Matrix Games Forums

Playing the demo. Scenario: Typhoon Over Moscow / FOW on.

It seems the computer "cheats" regarding FOW. I did a little test by not moving any of my units on the first turn. Yet, during the Russian turn 1, IL-2's attacked arty units that should have been out of sight (eg: One of the arty units that was attacked was on the first column of hexes). Is this correct?

Also, does a fighter need to adjacent to a friendly unit in order to intercept air attacks?

Hello,

ORIGINAL: genehaynes

Playing the demo. Scenario: Typhoon Over Moscow / FOW on.

It seems the computer "cheats" regarding FOW. I did a little test by not moving any of my units on the first turn. Yet, during the Russian turn 1, IL-2's attacked arty units that should have been out of sight (eg: One of the arty units that was attacked was on the first column of hexes). Is this correct?

Also, does a fighter need to adjacent to a friendly unit in order to intercept air attacks?

the AI has been accused of cheating several times, and we also investigated this, because that was never intended so it should not happen. FOW should work equal for humans and machines.
The AI scouts and thus following roads is a logical option. It may be if you have units in towns or on roads even on the edge of a map, that you get a visit by the computer opponent.
If you find a situation that is a real proof and can be repeated, we a re glad to remove the bug.

Fighters have to be adjacent to support/defend friendly air unit.

Regards,

Seems like air units may be able to see quite far. I also experienced my artillery unit being bombed even though I retreated it out of line of sight. My solution now is to hide them under my fighters for safety until I have gained air superiority.

Hello gdrover,

ORIGINAL: gdrover

Seems like air units may be able to see quite far. I also experienced my artillery unit being bombed even though I retreated it out of line of sight. My solution now is to hide them under my fighters for safety until I have gained air superiority.

in 1.04 we decreased the view values of the aircraft to reduce this effect. Again we are happy to remove any AI behavior that is gamey if it can be reproduced.

Regards,

As a former US Army wargamer, accurately representing air power was always perplexing. But in WWII the ultimate operational recon asset was the low, fast fighter aircraft. Why not give fighters an extended spotting range (3?) on their SECOND move, i.e., when not attacking. Here are some other considerations: As a rule-
- Bombers made only one strike per sortie, salvoing their entire load on one target (ala attack bombers like the Ju87) or string/stick bombing individually timed bombs (ala most "level" bombers).
- Only photo reconnaissance air could detect camouflaged targets.
- Armed recon fighter/bombers could only detect moving vehicles, firing artillery and fixed installations (bridges, forts, airfields, etc.).
- Close air support bombers rarely saw their target and needed the strike area marked by friendly forces (usually with smoke).
- Air attacks have greater shock/suppressive effect than armor attacks against infantry/soft targets.
- Air attacks cause less damage effect than armor attacks against infantry/soft targets.

Hello AceDuceTrey,

interesting input, some of it is already in the game e.g. you need friendly ground units next to your tactical bombers for enhanced damge. As usual we think about which of the others might fit in.

Regards,