Matrix Games Forums

So I've been wondering about how these two units work.
Should they really be in the game?

Antiaircraft
They add a certain amount to the game - particularly in multiplayer (they're very unusual in single player, in my experience).

However....
- AA units duplicate the fact that you can (and, probably should) upgrade most units and all resource with AA
- Against low-tech ground units, AA units are also pretty good as 'stalling' pieces. Most ground units have a low attack against AA, so you can safely put the AA in the front line, if you're in a tight spot. It's less likely to die than a Corps and even if it does it's cheaper to rebuild.
- also, they're not very historical (particularly in the light of the above)

Strategic Bombers
My issue here is that Strats are used heavily for highly ahistorical purposes. They are most often used for 'interdiction', i.e. bombing the Supply of an enemy resource down as far as you like. This is most often used in Africa and the Middle East, where supply values tend to be capped at 5 to start with. Virtually no-one bothers with actual industrial warfare, using bombers to attack mines or industry - in part because the bomber counters are more useful to stop the advance of the Africa Korps, in part because if you try to attack an industrial area you'll probably find an enemy AA unit sitting on top of it.

Which is more or less the diametric opposite of the historical strategic bombers, which were fairly useful when applied against a target the size of the Ruhr industrial zone but were relatively unlikely to actually hit a target the size of Tobruk harbour. Interdiction was certainly a thing, late-war, but not on this scale.


So...
Both of these things are part of the game as we know it, and full credit to players who use them well. But neither reflects historical WW2. Maybe they should be changed?
* Delete AA units so Resource and Unit AA tech is more important, as is fighter superiority
* Increase the power of Strats to do genuine industrial warfare - increase the MPP penalty you take if a high-MPP resource is bombed
* Reduce the ability of Strategic Bombing to deplete resource supply. Possibly by putting a threshold the Strategic Bombing reduction of Supply on any resource to 3 or so?

I will take on the AA part. The Germans, at least, employed large formations of Luftwaffe Flak troops, "Flak Corps", so the units do not appear to be ahistorical in and of themselves.

In game terms, they do operate differently than a unit's indigenous AA, so there is not an exact duplication there game mechanic-wise. Maybe the added level of protection they provide is overkill, but I think it evolved from the dominant position aircraft had in this game for a long time. You would have to be careful scaling it back, unintended game balance issues are sure to crop up.

The Flak Corps were frequently pressed into ground combat(especially in the Anti-tank role), so again the Germans have a historical basis for their units. These were very effective defensive units, in fact, I wouldn't mind seeing them be more effective against armor then they currently are.

I would have to do some research to determine if the other powers used units like this. In this game, if a country did not historically field a unit, it does not show up as available to buy on their menu, like the US can't buy Mechanized Infantry. If no historical basis can be found for the other powers fielding large-scale mobile AA units, you could make an argument that AA units should be deleted from the applicable menus. These countries would then have to rely on their units indigenous AA for defense, as you suggest. Game balance, however, is likely to raise it's ugly head once again. Could you defend against a Sealion with no AA units? Could the Soviets slow down the Blitzkrieg without AA units? Both are likely to be problematic..

I suppose you could argue that for all that they do, they are too cheap at only 100mpps. But their inability to attack makes the cost appropriate, I think. They are completely passive. Or, if placed in a frontal position in a defensive line, maybe passive-aggressive at worst.[:D]

AA units are not completely realistic, I will grant you, but adding this bit of reality will cause more problems than it will fix, I believe. And the Germans would have to keep their units in any case, to be fair, as they really had them.

Another bit that is unrealistic is that if your AA responds to an attack which they always will first your fighters will not respond at all! So it is almost worse to have an AA unit in some places.

ORIGINAL: Markiss

The Flak Corps were frequently pressed into ground combat(especially in the Anti-tank role), so again the Germans have a historical basis for their units. These were very effective defensive units, in fact, I wouldn't mind seeing them be more effective against armor then they currently are.

Already planned for my mod (by adding A-T tech to the units in question), not to worry. They won't be as good as default A-T units, but they'll be serviceable in said role.

ORIGINAL: Markiss

I will take on the AA part. The Germans, at least, employed large formations of Luftwaffe Flak troops, "Flak Corps", so the units do not appear to be ahistorical in and of themselves.

Yes they did... but those were weird units, performing a mixture of AA, anti-tank and indirect-fire artillery roles - and they were neither excellent at any of them nor cheap. I suspect they wouldn't have existed at all if it wasn't for the particular dysfunctions of the relationship between the Luftwaffe and the Heer.

What they didn't do was behave the same way as an in-game AA unit, which inflicts heavy losses on attacking air units. You didn't have Allied pilots quaking at the presence of the Flak Corps in Normandy, for instance... indeed it's scarcely mentioned in most histories. Nor were they good 'stalling' units - in fact they don't seem to have been employed as a concentrated formation (unlike artillery or AT units).

I do take the game balance argument - though surely that could be addressed by improving unit or resource AA values.

Anyone willing to make a case for the current implementation of the Strategic Bomber?

Cities/Ports/etc at level 4/5 AA are quite effective against Strat Bomber attacks.

The most useful function of the strat bomber for me is recon - fly those bad boys over a route and they show you everything along it to 3 hexes wide. Very useful. I'm not sure they were used for that in RL but they sure do a good job in the game.

ORIGINAL: El_Condoro

The most useful function of the strat bomber for me is recon - fly those bad boys over a route and they show you everything along it to 3 hexes wide. Very useful. I'm not sure they were used for that in RL but they sure do a good job in the game.

Exactly... uses of strategic bombers include just about everything apart from bombing your opponent's industrial centres!

ORIGINAL: The Land

ORIGINAL: El_Condoro

The most useful function of the strat bomber for me is recon - fly those bad boys over a route and they show you everything along it to 3 hexes wide. Very useful. I'm not sure they were used for that in RL but they sure do a good job in the game.

Exactly... uses of strategic bombers include just about everything apart from bombing your opponent's industrial centres!

I think the changes you are suggesting would require a major overhaul to the game. SC3 doesn't really concentrate on Industrial Production Centers (Oil,Steel, etc) or manpower.

Historically its debatable how effective Allied bombing were in reducing German Industrial Production or if that was really the intent. Some argue the bombing were more to reduce German morale and in retaliation for Axis bombings in GB. Unfortunately the bombings on both sides resulted in enormous civilian deaths.

In the end neither the German bombings of GB nor the Allied bombings of Germany accomplished the goal of reducing morale.

I find Strat bombers in SC3, although expensive, to be excellent in reducing enemy advances and defenses and an important part of the game.