What we need

[Hard Sarge]

Well
got to disagree to a point

the Allies would only fly there own planes ? Half of the planes being flown by the Allies were not there own planes (just a General statement, not true numbers)

one hassle for something like Tac, is the old game does not really have any Tac targets, so why go heavy with Tac fighters, when you end up using 2nd Tac as a Stat Force ?

but if some of the things work out, we should have more reason to have a Tac force, so that may be a moot point

(my Current game, I am fighting myself, to keep a number of the lights and Med bombers in the game, I could of replaced them with Heavies a long time ago, but wanted to keep the Tac side in)

but for the interest of debate (and a chance to get some better ideas) what kind of plane upgrades should we be allowed to make ?

[Zort]

Talking of TAC air, if the game doesn't simulate the real mission then it should not be included. So if the new one can't do this, take it out.

As a gamer it is easy to change every squadron to the bestest! But why in real life didn't they? Parts, training, didn't really have that many planes. To difficult to move them to another theatre? There are reasons why there were many types of aircraft. We, players, should not play the politicians but the commanders. That being said, I feel there should be some limits on what the player can change types too.

I would also like to see a listing at the end of the game turn of actions that occur, ie, playing a game now and at the end of the turn a squadron upgrades to something. It is gone so fast that I don't know what happened. I think the computer can put a sheet up so the player can review what transpired at the end of the turn.

[Hard Sarge]

Well one hassle is, Tac air was still used for Stat targets, and in the game that means RR's

and we do have anti Troop strikes, interdiction, and hopefully we will be able to add bridges

for the planbe types, that one is HARD

but one hassle we have in a game is the Wastage, if you are not losing planes as fast as they did in Real Life, we get a stock pile built up and want to use them, also, the game does not take into effect, war weary planes, even the best planes only lasted so long and then were pulled out for parts, for scrap, for form up planes or for unit hacks, how do we model that ?

another hassle is, in RL, the air war was much bigger then even BTR is, it may get even bigger, and it will still not be as big as the real deal

what restickions should we make ? the US flew GB planes, the GB flew US planes, FB's changed to Med bombers, Fighters changed to fighter bombers (the GE, ground attack planes were used for bomber intercept, heck, there are reports of Stukas attacking bombers in 1943 !, GE bombers were seen to shadow US bomb raids)

what and how is realistic for a game ?

[Zort]

If I am not mistaked there was a large group of Brit planes that were only used for defensive purposes and are therefore not in the game?

Wastage:(you probably have already thought of this) one idea might be a % taken out at a given time frame. One question, how does the game model a damaged plane that can not be used again? Maybe a plane with damage of greater then X% is taken out of service.

Another idea is if the Allied losses are less then historically, reduce the replacements so there is not a large build up. OR if it is decided that planes can be changed to any squadron, make the transition time to get operational longer.

To me the game should allow the Allied player change plane types if he wants too. There needs to be some type of significant penalty on, time, or readiness, or morale. If the Allied player doesn't want to change then he won't. You can always lock down groups to only get certain plane types.

To much micro management in the game could make it unplayable. But it is fun though.

For the Axis, does the game model the dispersal of manufacturing, ie ballbearings? If not is this being considered? This will give the Germans the opportunity to move manufactoring and the Allies won't be able to find it!!

There were an awful lot to things done by both sides that fall outside normal operating proceedures, ie Stukas attacking. Should the be modeled in the game? I don't think so unless they are only a limited one or two time event.

Go Navy - Beat Army

[Hard Sarge]

Wasteage, Hassle, depends on your point of view, in most of my games, I kill way more 109's then the AI can bulld and keep in service, so should the GE side also have to live with a say 10% wastage rule also

planes that are damaged too much are indeed, killed off, (called the SAS bug)

yes, sites can be dispursed, debates abound on what is the best way to attack major Factories, do you let a 15 Engine site say in action, or try to take it out early, crush it and it turns into say 5 size 3, 7 size 2 sites (in about 30 days)

later in the war, you hunt them down, early and you are not going to be able too, so ...

but 450 engines lost early in the war, hurts, later on, it may not mean anything

[Zort]

I can see one way of doing wastage but it all depends on programing. Tracking each individual plane, if it survives then after X amount of damage plus X number of sorties then the plane is taken out of service. This might be much too complicated. So to answer your question, yes the Germans would have the same process as the allies, % lost for wastage over a certain amount of time. But then the below might needed to be implemented.

Since we as gamers will throw the LW at the Allies much more aggressively then historical thus causing much more damage to the LW then historically done, have you guys thought about maybe either putting some type of throttle on the Axis to prevent this or increasing the numbers of planes based upon losses or something?

For dispersal, if the Allied player bombs a factory early in the campaign then the German can do a dispersal earlier then historical. Don't let the German disperse everything on turn 1 but some sort of phased dispersal plan but can be accelerated based upon a % of damage (this % is different each game so there is no gamey I know to stop bombing at X %).

Just some ideas. Thanks for responding. An improved interface would be great. Also having the airfields id'd with a/c in them during your portion of the turn would be great. I know now as I play I get a good idea where the planes are but having them highlighted would be better I feel.

[The Dude]

Does anyone think that the Germans should have some sort of cross border capability?

I mean if you take that away then what is the point of fighter command. for example historically the Tempests were held back from the front to fight the V wpns. Without a German threat then all allied planes can be used and not held back as they were in real life

[The Dude]

by cross border i mean cross channel

[Hard Sarge]

that is a HARD one, based on the game system (in BoB we could also have the BC and CC raids that were going on during BoB also)

ahhh where my notes

this time frame and earlier

say 1942

Rhubarbs 25-27 Squadrons of Spits would fly with no more then 30 bombers

April 30th, 38 squadrons of Spits flew with 24 Bostons on a Rhubarb

so, FC was being used in a Off role

which depending on how the OOB works out, not every Allied Squadron that was there, is there at the start, some are on other duties and not with the Off force

Would be interesting, if we could get the V1/V2 into the game some how (other then just a target)

[soeren01]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

that is a HARD one, based on the game system (in BoB we could also have the BC and CC raids that were going on during BoB also)

ahhh where my notes

this time frame and earlier

say 1942

Rhubarbs 25-27 Squadrons of Spits would fly with no more then 30 bombers

April 30th, 38 squadrons of Spits flew with 24 Bostons on a Rhubarb

so, FC was being used in a Off role

which depending on how the OOB works out, not every Allied Squadron that was there, is there at the start, some are on other duties and not with the Off force

Would be interesting, if we could get the V1/V2 into the game some how (other then just a target)

You could just give Germany an virtual ( wrong word ) chnace to cause harm to allied forces/installations based on germans V-site rating. The allied player than could put some squadrons on V-weapon defense which will lower this chance for v-weapons to cause harm.

Or do it the other way round. The bigger the german v-weapon capabilitys the more fighter squadrons will be claimed for home defense and are not availible for the player. Like a kind of restricted command. May be easier to implement than my first idea.

[HMSWarspite]

There's things I would fix first. For the GE offensive option to be anything other than a sideshow, the game would have to lose its assymetric turns. I would favour giving the Allies some additional constraints/things to worry about other than continual all out offence, but not a separate Ge offensive sub-game. The V weapon idea is good. I would remove the complusory V weapon target days, and replace it with the suggested Ge V weapons damage. I am not sure that damaging Allied 'installations' is right though. Maybe Terror damage is removed instead? (Civilian morale is better if they know they are hitting back?). An extension to the damage idea - make Allied aircraft replacements a function of Uboat strength, and get rid of political U boat targetting? However, I don't mind political targets so much if you had some warning, or better, a 'hit uboats twice in the next month' type political edict (I choose when). Bomb damage vs U pens needs looking at though (need really big bombs to do much - I don't know that this is right yet)

[Hard Sarge]

okay, not sure I am following

we do not need a sub phase or a GE off turn to put V weapons in

so many V's are "made" and if Sites are good, V's are fired, doing so and so damage, would not really need Squadrons on partol, the fact that the V's are firing, is what is importent to the "people" not how many get shot down

(of course, the hassle really is, it would be so easy to shut it down, not sure if it would be worth the effort to make it work)

is the last statement, that the U-Boat Pens are too HARD to take out ?

mar 45, the US was trying out the Disney bomb which could punch a hole into 20ft of concrete (in fact, oddity, they bombed a U-pen, that they had captured), planned raid on a E-boat pen, was stopped by the ground troops taking it before the mission could be flown

the Pens were HARD to damage

need Tall boys, Grandslams or Disneys to really do the job right (little birdy is saying we are hopeing to get these added to the weapon load outs)

[Prussia]

Suffice to say, that loadouts to make every LeMay whanabe fantasy come true will definitely be there.

Best to all,

Jean-Claude

[Nikademus]

What do people think about morale as a variable?

[Hard Sarge]

go deeper mate, some of us are not as smart as the rest of us

explain your statement ?

[AmiralLaurent]

What would be great, and will as a side effect reduce the number of AC on the frontline, will be to add a "WITP-like" training mode, so crew may win experience outside missions.

Also what could be done would be to have 3 modes for Axis air units: "defensive" (player control as usual), "offensive" (suppose to bomb/strafe Allied troops..) and "training".

On the other hand, Allied units may be "offensive" (player control as usual), "defensive" (flying CAP) and "training".

Offensive Axis missions and defensive Allied ones will be controled by computer only.

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

okay, not sure I am following

we do not need a sub phase or a GE off turn to put V weapons in

Sorry - mixing my drinks here. I discussed 2 things at once. I meant that too much emphesis on Ge offensive would be difficult without a Ge offensive phase (the allied player might feel that he could do nothing to inhibit the losses caused by the Ge having 'offensive planes'). Then, changing the subject, I agreed with the idea of a V weapons 'score' that did damage to Allies, but questioned whether facilities was the correct thing to affect - better to change the terror score directly.

so many V's are "made" and if Sites are good, V's are fired, doing so and so damage, would not really need Squadrons on partol, the fact that the V's are firing, is what is importent to the "people" not how many get shot down

(of course, the hassle really is, it would be so easy to shut it down, not sure if it would be worth the effort to make it work)

Yes - agree completely. The point of adding v weapons this way is to move the player from CinC 8th/BC etc to more like the Chiefs of staff, and remove the political missions at no notice. The hassle of implemetation may point you towards just staying as is (with political targets) but with choice or notice ('bomb V weapons at least once in the next 10 days (or get a compulsory day)', or 'V weapons day for 8th AF in 4 days')

is the last statement, that the U-Boat Pens are too HARD to take out ?

No, the exact opposite - I have seen U pens taken out (90%) with 1000lbers and cookies, which should not be possible. Throughout the war (even with tallboys and Grandslam,) the pens were almost impossible to knock out completely (the few pens taken out by big bombs do not represent an entire base). The only way to affect them was to level the soft buildings around them (accommodation, power, stores, rail etc), and I don't see that as 90% damage!

mar 45, the US was trying out the Disney bomb which could punch a hole into 20ft of concrete (in fact, oddity, they bombed a U-pen, that they had captured), planned raid on a E-boat pen, was stopped by the ground troops taking it before the mission could be flown

the Pens were HARD to damage

need Tall boys, Grandslams or Disneys to really do the job right (little birdy is saying we are hopeing to get these added to the weapon load outs)

My very point!. I don't want to see any pens taken out with Mossies, or mediums! 10-20% damage maybe, but not taken out. Also, big bombs only take out one or 2 bays in a complete pen at max, most of them did not penetrate completely (Grandslam was not designed as a contrete penetrator, and was lucky not to break up while partially penetrating)


Sorry for the confusion...
[edit to sort out the quoting!]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

go deeper mate, some of us are not as smart as the rest of us

explain your statement ?

deeper? careful.....might go into novel mode and make people's eyes blur. [:'(]

In discussing our AAR recently (BTR - Speedy is Luft, me Allies) I mentioned that the morale of most of my airgroups had tanked pretty bad due to a few hard missions and/or extended mission times (Bomber Command) and i was having problems getting it to go up. On hearing that I had airgroups with morale as low as the 20's - 40's, Speedy expressed shock that i was flying them at all and said that he never flies BG's or FG's with morale below 50.

While this made sense from a real world perspective, I'd noted that 'in the game' it had not stopped me from continuing my raids as i'd been going. I'd read in the rule book that units with low morale can suffer more break offs vs a high morale group but overall, it just didn't seem like I had to really worry much about morale. Morale 20 or 80, the airgroups were flying and bombing.

Hence the question.....do people think that this variable is properly represented? Does it really impact anything?

[anarchyintheuk]

Not much experience in BtR. But in BoB it seemed that low morale bomber groups would break off quickly w/o fighter escort (which is actually a good thing). Once the 109s disappeared, the low morale groups would bugger off at the first intercept. I haven't done any testing or anything, just anecdotal observations.

[Hard Sarge]

Hi Nick
as the next post said, low morale, will break off the fight earlier, which should leave the details to JC to explain

but over all, you don't really want to push the low morale units into action, unless it has to be done (I believe it is more then just the early break offs)