Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Chuck2
Has anyone tried moving AA units first to try hitting the air interdiction units and taking them out before moving ground troops?

Yeah, me. In Campaign for South Vietnam the Allied Air Power is overwhelming so the way for the VC/NVA to go is to every turn, move the AAA units first if only back and forth to get the interdiction aircraft to work themselves into a frenzy and shoot some of them down and get the rest to go into reorg. Once the air threat is neutralized somewhat THEN you can move the rest of the ground stuff. It's kinda tough on the AAA units but what the heck, it works.

Great tip! I get pounded by interdiction aircraft in Korea 50-51 when playing as NK. Now I can move some units by rail without having them disembarked from air attacks.

Wow- THAT is gamey. Something ought to be done.

Doesn't seem gamey to me. What it does is get the AA units to do something other than attack ground units. Given this is a turn-based operational game, you can't represent the AA units moving around to attack aircraft as they are concentrated on a given hex.

Something else that you can do when the enemy has superiority...

Stay off the roads.

Don't ride around on trains.

Kind of makes sense, doesn't it?

Sort of. What about night time?

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

Something else that you can do when the enemy has superiority...

Stay off the roads.

Don't ride around on trains.

These are the things the player should be encouraged to do (add avoid moving during daylight and try to find cloud cover). But no- the player can just potter around with his AA and break the back of the interdiction effect, then go on to move the rest of his units freely.

Naturally, AA should have an impact on the effectiveness of interdiction- but the way it does it currently seems extreme. The interdiction shouldn't just be attacking the AA, it should be attacking other units and sometimes getting hit by the AA in the process.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
These are the things the player should be encouraged to do (add avoid moving during daylight and try to find cloud cover).

Now, this is gamey. I've not heard of units on the move attempting to find "cloud cover" before. Generally if it is cloudly 5km to the northwest, it won't be sunny 5k to the northeast. Even it was, it wouldn't stay like that for a day or more.

But no- the player can just potter around with his AA and break the back of the interdiction effect, then go on to move the rest of his units freely.

This is fine under the present regime - represents AA units "interacting" with bombers and fighter-bombers out on interdiction missions.

I can understand the objection to the "gamey" aspect of moving AA units around just to shoot down / damage the interdiction missions before moving the rest of the units because, depending on the specific equipment in the AA unit, some AA units aren't "mobile". Some AA units can be set up quickly but probably not before potential targets are long gone. Some AA units ARE mobile, like the Self Propelled AA tracks that have quad mounted 50's or something like that. SAM sites are definately not mobile and I notice that if I go to move a unit that has SAM sites a pop-up pops up to ask me if I want to lose the SAMs before I committ to the move. So maybe we should make a house rule or something, or maybe potential opponents should discuss the situation before using a tactic such as moving AA units just to neutralize the interdictors before moving the rest of his/her units.

Using AA self-propelled units to fire at interdicting airplanes is OK with me.
Maybe AA units wich includes transport could be programmed to behave like entrained units when on the move,
ie firing at 25% effect or something?
When designing scenarios I sometimes put the AA units in their own formations on internal support and maybe in garrison mode. This way they will stay and protect their objectives and won't contribute too much in a land-attack.

Cloud cover is also very useful to know when you're trying bridge attacks, especially in a serious program of it like in Normandy in 1944. You'll note that your odds of success are reduced if there's cloud over the bridge, so it pays to know this and factor it in.

IIRC very useful to know in 2 Weeks in Normandy to stop German reinforcements getting there too quickly.

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

Now, this is gamey. I've not heard of units on the move attempting to find "cloud cover" before. Generally if it is cloudly 5km to the northwest, it won't be sunny 5k to the northeast. Even it was, it wouldn't stay like that for a day or more.

Generally the cloud is so evenly dispersed that this doesn't work in TOAW. But one can wait for a cloudy day to move.

This is fine under the present regime - represents AA units "interacting" with bombers and fighter-bombers out on interdiction missions.

No. For one thing, the effect of AA on the whole is not to shoot down planes- it's to make the planes very leery of flying low, slow, straight and level, and thereby making them less deadly.

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

When designing scenarios I sometimes put the AA units in their own formations on internal support and maybe in garrison mode. This way they will stay and protect their objectives and won't contribute too much in a land-attack.

Yeah. That's good practice. The ground attack figures on AA guns in TOAW are too lethal on the whole. They're not all "dual purpose"

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

Now, this is gamey. I've not heard of units on the move attempting to find "cloud cover" before. Generally if it is cloudly 5km to the northwest, it won't be sunny 5k to the northeast. Even it was, it wouldn't stay like that for a day or more.

Generally the cloud is so evenly dispersed that this doesn't work in TOAW. But one can wait for a cloudy day to move.

No, it isn't. Unless you trigger the storm event, the clouds are not anywhere close to evenly dispersed. I've seen some top ladder players even suggest to turn the weather map on so you can avoid interdiction hits. This is gamey.

This is fine under the present regime - represents AA units "interacting" with bombers and fighter-bombers out on interdiction missions.

No. For one thing, the effect of AA on the whole is not to shoot down planes- it's to make the planes very leery of flying low, slow, straight and level, and thereby making them less deadly.

Sure, but to repeat - under the present regime, it represents AA units "interacting" with bombers and fighter-bombers. It would be better if AA units had some more realistic behavior, but they don't presently.

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

Sure, but to repeat - under the present regime, it represents AA units "interacting" with bombers and fighter-bombers. It would be better if AA units had some more realistic behavior, but they don't presently.

I agree, but it isn't simply that AA units need more realistic behavior, but that there would need to be a much more complex regime of path tracing of air units from base to target, that allows AA units within those flight paths to be able to target overflying planes. That would require quite a rewriting of code. Maybe for TOAW IV...[;)]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

Sure, but to repeat - under the present regime, it represents AA units "interacting" with bombers and fighter-bombers. It would be better if AA units had some more realistic behavior, but they don't presently.

I agree, but it isn't simply that AA units need more realistic behavior, but that there would need to be a much more complex regime of path tracing of air units from base to target, that allows AA units within those flight paths to be able to target overflying planes. That would require quite a rewriting of code. Maybe for TOAW IV...[;)]

OK, we've come full circle then. Given that this probably won't be rewritten anytime soon, it seems OK if players move around their available AA units to weaken ground interdiction by air units.

ORIGINAL: Chuck2
OK, we've come full circle then. Given that this probably won't be rewritten anytime soon, it seems OK if players move around their available AA units to weaken ground interdiction by air units.

Sounds fine to me, especially since interdiction attacks are conducted on a per unit basis, and don't take into account any assets from other units stacked in the hex. I'd have to double-check, but I'm pretty sure that they are not even triggering ranged SAM responses either.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I agree, but it isn't simply that AA units need more realistic behavior, but that there would need to be a much more complex regime of path tracing of air units from base to target, that allows AA units within those flight paths to be able to target overflying planes. That would require quite a rewriting of code. Maybe for TOAW IV...[;)]

This isn't such a big deal- aircraft en-route to target are not going to get shot at by most AAA, because they're flying high and generally over open country, and can concentrate on not being shot down rather than worrying about trying to bomb anyone. What you COULD do is give range to the AAA units just the same as with SAMs.

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Wow- THAT is gamey. Something ought to be done.

..oh well, another one of my ploys gets classed as gamey [:(]

..of course, only moving each unit one hex at a time also helps avoid interdiction, as does staying under the clouds, off roads and in heavy cover..

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..of course, only moving each unit one hex at a time also helps avoid interdiction..

Really? I wondered about that. It seemed that if I moved a unit one hex and it didn't get attacked that perhaps it'd be okay to move it "the rest of the way" but that didn't always work out as I planned. Maybe there IS something to moving a unit one hex at a time.

Could that be classified as "gamey" though? Just working around the game mechanics instead of concentrating on the tactical / strategic "big" questions that might be "more important"?

Another thing that used to be considered "gamey" is using a single unit, usually AA or AntiTank units, to attack ( at minimum losses ) with loads of supporting arty and / or air power. Mostly to attack a MUCH larger stack of stuff. Usually the attacker gets away with minor losses and the attackee gets whacked badly. But if the attack is tried with no arty and / or airpower the result is usually lopsided the other way with the attacker getting whacked badly. This doesn't seem "gamey" to me. It's just another example of the good use of force multipliers being employed properly. What say you?