Range of Aircrafts

[Vasquez]

Their range seems way to short. The same range like motorized Infantry Division more or less. Should be increased to the double or something. Just my two cents

[Ronald Wendt]

Hello,

ORIGINAL: Vasquez

Their range seems way to short. The same range like motorized Infantry Division more or less. Should be increased to the double or something. Just my two cents

actually we thought about a move like this, too. Thereby reducing the ammo to have a better simulation of air strikes during an operation.

Regards,

[ComradeP]

Greater range might limit the sense of the aircraft being tactical support tools. Currently, they can advance about as far as your mobile units, at a maximum movement rate. Increasing their movement rate, for example doubling it, might result in the player using air units to bomb rear-area units, instead of using the Luftwaffe as a primarily tactically orientated air force.

In a game like Panzer General, you could either bomb enemy units in the rear to bits in two turns or make a 1-2 punch by first weakening frontline units and overrunning them with the Panzers after that.

[Erik2]

You could have fighters and Stukas with the current movement and increase it for ie Ju88s and He111s.
Currently there is no provision for destroying the Soviet airforce on the ground in theopening move which would make a nice addition.

[PKH]

I think it should be up to the player how they want to use their units, and not have designers add restrictions to enforce a certain playstyle. There is no question the germans did strategic bombing in the beginning of the war.

[ComradeP]

The movement ranges are not all that different from those in PG/PC, but depending on the scenario the scale of the map is.

It is always up to the player how he wants to use his units, but if the goal is to make a more historical game than PG/PC, a limit to the effectiveness of air units makes sense. Currently, the fuel usage of air units is already abstracted.

Also: the starting strength of the VVS has been reduced to simulate the destruction of many of the frontline aircraft in the opening days of Barbarossa.

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: PKH

I think it should be up to the player how they want to use their units, and not have designers add restrictions to enforce a certain playstyle. There is no question the germans did strategic bombing in the beginning of the war.

Absolutely. Given that this game is billed as more historical, then air ranges should be accurate, and varied air roles should be possible.

[Numdydar]

Lets look at a Me 109

Performance
Maximum speed: 640 km/h (398 mph) at 6,300 m (20,669 ft)
Cruise speed: 590 km/h (365 mph) at 6,000 m (19,680 ft)
Range: 850 km (528 mi) 1,000 km (621 mi) with droptank
Service ceiling: 12,000 m (39,370 ft)
Rate of climb: 17.0 m/s (3,345 ft/min)
Wing loading: 196 kg/m² (40 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 344 W/kg (0.21 hp/lb)

Each hex is 5km in the game so the ME 109 can travel about 60 hexes at cruise speed per HOUR.

Riga was captured within two weeks at the beginning of July. Which matches up well with the 14 turns the first AGN campaign gives you to complete it. So each turn in GaW is an ENTIRE day. So the game designers decided that AC could not get to any hex on the map why? Too many clouds in the way [:)]

If you are going to use historical maps and historical settings and then claim that AC in GaW works the same way as in PC so we should be satisfied, is not going to set well. At least not with me. There is no reason at the scale of this game that AC movement should be hampered in any way. Just because PC did it this way is not a valid reason for GaW to do so.

[ComradeP]

I'll rephrase my point: how realistic is it that the Luftwaffe would destroy entire divisions way behind the frontline? If more air units, with greater range, are added, that will happen, and it will turn into PG all over again, with air units unrealistically zapping ground units all over the place.

I understand your point about what aircraft were capable of in terms of their effective range, but keep the consequences in mind of what would happen if range and numbers were increased.

[PKH]

These PG style games have always been more fantasy than realism, and unless the basic mechanics are changed, it's going to stay that way no matter how far the air units can move.

I wish someone would make a wite lite, maybe at the corps level with stacking, combined assaults, a full action point system, and realistic air units. Decisive Campaigns is ok, but I find the user interface too slow and clunky, and there are too many units for my taste.

[Erik2]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
I'll rephrase my point: how realistic is it that the Luftwaffe would destroy entire divisions way behind the frontline? If more air units, with greater range, are added, that will happen, and it will turn into PG all over again, with air units unrealistically zapping ground units all over the place.
....

Are you really able to destroy a whole division using just one air attack pr round?
I doubt it, then something would be wrong with the combat algorithms IMO.

Fighters should barely make a dent in any land unit, tactical bombers should hurt inf and armor slightly, strategic bombers should be able to reduce a few points from inf units. I don't know if air attacks reduce the defender's movement points (for the next round) already, but maybe this is an idea.
I can't see why greater movement ranges would tilt the balance.

[Erik Rutins]

I think there is a considerable difference between a more realistic Panzer General style game and something like War in the East or Command Ops. Absolute realism is reserved for much more hard core wargames. This offers the Panzer General style gameplay with more realism in many key areas, but there are still many aspects that remain close to the Panzer General / Panzer Corps style as it is a very fun beer and pretzels kind of wargaming.

Air movement was debated during the beta. The main reason I can see for restricting it has nothing to do with how far a plane could theoretically fly in a day, but rather how close to the front line operations were planned and how many air operations were done on targets of opportunity or with hardly any planning and how many were planned a day ahead, etc. In general, if you can find an argument against part of the design based on realism, there is likely another argument based on realism in favor of the design that you can find if you consider a bit more. Where concessions were made, there was generally a basis in reality to justify the concession, in addition to the usual gameplay arguments.

With all that said, I could certainly see expanding the air movement range, it would just need some additional testing to make sure it doesn't create any new gameplay or balance issues.

Regards,

- Erik

[PKH]

My issue with the aircraft isn't about realism, as it will never be realistic in this type of game anyway. IMO, the problem is that the aircraft currently might as well be ground units which needs to spend many turns to resupply, and they feel ineffective and pointless.

[Erik Rutins]

What kind of aircraft are you using? I can't say I've found them to be ineffective, but I can see how the slower movement can make resupply take a long time on the larger maps.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Air movement was debated during the beta. The main reason I can see for restricting it has nothing to do with how far a plane could theoretically fly in a day, but rather how close to the front line operations were planned and how many air operations were done on targets of opportunity or with hardly any planning and how many were planned a day ahead, etc. In general, if you can find an argument against part of the design based on realism, there is likely another argument based on realism in favor of the design that you can find if you consider a bit more. Where concessions were made, there was generally a basis in reality to justify the concession, in addition to the usual gameplay arguments.

Again as each turn is an entire day, how long of a lead time do you think air ops needs? Would this have not been part of the overall planning? Even if it took 20 hours of the 24 hour period, it still should not impact how far the plane could actually move. Since in an hour it can reach anywhere on the map it needed to go.

The current system requires the planes to take days (turns) to get to and from airbases. I can see the planes taking a day to refit and resupply before they can commence combat operations again. But requiring them to need several turns to get to the front at times is ridiculous.

[PKH]

What kind of aircraft are you using?

I don't mean they are ineffective because of their stats, but because it takes them ages to resupply.

[gwgardner]

So taking the first scenario of the A-A campaign, it seems there is only one air base, in the northwest corner.

If an aircraft were to be used 'realistically,' it would fly out half it's range, perform combat, then fly back to base with the other half of its movement points.

This pretty much limits air units in the first scenario to just a six or so hex radius from that single base.

This is not possible anyway, because the first move of half the range takes one action point, and combat takes another, leaving no action points for the move back to base - is that correct?

With the way it is implemented now, air units must be seen not as actual planes, but simply amorphous air points which a player can use each turn until the supply of air points has to be replenished by a return of the icon to base.

Unless this is all changed, I'm guessing one of the first mods someone is going to make will be to make unlimited air range and at least three action points per turn.

[Numdydar]

Six hexes from the base before the plane had to return [X(]? Did you look at the ME 109 stats I posted? It has an 800 Km operational range that provides a 160 hex range in GaW terms. So assume 1/3 out to the area of operations, 1/3 in the combat area, and then 1/3 home (assuming no damage or other issues) this give a 50 hex range to the front and back. How do you equate that with justifying a six hex range out and back?

If you are going to call units by historical names like ME 109 and place them in a historical setting, then you should give the player the actual capabilities versus trying to justify a design decision that makes no sense. If you wanted to use aircraft whose capabilities have nothing to do with reality, then you should NOT have called the game GaW and just said this was an PC expansion and not tried to pretend that the game is historical at all.

[PKH]

Maybe giving aircraft more suppression and less damage could be a solution. That way they would be most effective as support, but wouldn't need a restrictive range.

[ComradeP]

Are you really able to destroy a whole division using just one air attack pr round?
I doubt it, then something would be wrong with the combat algorithms IMO.

The problem appears, just like in PG, when you place air units in such a way (one on top of the enemy unit, on near it) so that you can attack the same target twice per turn, which can wear down the defender rapidly.

It is more difficult than in PG, substantially so even, but it is still possible, particularly for tactical bombers with ability bonuses engaging tanks.

Numdydar: don't forget that maximum range would mean the aircraft can fly there and back, whilst in reality would need to stay on station to provide support. That's one of the main limiting factor to tactical air operations in this era, the impact of the fuel and ammunition levels on the time the aircraft can provide effective support.

You might say "it makes no sense" but the range at which air units can be used is often less than their maximum range in wargames for the reason described above.