An airpower opinion.

Fans of the old Panzer General series rejoice for the release of Panzer Corps. Following in the footsteps of the popular SSI masterpiece and sharing with the General series the same level of engagement and strategic depth, Panzer Corps will keep an unmistakable "PG feeling" whilst improving and refining the gameplay and balance. Panzer Corps will feature 26 scenarios on 21 unique maps, covering most major battles of the European Theatre of World War II and including a few hypothetical 'what if' scenarios based on your actions. Now expanded with a full-war mega-campaign and the Afrika Corps and Allied Corps releases!

Moderator: MOD_PanzerCorps

Post Reply
stormbringer3
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:58 pm
Location: Staunton, Va.

An airpower opinion.

Post by stormbringer3 »

It seems to me that the use of strategic air vs. tactical air against ground units is a little out of balance. Many advise using strategic air, but it doesn't seem that a JU-88 was used as much against ground units in WWII as we do in this game. Perhaps a little tweaking is in order to make tactical air a more viable choice?
Thanks for any opinions.
Longasc
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:40 pm

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by Longasc »

Indeed. That the level bombers do a lot better than the tactical bombers is quite consensus by now.

The question is rather how to tweak it.
User avatar
Razz1
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:09 pm
Location: CaLiForNia

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by Razz1 »

The problem is: Any adjustment to Tac air makes them too powerful early in the war.

So they are God for 4 scenarios or more.
SeaMonkey
Posts: 796
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:18 am

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by SeaMonkey »

I'm not going to differ with SB3's assessment in a comparison of one to another, but I will say airpower feels about right in a perspective vs ground units. Mostly speaking about the combat results, I'd be very careful before making any changes to airpower's relationship to ground units, it's quite easy to get things out of whack in that department.
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:39 am
Location: Poland

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by Grand Admiral Thrawn »

And now sth completely different.

In gamerules.pzdat there is a line LowAltitudeAttackPenalty and it is set to -6. What does it do and what would happen if this was to be changed to -10 or 0 or 10?
Remember, having fun and keeping to the spirit of the game is more important than winning at any cost.
rezaf
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:32 am

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by rezaf »

The almost useless tactical bombers in PC caused me quite some grief in my early PC campaigning.
In PG, Tacs were the swiss army knife of my forces - wherever I got stuck, I'd fly in my Ju's to save the day.
In PC, that's just not possible.
I disagree with Razz in that any tweak would make them god - maybe it'd make them a worthwile choice to begin with.
They could be more expensive to compensate if they end up being powerful.

Btw., another thing that weakens tacs in the campaign is that there are no new models in the late game.
Under pressure from all sides, historical germany put new CAS bombers on very low priority in favor of fighters, but surely a germany (successful enough and) preparing to invade the USA would have made different choices...
______
rezaf
User avatar
Dragoon.
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 6:08 pm
Location: Rio Grande do Sul

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by Dragoon. »

I'm pleased with the air power but then again I'm a fighter bomber guy so... Beside that for cities and difficult terrain I use strategic bombers for long term suppression anyway as I did in previous PG games. Main job of my fighter bombers is to attack hard targets and artillery, and when it comes to that they do their job fine once they accumulated some experience. It's true the novice tac bomber pilot doesn't cut it but this is I assume less a problem of the hardware.
User avatar
terje439
Posts: 6603
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:01 pm

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by terje439 »

Tactical bombers work ok. True they are no longer the life savers they were in PG, but they do ok work in softening the targets early on. However...
Playing the campaign and deciding not to take London and Moscow (to see how the game progressed), I found that even a 14 strength Stuka (D version) could at best take 1, ONE, strength from an IS2 on a river...


Terje
"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")
User avatar
KerenskyLI
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 6:53 pm

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by KerenskyLI »

Early War Tactical Bombers perform adequately because... 

Stuka B and R have 6 and 7 hard attack.  With the exception of the Char B and Matilda II at 13, most Early War allied tanks are 7s(british) or 10s(some French)

Difference between attack and defense rating is at maximum 7.


Late War Tactical Bombers generally falter, because the air defense rating of late war ground units soars while hard attack of tactical bombers do not.

FW-190F and G have 9 hard attack.  Stuka G is exceptional with 14.  IS-2 has 22, KV1C has 20, KV2 has 18, M26 has 19 air defense.

Difference between attack and defense rating is at minimum 9, not considering the Stuka G which is the only exception.
James Ward
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by James Ward »

I like the TAC, other than the Stuka, because they can attack fighters. They help gain air superiority and then are useful against infantry, artillery and some armour.
User avatar
Rood
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:28 am

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by Rood »

ORIGINAL: Grand Admiral Thrawn

And now sth completely different.

In gamerules.pzdat there is a line LowAltitudeAttackPenalty and it is set to -6. What does it do and what would happen if this was to be changed to -10 or 0 or 10?

Currently when you attack a ground/naval unit with a Tactical Bomber you will get a -6 penalty to your ground defense.
So if the ground defense is 15 a penalty of 6 is substracted and you and up with 9 ground defense (not including any other modifiers).

If the enemy unit you attack has no air defense then the penalty does nothing.
It does nothing for your attack values.
Grand Admiral Thrawn
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:39 am
Location: Poland

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by Grand Admiral Thrawn »

Thanks!
Remember, having fun and keeping to the spirit of the game is more important than winning at any cost.
stormbringer3
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:58 pm
Location: Staunton, Va.

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by stormbringer3 »

After reading KerenskyLI's post, would anyone be willing to explain the exact mechanics that will determine what amount of hits you might inflict on a hard target when you compare air hard attack vs. air defense?
Thanks.
xriz
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:41 pm

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by xriz »

I think if they bumped up the hard attack for some of the Tactical Bomber's like the Stuka it would make them more useful against tanks, which is historically were they made their biggest impact.
GlobalExplorer
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by GlobalExplorer »

Air power is (partially) broken imo.

Especially fighters. For example D520 Fighter vs PzIII -6 damage.

In PG this was more stable, there was never more than 0/-1 damage

I say partially broken because other things may have been improved too. For instance Stukas doing less damage, may actually be something that makes the game more interesting. But this should not be compensated with lightly armed fighters (D520) that do more damage than dive bombers.
GlobalExplorer
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by GlobalExplorer »

Soryy it was an MS406 but as I said it did 6 damage to PzIII.
User avatar
Razz1
Posts: 2560
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 3:09 pm
Location: CaLiForNia

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by Razz1 »

It depends upon how many times the unit was attacked and what attacked it. Plus there is random damage.

Looks like you got some good dice.
User avatar
mentatt76
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:14 pm

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by mentatt76 »

What happens when a unit is attacked multiple times?
User avatar
AceDuceTrey
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:06 pm

RE: An airpower opinion.

Post by AceDuceTrey »

All these comments are interesting, but:
My research shows Tactica Bombers falling into 3 catagories:
1- (the lightest) Swing/multipurpose FIGHTERS that could perform multiple "strafing" gun and light bomb/rocket runs. This group also included airframes purposely modified for ground attack such as Me110E, FW190F/G, Hurricane II, A-36, etc.)
2- Attack/Light Bombers designed specifically to attack "point/small area" targets with aerodynamic characteristics that allowed them to perform dives and very low altitude maneuvers as well as low level bombing. Key here is these aircraft typically "salvoed" their entire bomb payload at thier target. These were the principal "close air support" aircraft. All aircraft carrier based bombers fell into this catagory.
3- (Early Light and) Medium Bombers designed to carry heavier loads over longer distances. These aircraft were all 2 or 3 engine airframes and had to sacrifice maneuverability due to their size and weight restricting them to level "string" bombing which completely removed any potential to score multiple hits on a given point or small area target, i.e., they were "area" bombers. The exception to this catagory were the maritime patrol bombers modified to carry torpedoes and depth charges for very low altitude level attacks.
Another factor all should keep in mind is armored vehicles had far less (~1/3) "top side" armor than frountal armor.

P.S. True Strategic Bombers usually had 4 or more engines and were designed to carry the maximum pay loads at high altitudes and air speeds
Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps”