Air Power

[gerg71]

Ok, I love the game and have played everything in the old General series. But I can't help but wonder why in this modern version were still playing with aircraft that dont make sense in the way they function? Aircraft stay in the air for what would amount to days or weeks at a time. Why can't we use a system like Peoples General had. Aircraft go out on specific missions and then are gone. I know people would miss seeing there aircraft counters on the board, but for me its just not realistic the way its working.

maybe it's just me?

[Jestre]

I prefer to think of it as having the air asset in the area of operations that the counter represents. In other words think of the air unit representing an unseen air asset assigned to that area.

[gerg71]

Yes, I have considerd this concept. But then why would they need to re-fuel at an airstrip? And wouldnt fighters then be able to cover/protect multiple units in there zone of influece?

Sorry, not trying to be dificult. I just would like something that was a little more realistic.

[terje439]

ORIGINAL: gerg71
And wouldnt fighters then be able to cover/protect multiple units in there zone of influece?

Actually they do. They cover a total of 7 hexes (the 6 surrounding and the one they are in). If you take the Norway map as an example that means each fighter covers an area spanning about 150kmx150km.


Terje

[gerg71]

OK, Ill give you that one that they do cover an area. But shouldn 't it be an airfield counter or something then if that's the concept? And again why would they need to fly to another airfield and re-fuel if this were the case? Not to mention that nothing ever really lands at an airfield (Pacific we at least had planes land on the cariers to re-fuel/ re-arm).

Love the game, just wish airpower worked like Peoples General. But as I stated, maybe it's just me?

[mentatt76]

in PG2 we never worried about their fuel but I like the way they work like now. It adds to strategy.

[Erik2]

I think air units should never run out of fuel, seldom happened in the real world.'
But the ammo should run out much faster, say two rounds and then head back to the airfield for resupply.

Also I think the devs got it wrong with the naval attack abilities.
Tactical bombers like the Stuka should have higher values and high level bombers should have much lower. Hitting ships by bombing from a high level is very difficult.

Erik

[Greybriar]

To the best of my recollection, air units in Panzer Corps are the same as they were in the original Panzer General and that is perfectly acceptable to me.

[MagiK]

The problem Stuka's and other Direct Support/Low Level bombers have against naval units is..they get shot down quickly by the AA fire.  The High level bombers do better in this case because they are basically safe to attack....barring enemy air cover.  In the Pacific war you had pilots and tactics that focused on Naval attack which is why dive bombers were king, but the Euro war there was no such focus for training and equipment.....thats just my take on it anyway.

[IronFist00]

ORIGINAL: MagiK

...In the Pacific war you had pilots and tactics that focused on Naval attack which is why dive bombers were king, but the Euro war there was no such focus for training and equipment.....thats just my take on it anyway.

Actually, the Luftwaffe were quite proficient at attacking naval ships in the Mediterranean Sea. They constantly harassed British supply ships and warships trying to supply Malta and prior to the invasion of Crete. The Germans had some elite Stuka squadrons that were absolutely terrors for the British.

[AceDuceTrey]

I changed my "shorter" range fighters to a movement allowance that was at or just under half their total fuel. This ~ doubled their "sprint" distance but forced them to return home on the next turn (if no airbase was closer). Also, I agree with the discussion on "Strategic" bombers.... Japanese and later American reports on high altitude bombing of warships at sea indicated they were virtually useless. Even Billy Mitchell had problems at higher altitudes hitting stationary BBs with the much slower bi-plane bombers until he brought them down to lower altitude. Also, B-17s scored NO hits on ships they attacked at the battle of Midway. The Japanese used Nells (medium bombers) to sink both the BB Prince of Wales and the BC Repulse. Over 90 A/C participated in the attack scoring just a few bomb hits but so many torpedoe hits niether ship had a chance. Here's the dilemma: Both heavy and medium bombers were used very successfully AT LOW (to very low) ALTITUDEs delivering torpedoes and/or depth charges against transports and submarines, respectively. In fact, it was the long range strategic bombers equiped with air to surface radar and depth charges that "won" the battle of the Atlantic. This is why I want to see ALL aircraft have this "dual role" alternative (ala Heavy AA). You would give the medium and heavy bombers a strong naval attack ONLY when in the low altitude mode.

[vonRocko]

Come on people, it's a game, you have to have some abstractions.