Air bomber units too powerful

[xriz]

How about a mechanism that makes bombing the same unit over and over less effective.

After a unit is attacked by air or a bomber unit or maybe just tactical bombers, that unit for the rest of the turn acquires plus 1 air defence and it's accumulative. You bomb a unit the first time, just like normal. If you choose to bomb it again for a second time in the turn, it now has +1 to whatever it's air defence normally is. Bomb the unit a 3rd time, it's now got +2 air defence. I think you guys get the picture. You could start off with +2 air defence after the first air attack or bombing attack, to make more of a difference. At the end of the turn, before the opposing player's turn, the plus air defence is removed.

This replicates the unit "taking cover", being more defensive now that's it's been attacked by air. It's better prepared to defend against more air attacks. The organic AA units are moved into better positions, everybody has their eyes and guns looking up.

[vonik]

ORIGINAL: 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

This horse has already been beaten to death .
SC is NOT a historically accurate game . If you want more historical, play WitE or War in the Pacific .
SC is NOT advertized as being a historical simulation nor an realistic reproduction of WWII .

SC is a strategical game in a WWII setting where only one priority matters - balance .
Without balance there would be little to no customers because very few if any people want to play a "game" where the result is known before the game starts
I think that the success of SC is precisely due to these features and people who don't like it play other games .

[Erik Rutins]

It's always ok to discuss - preserving game balance and the SC playstyle does not preclude other discussions and different players will have different preferred solutions. SC is clearly a historical game and unfolds with a lot of historical detail and a fair amount of accuracy considering it is pretty wide open as far as the "what ifs" of grand strategy. It is not intended as a simulation, but very few games are.

Regards,

- Erik

[BillRunacre]

Just to add to Erik's comments, feedback about things being too strong, too weak, or whatever, is always useful and very welcome because we aim to get the right balance between all the different arms and this feedback coupled with our own playing experience combines to enable us to assess where we might need to make adjustments.

I have some thoughts on this that I am mulling over and I don't rule out a change in this area once I've come to a decision.

Please do keep discussing this or anything else that springs to mind relating to the game. [:)]

Bill

[YohanTM2]

I just want to reinforce that I purchase games that have a strong play balance. Hence the word game. SC3 is a realistic WWII game that is fun to PBEM against humans where both sides hopefully have a good chance of winning. I know some would say the purpose is to do better than your side did in WWII but for I have no interest in playing a game where the only chance Germany has is if you are playing a weak opponent.

[James Taylor]

At the risk of making too great a change I'm going to make a suggestion to modify the multiplier of the algorithm for taking damage from bombarding units.

Obviously, an army at full strength (100%-multiplier X1) has the greatest opportunity to take damage being in a concentrated format. Corps, depends on what makes an army, 3 corps then .33 multiplier, 2 = .5. Tank groups, at least .75, as they are a little tougher to disperse, same for Mech units.

Then you've got to decide on the smaller units about what multipliers they will incur. Garrisons will be the bottom of the scale, lowest multiplier, say 0.1.

One other thing, if armies are going to be subjected to the adversity of the bombardment multiplier they should gain another skill.

I'm advocating a double strike, but using up the majority of their APs, perhaps only allowing for an advance to an enemy vacated hex. The rationalization? Armies have plenty of attached assets, additional heavy artillery, heavy tanks, anti-tanks, special weapons, which should allow them to be much more effective, perhaps the second strike should be detailed. Maybe both strikes detailed in a choice menu, like bombard-assault, or recon-assault, or diversion-attack, anyway you get my drift, something that will have different effects on the enemy unit.

Of course there is always the current, normal setting, strike and move or vice versa.

[Leadwieght]

I would like to respectfully disagree with the assertion that Tac Air is "too powerful."

Yes, when you have total air superiority and your opponent has not invested in AA research or bought any AA units to defend key points, then your ground-attack units are going to be very effective. As we all know, that's what happened historically in Poland '39, France '40 and Barbarossa (and to great extent in France '44, despite the Germans' heavy investment in Flak). But once these conditions no longer obtain, then ground attack becomes much less effective, in my experience.

I think the real concern is not Tac Air's capability per se, but the strong advantage that having several Tactical and Medium bombers upgraded to 1 and then 2 gives Germany in the early years. It's a valid game-balancing concern, but I am hopeful that the new supply rules will lessen the Wehrmacht's tactical advantage across a broad front, so that the German player will have to employ Tac Air more judiciously.

I guess I'd hate to see Tac Air weakened in order to give the Germans a handicap in the early years if it meant that the Allies suffered a similar handicap in the later years.

[James Taylor]

It (airpower) is after all the winner of the war, causing massive casualties, not to mention the other calamities of the peripheral damage.

Think of it as the "Queen of the Battlefield"(artillery) with the high ground.[;)]

[Guderian1940]

I think we should tempter Air power changes till we flesh out the new updates. Air power is important but ground takes the ground.

[crispy131313]

ORIGINAL: Guderian1940

I think we should tempter Air power changes till we flesh out the new updates. Air power is important but ground takes the ground.

I think Air Defense now stacks correct? Unit Def + Terrain Bonus + Anti Air upgrades. This was not the case when the thread started

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Crispy,

Not a full stack but the defensive bonus that a unit receives from being on a resource, can now be improved if the resource receives AA upgrades. Essentially the resource air defence improvements via AA filter through a bit to the unit as well.

Hubert