACKER'S GS NOR THE DEFENDER'S GS IS BEING ADDED TO AFFECT THE COMBAT ODDS. This is broken and needs to be fixed. I will post this in the Bugs Forum.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Nirosi

Actually, this works only with Starfleet Klingons. In other places, it seems this technique is more widely used :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFX6l8F ... l=CarolBee [:D]

LOL [:D]