Is air power too strong against ground units??

[Delphinium]

I know I started this thread back in testing reading early AAR's, but I still get frustrated at the power of aircraft to clear whole countries of their garrison to allow a "walk in" invasion by the regimental mascot and the pipe band. All the Sealion strategies are based on this type of operation as well as the invasion of Sardinia/Sicily etc. If it had been that easy, then Normandy would have been a shoe-in, hmmm.

I would like to see the combat system changed to mean that aircraft attacking ground units without being part of a combined attack reduced severely in effectiveness. This could also be married into combined arms bonuses on land getting rid of some of the tech issues with super tanks etc.

An even more extreme feature I would not be unhappy about would be the removal of the ability of aircraft only stacks to conduct general attacks.. They can still destroy enemy aircraft, damage infrastructure, but not wipe out tens of thousands of troops in devastating attacks - just like happened in WW2 [;)]

[hakon]

I agree that aircraft are way too strong vs infantry, though i think this was done for commercial reasons (people like to see their american planes blowing things up).

Personally, i think that ground attack strength of aircraft should be reduced at least by 1, but then the cost (manpower especially) should be taken down to compensate. If they were cheap, getting that first hit could be enough, perhaps killing some artillery.

IRL, aircraft were pretty powerfull vs tanks. I am still not sure how to implement this in the game. One possiblity is to say that aircraft attacks penetrate armor, and give a higher armor rating and lower evasion rating to tanks. (Aircraft bombs should penetrate ship armor, too, imo, as dive bombers did significant damage to battleships). This would require a code change, though, so i cannot mod it myself.

[ratprince]

I think the point you guys might be missing about the airpower is this...

Germany, for example, starts with 5 fighters, 2 tac and 3 heavy bombers. This represents the ENTIRE LUFTWAFFE! which was a feared thing in 1940. If it, in its 1940 incarnation is so powerful, why is it a leap to assume if it is larger it will not be even more powerful?

I mean, the German player can crank out airpower and get a force of a dozen tac and fighters. This is 3 to 4 times as large as the starting airforce. If germany focuses SOLELY on this aspect, why is it hard to assume they couldnt pound an area into mash?

I think the main problem with some views of the game is that things that did not happen historically, happen in the game. To me, this is an odd complaint. If you dont want to see "ahistorical" events, then....watch the History channel... ya know? I dont think it is "gamey" or unrealistic for most of things people complain about. If it didnt happen historically, well, then they just didnt go that strategic route or want to risk that gambit....

Later

Mike

[hakon]

The 1940 luftwaffe was pretty insignificant compared to RAF or USAF in 1945. Still, in 1945, not even massed allied bombers could take out corps sized infantry formations. (Heck, they still can't, even in 2005). What they _can_ do, is totally disrupting supply and infrastructure, as well as force the infantry to stay dug in, but once dug in, infantry only takes light losses from air.

Airpower coordinated with ground troops otoh, is very effective.

[raydude]

Part of the problem, as I understand it, is that people are thinking too narrowly in terms of the game results and the fact that the game results are too limiting in terms of portraying reality.

The game can portray the results of a bombing attack as one of three results:

no effect
damaged unit
destroyed unit

Yet we all know that in real life it wasn't that simple to determine the results of a determined bombing campaign - especially one against ground units. A damaged unit can easily represent the inability of a regiment or division to advance or maintain a presence. In real life units did not retreat all the way to a factory when damaged so why think that is all that is being represented here? Being damaged means that for a given period of time that unit is unable to commit to operations in its given region. For all intents and purposes it doesn't exist in the region! The movement of the "repaired" unit back to its original region represents the strain of trying to maintain logistical supplies in the face of a bombing campaign.

A destroyed unit similarly need not mean the physical destruction of all the soldiers in that unit. Especially not at this scale. It could certainly mean that the companies in the unit are hunkered down and unable to do anything. Thus, the question becomes, how do you represent the fact that all the companies of a unit are hunkered down, unsupplied, and willing to surrender to the first enemy unit to come along?

The simple answer: you mark it as destroyed. Which, for all intents and purposes, at the scale of the map, in the time slice that each turn represents (3 months) it is.

[messydiner]

I like the idea of making plane attacks ignore armour ratings (or reduce them). It would help against the super-tank problem, and makes some sense from a RL point of view - Tiger tanks were all but invulnerable to Sherman guns (at least from the front), but their top armour wasn't so great.

I also agree that planes shouldn't be able to wipe out whole companies of soliders. Maybe the durability of infantry could be boosted against air attacks?

It would be nice to see a compeletly seperate "air defense" stat for units, but that would probably be a huge amount of work to code into the game.

[Delphinium]

ORIGINAL: mike mcmann

I think the point you guys might be missing about the airpower is this...

Germany, for example, starts with 5 fighters, 2 tac and 3 heavy bombers. This represents the ENTIRE LUFTWAFFE! which was a feared thing in 1940. If it, in its 1940 incarnation is so powerful, why is it a leap to assume if it is larger it will not be even more powerful?

I mean, the German player can crank out airpower and get a force of a dozen tac and fighters. This is 3 to 4 times as large as the starting airforce. If germany focuses SOLELY on this aspect, why is it hard to assume they couldnt pound an area into mash?

I think the main problem with some views of the game is that things that did not happen historically, happen in the game. To me, this is an odd complaint. If you dont want to see "ahistorical" events, then....watch the History channel... ya know? I dont think it is "gamey" or unrealistic for most of things people complain about. If it didnt happen historically, well, then they just didnt go that strategic route or want to risk that gambit....

Later

Mike

Mike, I don't disagree with the strength of the Luftwaffe numerically and that potentially, if pilot training had been expanded etc it could have fielded a multiple of that strength. As to the ability of it to totally destroy the combat effectiveness of a static army of some size is the dubious aspect of the system. The argument is that combat airpower on its own was not capable at the time of destroying units in that way. The allies in Normandy stopped the panzers from moving, but never actually destroyed troops like in the game. I don't mind it being effective in mixed combat, tanks and troops are vulnerable when moving around. That was the point.

I like the last comment, but the counter is that if you want fantasy watch Hercules or Xena [;)]
I don't want to be limited, but paradoxically the effect of the problems I feel the game has actually becomes a restriction in that certain near historical things cannot take place due to gamey aspects.

[SeaMonkey]

Guys, don't miss the point raydude most eloquently and accurately made. The effects of combat operations are limited and abstracted in this game scale, even on the level of the operational scale the effects of airpower are simulated by the disruption and ineffectiveness of the units sustaining the successful attack. Remember, airpower is just another dimensional application of explosive force, like artillery from the air.

[Delphinium]

I read Raydudes post and it was eloquently put, but missed our point. Airpower apperas to be too effective when attacking land units on their own. Attack with air/land/sea combined and fine, but we have the wholesale hoovering of whole army corps by airpower (I've done it myself as Germany) and it doesn't hang right. All I want is to scale down the effectiveness of unsupported air attacks on ground troops. The game claims to be better than Axix & Allies, but is worse in realism on this aspect in many ways!

Raydude still didn't address the bomb 50 divisions into oblivion so that the regimental mascot accepts their surrender issue. Until that gets addressed.

His point about a unit being rendered ineffective by air attack when in defensive mode, find me an example CLOSE to this in reality - the WW2 airforces did not posess the capacity. If we want the blowing up of troops by aircraft, do it the context of combined arms attacks only - simulate blitzkreig that way, it better fits the scale of the game.

[ratprince]

Delph,

I have to disagree.

Being associated with the US military during some of its recent "conflicts", airpower CAN and assuredly will destroy ground units on a vast scale.

What you are missing is that the initial Luftwaffe (or other power) is not strong enough for this "wholesale destruction" as you put it. The player must actively pursue and develop an air arm that is of this frightening power. (similar to the modern US airpower) If the player is successful in his/her attempt at tech and production of a vast, deadly airforce, then it SHOULD be able to inflict horrific casualties. As for it not being realistic, well, if you devote enough research to an area, it "becomes" a potential.

In all honesty, the effect of modern airpower is...ugly, to say the least (modern including 1940s). You just have to take the leap that devoting that research into airpower and then chugging them out, thus creating a powerful air force would have been possible.

later

MIke

[Delphinium]

ORIGINAL: mike mcmann

Delph,

I have to disagree.

Being associated with the US military during some of its recent "conflicts", airpower CAN and assuredly will destroy ground units on a vast scale.

What you are missing is that the initial Luftwaffe (or other power) is not strong enough for this "wholesale destruction" as you put it. The player must actively pursue and develop an air arm that is of this frightening power. (similar to the modern US airpower) If the player is successful in his/her attempt at tech and production of a vast, deadly airforce, then it SHOULD be able to inflict horrific casualties. As for it not being realistic, well, if you devote enough research to an area, it "becomes" a potential.

In all honesty, the effect of modern airpower is...ugly, to say the least (modern including 1940s). You just have to take the leap that devoting that research into airpower and then chugging them out, thus creating a powerful air force would have been possible.

later

MIke

We'll have to agree to disagree then. The only successful attempt at obliterating troops via airpower in WW2 was in the breakout where a relatively thin line of defenders was rendered temporarily ineffective to the large quantity of US troops who came straight in behind it.
After several attempts, even the Air Force heirarchy in WW2 didn't believe it could be effective in that way. The current USAF can disable a modern enemy a la Iraq, but that is tech 50+ years on and we know how fast tech advances now.

All I want is to heavily reduce the effect of solo air attacks wiping out vast numbers of divisions of troops. I want the same as you, a game better than Axis & Allies, but in this area, I feel it falls very short indeed.

[ratprince]

I agree to disagree! [;)]

All I want is to see the airpower system remain the same as it is. I think it is as realistic as a game of this scope can be.

Later

Mike

[MrQuiet]

Given a choice, I would choose a rule that air alone can not do a general attack. They could do all the other attacks or participate in a general attack with ground forces.

Just my opinion.

-MrQuiet

[pyrhic]

It'd be nice if air could have an interdiction effect on infantry(milita too) instead of destroying them. That would seem to please all sides...The interdiction would reduce the effectiveness of the infantry without destroying them while still maintaining a threat against armor.

Strategically this could be useful to hamper an impending/perceived attack....

[Toby42]

I remember that SC had airpower dominate the game. Whoever developed and built the most air, won the game. This is totally gamey and un-realistic IMHO. It seems as though GGWAW may be headed in that direction. I hope that they tone down the whole research side of this game. I would rather see research follow a more historical capability path, if that is possible.

[IDrinkBeer]

Given a choice, I would choose a rule that air alone can not do a general attack.

I'm not yet convinced that airpower is throwing the game completely out of whack. Granted, it looks like a couple of combat values probably need to be tweeked but the basic game model is sound.

The change that is suggested above will lead to even more gamey tactics.....

Can you say:

"1 militia and 15 bombers coming at ya!!!"

Of course the reply will be something like...

"The number of air units in a general battle can never be more than the number of ground units."

Rules, rules and more rules...

A slippery slope indeed.

[:D][:D][:D]

[SeaMonkey]

Leave the air model alone for the time being..way to early to draw conclusions.

Besides, there is a mechanism to deal with it, ground troops research evasion, bring in highly developed AAA for air attack as well as fighters, ...scissors will cut the paper.

While your teching that air with all your resources, I'll make you pay in another arena.

ie. I'll bomb your resources to oblivion, airplanes don't fly with out fuel, and that's just one option.

[pyrhic]

not necessarily...i know what he means. In a recent game, I enacted an attack against the low countries. It had 6 units in it including 2AA and artillery - good enough to withstand a pretty good sea assault. I hit it with massed bombers(10 i think) wiping out everything and walked in with one infantry - capturing the zone, and destroying the rail and resources for him (spoiling raid).

Abstractly, could 3 months of bombing so utterly destroy the occupation force to allow invaders to land and seize the area? ummmm...

this is why i like the idea of bombers causing interdiction points (if it could be done)...that arty and aa would have been destroyed, but i'd still have to move in at least 2 units (thought 3 or 4 for surety) and needing 4+ transports instead of 2 to destroy the existing forces and invade (likely with few losses)....this is beginning to sound more like D-Day than the original scenario..

[Panzeh]

I'd like to see bombers bombing supply stocks and factories before destroying units.

[Joel Billings]

Air is expensive to build and tech up. Fighters and flak are much cheaper. My fundamental assumption is that you can make an opponent's airpower heavy strategy very expensive. That said, we are changing the evasion/durabilty values of the allied heavy bombers in the next patch (to 5/3 from 4/4). My father was an artillery observer for the Americans in Europe. He didn't think much of strategic bombing, but he always talked very gratefully about air superiority and tactical air support. He always thought that they made the difference in the battles in France (along with the artillery of course, but then he had his own set of biases).