Aviation Units and Hex Occupation

[johnvmcnichols1973]

So far the game is good. One major issue I have is aviation units are being treated as combat units. Aviation units should NOT occupy a hex. Ground units should be able to occupy the same hex. This reperesnts the defense of airfields and air units do not take up that much space. Plus, the air units fight as ground combat units. Since when does an aviation unit get to hold off an armored unit? There should be a roll to see if the aviation unit automatically retreats (with r without damage) or is overrun. The map is simply too small to treat these units this way.

[FroBodine]

This is a very good point. I'm curious, what say the developers?

[ataquerojo]

Totally agree, it's a weird thing defend choke points using only fighters and bombers.

[Patrat]

On the eastern front at least, Luftwaffe units often had considerable Luftwaffe ground forces attached for local security. I've recently read one account about how a Luftwaffe security detachment destroyed dozens of russian tanks that attacked their base.

[xwormwood]

Air units can take some beatings on the ground, but no one with a clear mind would use them to defend anything. It is absurd expensive and they suffer heavily from attacks.
Ground staff and the garisson to watch the airfield can put up some kind of defence if attacked. But if a well supplied unit attacks them, the air units faces destruction.
If the air unit is full entrenchend, the weather is bad, and the attacker exhausted, than the air unit might be able to hold the first attack off without too many losses. The attack itself didn't had much more than scouting quality, and will be repulsed.

[BillRunacre]

If attacked by a land unit, there is a 50% chance of the air unit retreating.

Air units are best kept behind the front lines, but occasionally events overtake them and they are caught on the ground with a high chance of destruction.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

I think the main question here though is why? Why do support units like air formations occupy a hex at the expense of a ground unit being able to do so as well? It seems a no-brainer that they should stack with a ground unit, as it's a very hard sell to convince anyone that the air formations represented by a counter would have taken up so much space (physically and logistically) to preclude any ground units being located in the same area. I mean, in reality, ground formations and air formations happily shared the area represented by one of the game's hexes.

I suspect it's an engine limitation. That is, once you decide to not have stacking, you don't have stacking, and it's too complex (for the AI in particular, I'm guessing) to have exceptions for air units. I'm sure it makes no difference in the overall scheme of things--as noted above, you adapt your play style to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of different units--but to gamers, it's really very odd.

[Numdydar]

+1

Especially since the hexes represent so much territory.

[johnvmcnichols1973]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand why in a strategic game where the hexes represent so much territory, why you would have Air units occupy the entire hex. There have been several occasions now where I have broken through the enemies lines, had an armored or mech unit encounter an aviation unit and take losses as if it encountered an infantry unit. The AI will then move the unit on the next turn. But also, I've seen valuable hex space, where a ground unit might want to retreat to, occupied by a bomber unit and the ground unit can't move there. Seems a bit odd. Here is the deal, this game has the potential for greatness with its playability for even casual fans. But what pushes me away is that it's too "unrealistic" with this air unit, he's hex space issue. It's prob too late to make any major changes. I was hoping for something not so like Panzer General. The air units should automatically roll to retreat or take damage then retreat, or be overrun and destroyed. This will keep the player or AI from keeping them too close to the front, and keep them from stopping. A major breakthrough by stopping a large armored unit in its tracks.

[n0kn0k]

The air units should automatically roll to retreat or take damage then retreat, or be overrun and destroyed.

There is actually a 50% chance of retreating. Otherwise the unit will get wrecked for alot of strength points.

[johnvmcnichols1973]

I agree totally. And it's most likely an engine limitation. And that's a shame as this game had some real potential to be great. It just seems as far as combat to be on par with Panzer General when you can stack those kinds of units. I haven't purchased an engineer unit yet, but does that operate the same way? SF too? Those should be additions to the units much in the same manner as you upgrade them. You should simply purchase and attach engineers and SF units or other support type units, like arty.

[AstroCat]

Yeah I tend to agree there should be some kind of "stacking" for these kinds of units, especially when playing at this scale. PG/PC works pretty good I think with 2 layers.

[jimkehn]

Guys I think we are getting WAYYYY too analytical. Zones of control have typically impeded movement and supply trace etc. Yet there are NO units in the hex. We have no problem rationalizing that these ZOC's
represent "detachments" of squads or platoons......machine gun nests.....etc extending the flanks of the main unit into the adjacent hex. Could it not be that in the air force hex resides a couple divisions? Something less than a Corps? And these "detachments" serve to not only garrison the terrain in the hex but more importantly, the airbase? Would not a prudent commander assure that his airbase is sufficiently
protected? Hubert, my guess, chose, rather than invent some hybrid Air/Inf combo type Nato or 3D symbol to just use an air counter to symbolize the type and strength of the aircraft in the hex along with its accompanying defense detachments. I see an airbase as coming with a complement of Infantry defenders and therefore, when you run into an airbase you don't just run into hangars full of planes but also the grunts protecting them. Don't let this over analysis take away your enjoyment of what so far, seems to be a very fantastic game.
Now then are the airbases over powered? That is a more legitimate discussion IMO. I don't know as I have had little experience overrunning an air base at this point. I am just enjoying the game for what it is. Thanks Devs for making a playable strategic game of WWII that contains plenty of depth.

[Grotius]

Yeah, my assumption is that the air units abstractly represent attached ground troops as well. They're not particularly robust as ground units, in any case.

[Capitaine]

I agree that too much is being made of this, for this game. We know there's no stacking so it is what it is. Same could be said for naval units and HQs. If *realism* were the absolute guide then yes, these support units -- and probably many others -- should be able to stack. But the game is effective as is and if handled properly the air units don't create a big problem. I agree that abstractly, there likely are security troops protecting the air units that provide a token resistance against ground attack. Just not a big deal in the grand scheme. (I would note that PzGen had an air mode toggle that permitted air and ground units to stack; that didn't give me a problem either so it depends on the design philosophy.)

[stockwellpete]

I am just on my first run through with the game and I had a situation where the German army was going through Belgium and an Allied aircraft unit was caught in the front line. It was badly damaged in one turn, but then instead of flying off somewhere for repairs, it stayed put, got reinforced, and then was completely destroyed on the next turn. There were French army units behind it that could have engaged the enemy instead. It did seem a bit odd to me, notwithstanding some of the suggestions here that are saying that their would be other troops with the planes. I would prefer it if aircraft always flew off to a safer area.

A related issue is the lack of designated airfields in the game. What do people think about this? I played the old Hearts of Iron 2 quite a bit and that had airfields (and the stacking of air units) in it. That seemed to work quite well.

[Goodmongo]

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

A related issue is the lack of designated airfields in the game. What do people think about this? I played the old Hearts of Iron 2 quite a bit and that had airfields (and the stacking of air units) in it. That seemed to work quite well.

Think more along the lines of Panzer General for air and naval than HOI series.

[elmo3]

Perhaps no stacking allows the AI to play a better game. If that is the case then I'm happy to live with the abstraction.

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Yeah, my assumption is that the air units abstractly represent attached ground troops as well. They're not particularly robust as ground units, in any case.

Oh no, you level those things to 4 or 5 and it puts up a hell of a ground combat defense. That seems to be a problem.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: ILCK

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Yeah, my assumption is that the air units abstractly represent attached ground troops as well. They're not particularly robust as ground units, in any case.

Oh no, you level those things to 4 or 5 and it puts up a hell of a ground combat defense. That seems to be a problem.

Hi

If you see upgraded air units putting up a fight like that when attacked by ground units please send me a save via either WeTransfer or email to Bill.Runacre@FurySoftware.com as there are no upgrades that should increase their ability to put up a good ground defense.

It could be possible for a highly experienced air unit in a good position (e.g. well entrenched) and with HQ support to survive better, but it should still be a one-sided fight unless it is being attacked by a weak or unsupplied land unit.

Thanks

Bill