Serious balance issues with air power

[Uncle_Joe]

Yep, if you are gunning for the auto-victory, you are probably leaving yourself over-extended and vulnerable. You are probably also not researching for the long term survival but for the short term gains.

I think you are right and once you adjust to the mentality that the auto-win is not something to be shooting for (but one that should be embraced should the opportunity present itself), you'll do a lot better as the Axis.

In my current Axis game, I'm doing what appears to be somewhat terrible in Rusia and I'm not exactly rocking with Japan either. On the plus side, I'm 'winning' the battle for the Atlantic as my opponent is more or less afraid to commit major transport assets. I have a wolfpack of 5 Subs in the middle of the Atlantic (where they just mauled 2 Light Fleets, 1 Heavy and 1 Transport). I dont see anything around that can seriously attack that group (his Carrier Air will atrite it though as he just got to 2 dice ASW planes).

So, it was just Fall '42 and I'm preparing to go into 'defense mode'. I'm falling back in Russia (I'm not going to hold anything there, so why beat my head against the wall). Japan is digging in and raiding US transports in the Pacific. The more I can kill, the longer it takes for him to get them back and move across the Pacific. I'm hoping to have some additional defenses in place by the time he recovers.

What I'm getting at is that you have to recognize the signs that you have reached your 'high water mark' and then start to collapse back and hold out. I think that is the best way to outperform your historical counterparts. Hitler (and the Japanese military high command) never recognized when they were at the end of their expansion. Of course we have the benefit of hindsight and a clear set of rules. They did not. But at some point you have to use that benefit and find the time to transition over to defense.

If you did well enough when it was your chance with the initiative, the Allies should have a hard time breaking you by Fall of '46. That is the key. Do what can to them while you have the chance, but make sure you are making it hard for them to hit back at you. I'm still dreading the bombing campaign that is coming (there are already 9 Heavies in England and I lost 4 Fighters in France last turn). Fortunately, my damage in the Atlantic is preventing those bombers from being highly tech'ed up. I'm still going to get hammered, but I dont really need anywhere near the supplies for attack anymore, so I'm going to be repairing the damage as quickly as he inflicts it (I hope). FWIW, I'm not convinced I can hold out this game like I did last game. I am doing better vs the WAllies with Germany, but I screwed the pooch with Japan and I didnt get too far in Russia. This will be the earliest I've transitioned over to defense.

[Paul Vebber]

From the other thread - Advanced supply changes EVERYTHING with regards to this issue...

[dobeln]

Actually, air power is my largest gripe with the game. Having air forces capable of wiping out entire army groups is... well, a bit too much, imho. I would have preferred having tactical air disrupting ground units instead. (Perhaps lowering their defence and / or attack values significantly) Strategic air could work pretty much as they do now against "hard" targets, but with a penalty when attacking ground units. .

[CommC]

My comment regarding air power is that strat bombers are far too effective against naval targets. Historically, high level bombers were not effective against a moving naval target.

I would have tac bombers be effective against shipping and subs, with the Japanese tac bombers having extra long range to simulate the Betties.

Tac air should be effective against armor, and a little less so against troops. Strat bombers should have moderate effectiveness against armor and infantry, and large effect against factories and other infrastructure.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: CommC

My comment regarding air power is that strat bombers are far too effective against naval targets. Historically, high level bombers were not effective against a moving naval target.

I would have tac bombers be effective against shipping and subs, with the Japanese tac bombers having extra long range to simulate the Betties.

Tac air should be effective against armor, and a little less so against troops. Strat bombers should have moderate effectiveness against armor and infantry, and large effect against factories and other infrastructure.

This type of setup appears to make sense.

Sort of a "rock, paper, scissors" approach, which is why there was such a diverse set of military units in WWII. There needs to be a reason why both the Allied and Axis powers will want to build all types of units.

Just to get back to bombers for a minute:

Throughout WW2 Allied bombers from 1939 through to 1945 were always vulnerable to Axis fighters (a B-17 built in 1945 could still be shot down by an ME-109 built in 1941). The reason why the Allies lost fewer bombers post-1943 was because of the addition of fighter escorts (and was not due to the bombers themselves having better "tech" or more armour or being able to "evade" fighters).

The issue of survivability for Allied bombers throughout the war revolved around having either "fighter escorts" or not having "fighter escorts".

It was the fighters themselves (for both Allies and Axis powers) that received the majority of "tech" improvements: speed, distance flown, pilot skill, better armament, etc from the long-range P-51 to the ME-262...

Also, even in 1944 at the height of the Allied strategic bombing offensive Germany was still producing a great deal of military units (production actually increased in 1944 over 1942).

And I think this is what some players have been referring to when they talk about research being too much for certain military units.

Perhaps bombers should be somewhat similar to transports: they both need escorts in order to survive.

[aletoledo]

My comment regarding air power is that strat bombers are far too effective against naval targets. Historically, high level bombers were not effective against a moving naval target.

I agree completely. I suspect they were intentioning bombers like germany's gondor to this aspect of naval strat bomber, but I think it makes tac bombers pointless. there is nothing a tac bomber can do that a strat bomber can't do better. I think removing naval and antisub attacks from strat bombers would give a purpose to tac bombers.

I know this thread is mostly about tech advantages, but I wanted to gripe specifically about air tech.

The strat bomber situation for the axis is messed up. I can't envision how it was intended for them to not have armour, but to make up for it with higher starting evasion? this essentially knocks them out from being able to cheaply increase its defense. was this intended? not only do the allies have armor and a cheap increase in evasion (being the world standard), but their durability is also higher! if people are trying to say the armor is because the b-17s were so tough, then what is the high durability then?

another rant about air, does anyone ever bother making IL-2s as russia? I never do, yet they were a huge part of russias strategy. somewhere close to 36,000 were built during the war! I simply cancel them out of the queue when they get damaged, because they are a waste of resources. IMO russian tac air should be the highest starting or perhaps tied with germany's stuka, but definitly given an incentive to use them. no russian tac air even makes having german fighters on the east front pointless, because there is nothing to shoot at!