Air bomber units too powerful

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

Yes, this subject again. I have seen this concern raised by several players and I would like to add my opinion in a thread exclusively dealing with it.

In another thread Vonik said that with 3 bombers and a land unit for the final killing you can destroy pretty much any unit, and it doesn matter if your enemy has air fighters or AA units, as long as you have fighters to escort your units, you will have no problem doing this.

Vigabrand also commented that HQs, especially Soviet HQs, are very vulnerable to air attacks, and I have tested that myself both on the delivering and receiving end.

I would add that the limit to field units to AA level 2 make them even more vulnerable.

So, putting all together we have, I am afraid, a game in which Air Bomber units are the key units, you can easilly mass them in any place by "operating them" to the spot in one single turn.

The result is a game (I am talking PBEM) in which you build a very different set of units than historically. You build air units to the maximum, and tanks and mechs, but Infantry, what for? They can hold terrain but they can kill anything by themselves. So you do with a minimum of Infantry. The resulting armies and tactics have nothing to do with WW2.

Possible answers to this problem?

a) Limit the number of Air and Tank to be built.


b) Limit the damage air units can inflict, like limiting them to demoralise/de-entrench

Problem with both, you need them to kill enemy units, if you don have them game would resemble more WW1. To avoid that you would need to make units much more prone to retreat, the game would not be so much a question of kill units but of pushing them back. A much more realistic outcome for battles, no more units eliminated by air bombing, entire armies evaporating in a single turn.

And even more damaging results for units being cut off than those implemented in v1.03

Those are my suggestions, anyone having other thoughts?

[gwgardner]

Good points.

Your point a) I think is the best answer. Air units should still have some capability to destroy strength points, but less so, with more effect going to morale and readiness. It emphasizes the need for the ground forces to do most of the actual whittling down of strength points, but would also have an immediate effect on ground combat.

I'm guessing that this is all moddable rather easily. I suggest you do a mod of air attack capabilities and do some testing. Might be very beneficial to the game overall and other more general mods.

[tigercub]

air power is way is to strong! VS land units full stop.

[sPzAbt653]

b) Limit the damage air units can inflict, like limiting them to demoralise/de-entrench

653H uses this remedy, as I agree that Air Power in WWII typically had its greatest effect on disruption of enemy units, but not in reducing their combat strength. Given the stock lethality of air units and the several turns that it takes to replace destroyed units, I feel that reducing the ability of air units to cause strength casualties is reasonable.
Increasing the Retreat possibility of units may not fit with the rest of the game. I think the way that the game is designed, the player must bring the appropriate Tactical Solution to each hex to be taken. It is possible that increasing the Retreat possibility may change this.

[vonik]

The best solution is to increase the air losses when AA is present . As it is the AAs are a mild joke delivering 2-3 losses which are easily replaced .
There should be 2 kind of AA units - motorized and non motorized . The motorized could improve their AA techs to 5 and deliver massive damage .

If a bombing run costs 5-7 losses which will need 100 + MPP to replace, the result will be :
a) players will invest in AA while actually it is mostly useless and the German basically never invests in AA
b) air strikes will have to be carefully planned
c) the attacking player will have to use better his ground forces to neutralize AA and not just wait with a tank that 2 air strikes reduce the opposing unit to 4 or 5 strength and then finish it off with the tank .

My concern is that this seemingly minor tweak would very significantly increase the Russian resistance so that Germany might run in an almost impossible task on the Ostfront .

[tigercub]

i think the better option is just tame down damage done by planes on land units...1 damage in the early game is fine after fully upgraded in later game giving a 2-3 lose to a land unit is about right.

Tigercub

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: vonik

The best solution is to increase the air losses when AA is present . As it is the AAs are a mild joke delivering 2-3 losses which are easily replaced .
There should be 2 kind of AA units - motorized and non motorized . The motorized could improve their AA techs to 5 and deliver massive damage .

If a bombing run costs 5-7 losses which will need 100 + MPP to replace, the result will be :
a) players will invest in AA while actually it is mostly useless and the German basically never invests in AA
b) air strikes will have to be carefully planned
c) the attacking player will have to use better his ground forces to neutralize AA and not just wait with a tank that 2 air strikes reduce the opposing unit to 4 or 5 strength and then finish it off with the tank .

My concern is that this seemingly minor tweak would very significantly increase the Russian resistance so that Germany might run in an almost impossible task on the Ostfront .

Jep. Such a powerful frontline AA may hit the current game balance in an unpleasant way. In addition I'm not sure if such a strong (ground) air defense would be historically accurate.

Following the basic "Stone-Scissors-Paper" concept of the game the little needed Medium Bomber could be changed to a kind of heavily armored "Battle Aircraft" like the Russian Ilyushin Il-2. While the Tactical/Dive Bomber mainly reduce the strength of armored and fortified targets, the Battle Aircrafts would mainly attacking soft/hard targets. Coastal Bombers against naval units and Strategic Bombers against recources, both without (or only as a random variant) effects to land unit strength.

[vonik]

The thing is that the current game is more or less balanced for equally skilled players despite some unrealistic and some very unrealistic features .
I think that people playing SC should look for balance first and realismus last .
When it is possible to improve the balance by making some feature more realistic, then it is a bonus but one should never expect it .

The strong bombers are currently one of the most important elements of Axis balance (especially in Russia) .
Making them less performant hits only (mostly) Axis so that the balance would go towards Allies . I am not sure that the Allies really need such a strong bonus in the game as it is .
The only thing I'd see as I said above is to increase the AA performance without overpowering it .

[TheBattlefield]

The strong bombers are currently one of the most important elements of Axis balance (especially in Russia) .

If so, this would tend to indicate a continuing weakness of the game in representing fights in "cut off" sitations, rather than the need for an air unit called "Medium Bomber" and the actual use as a auxiliary tactical bomber...

[crispy131313]

In my mod Fall Weiss II I have reduced the maximum damage effectiveness of bombers against ground units to the equivalent of Ground Research Level 2, and have increased the research category to 4 levels, while also slowing research progression. The result is that it takes longer to reach a maximum effectiveness that is the equivalent of level 2 (of 3) in the default campaign.

From my experience with these changes, Bombers remain very effective but are not so overpowered and also allow the opponent to effectively try to counter with AA especially in the mid years of the war.

[Guderian1940]

I agree that the Air power is too strong in it's effect on eliminating units. I also agree that it should not remove play balance against the Germans. Increasing >2 AA tech to ground units might be a possibility that would be good for Allies in the beginning 39-42 and good for the Axis 43-45 when the Allies gain air strength. Perhaps more morale, supply loss, terrain and less actual point loss. The Axis Tanks can overrun the speed bump of a Russian level 3 heavy tank unit.

I usually buy AA tech in my games and get to 2 quickly however it seems not to prevent total unit losses, maybe more enemy losses but I am still dead. One turn to rebuild air, several to rebuild loss unit as mentioned. It saved Malta a few times. I assume the Axis Air was reduced and slowed down their attacks.

I agree that play balance and play-ability is more important that being realistic. Historical limits, choices should be respected for a good game.

This game though has a great weakness. Less about actual military tactics and more about learning the game and greatly leaning towards the tactics that take advantage of the game system such as Air power use.

Not to say it is not an interesting game, but it has potential to be even more. I thank those that listen and make thoughtful adjustments based on the numerous likes and dislikes, personal or otherwise, made.


Opinion based on MP play.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

b) Limit the damage air units can inflict, like limiting them to demoralise/de-entrench

653H uses this remedy, as I agree that Air Power in WWII typically had its greatest effect on disruption of enemy units, but not in reducing their combat strength. Given the stock lethality of air units and the several turns that it takes to replace destroyed units, I feel that reducing the ability of air units to cause strength casualties is reasonable.
Increasing the Retreat possibility of units may not fit with the rest of the game. I think the way that the game is designed, the player must bring the appropriate Tactical Solution to each hex to be taken. It is possible that increasing the Retreat possibility may change this.

So, you don´t see in your mod the effect that I was fearing, in which the game will resemble more WW1 than WW2?

[sPzAbt653]

Not at all. Planes and tanks still rule!

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: vonik

The thing is that the current game is more or less balanced for equally skilled players despite some unrealistic and some very unrealistic features .
I think that people playing SC should look for balance first and realismus last .
When it is possible to improve the balance by making some feature more realistic, then it is a bonus but one should never expect it .

The strong bombers are currently one of the most important elements of Axis balance (especially in Russia) .
Making them less performant hits only (mostly) Axis so that the balance would go towards Allies . I am not sure that the Allies really need such a strong bonus in the game as it is .
The only thing I'd see as I said above is to increase the AA performance without overpowering it .

I do not agree, I think historical realism is the most important thing in this kind of game, not play balance, or I would be playing some game with orcs and elves instead.
As for play balance, it could always be adjusted by victory conditions, I don't understand why people are worried about Germans unable to conquer Moscow in 1942, it's as it should be German player should fail to defeat Soviet Union most of the times and win only on points, avoiding total defeat by given date

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Iñaki Harrizabalagatar

As for play balance, it could always be adjusted by victory conditions, I don't understand why people are worried about Germans unable to conquer Moscow in 1942, it's as it should be German player should fail to defeat Soviet Union most of the times and win only on points, avoiding total defeat by given date

Never again a German victory by dominance, but only a dated delay of the downfall? Even such a victory condition would have to be balanced by events, income and OOB, right? Is it a real difference, whether some players complain about Moscow is too easy or too difficult to take, or if Berlin falls too fast or too slow? But an additional adjustment of the difficulty level by victory conditions, of course, would be a possibility.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

There is difference between Moscow or Berlin falling, the chances should be very different. What I mean is that the priority should be historical accuracy within the limits of the game mechanics, and then adjust play balance throughou victory conditions

[Sugar]

Game balance has been possible in the predecessors like SCWWI Breakthrough Storm over Europe as well as in AoD. I don`t see a reason why that shouldn`t be the case in SCWWII.

Historically alternates should be possible, if the player makes better decisions than history.

In my experience from now over 10 MPs I don`t think the Axis to be extremly in advantage, but a little bit, with those bombers being one of the reasons.

But one has to recognize that the buildlimit of tanks is also small compared to the predec., and something is badly needed as a damagedealer.

My suggestion is to reduce the buildlimits of med/tac. bombers (in total, not each) and mech. by one, but enlarge the buildlimit of med. tanks and fighters also by 1.

[James Taylor]

I have long been a proponent of bombers(as well as other bombarding units) having less effectiveness on ground units the smaller their deployment footprint. When a unit is reduced in size and effectiveness due to combat it should have a lesser chance of taking additional damage.

Being in a dispersed condition, the reduced ground units would have a greater chance of being cornered and rendered "combat ineffective" (unit eliminated)by enemy ground units with air units(others) still having a small chance of removing them from the current curriculum.

[TheBattlefield]

When a unit is reduced in size and effectiveness due to combat it should have a lesser chance of taking additional damage.

Interesting idea. Unfortunately, a decreasing efficiency for selected units and weakened targets can not be set via the editor and requires programming.

Being in a dispersed condition, the reduced ground units would have a greater chance of being cornered and rendered "combat ineffective" (unit eliminated)by enemy ground units with air units(others) still having a small chance of removing them from the current curriculum.

Should not it be the other way round? Artillery fire and bombardment become more inefficient the more the target unit is decimated and dispersed? And precisely ground units, especially infantry, are necessary to eliminate these weakened units?

[James Taylor]

Yep, it will take the ground pounders to get "up close and personal" to vanquish the remnants.