Mass Air Groups

Fury Games has now signed with Matrix Games, and we are working together on the next Strategic Command. Will use the Slitherine PBEM++ server for asynchronous multi-player.

Moderators: MOD_Strategic_Command_3, Fury Software

User avatar
Hairog
Posts: 1587
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cornucopia, WI

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Hairog »

ORIGINAL: Ktonos

Regarding massed air; When an air unit destroys an army unit it doesn't mean that a few hundred bombers managed to kill 40-60 thousand soldiers -the personnel of several divisions- merely that they managed to destroy these divisions's function to fight. If the unit was in supply these men are supposed to have withdrawn back to the reserves. If a player manages to bring 4 extra HQs in the mountains of Algeria or the deserts of Libya, this translates as an enormous effort to keep up with the logistical problems of 2000-3000 warplanes.

I totally agree.

What the Russians did in Operation August Storm to the Japanese comes to mind. 2-3000 aircraft and support transported over thousands of miles, using a single track and in complete secrecy. So there is a precedent for accomplishing such a task.

It should be rare and very costly to be sure, but possible.

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be
Sugar
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Sugar »

No matter the historical conditions, as a possibility in this game Spain is worth far too much, even if you have to pay the price for the DE: more than 200 MPPs/turn of value (that's more than double the worth of Italy, at least this can't be historically correct), 1 more than mediocre HQ, 3 armies, 1 light tank, 1 fighter, 1 light and heavy cruiser each, many corps and garrisons, and a force pool consisting of an additional med. tank and a tac. bomber.

Those are additional benefits to their strategical meaning.

Harun
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:57 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Harun »

With German tech levels vs. Italian.
LordOfPants
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:22 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by LordOfPants »

ORIGINAL: ivanov
Giving territory to Franco certainly makes sense. If that would work in reality, we will never know. In real life Franco asked Hitler for huge amounts of aid ( including food products which was problematic for the Germans at best ) and offering very little in return. So eventually Hitler came to a conclusion, that having Spain on the Axis side would be a liability rather than help. It's also hard to estimate the scale of British influence on Franko's ministers but certainly it wasn't insignificant.

It's been a long time since I read up on it, but from what I remember the aid Franco was asking for was pretty much just what Spain would need to keep from starving. Their own infrastructure was in awful shape from the civil war, and they relied heavily on food imports and coastal shipping. So Franco was really just asking for enough food to cover imports, and other stuff to make up for not being able to use coastal shipping anymore (since the UK would interdict it pretty badly). Spain was really an economic basket case, and I'm pretty sure that Spain's rail network would have been strained badly trying to supply a major army and air force attack on Gibraltar.
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9936
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by sPzAbt653 »

Some comments about Gibraltar being tough to capture make me have to comment that it was not, because it's fresh water supply came from Spain and once cut off from this the garrison would only be able to survive 4-6 weeks. The German plan was not for a major effort, it involved two regiments, some rail guns and LW support.

Malta was in a similar situation until the Allies took Tunisia and Libya. Without ground based air support it was indefensible.

Historically, Hitler didn't understand the huge strategic importance of both locations.
User avatar
xwormwood
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bremen, Germany

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by xwormwood »

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

Thoughts for future SC:

-Have Spain as an Italian minor (or inactive Axis major). It gives Spain on a separate, lower Nationale Morale pool and tech.
-Have Spain joining cost mpp every turn to the german player. If you want to get fancy you could have a land convoy that you can adjust the mpp you transfer. Below a certain threshold, it loses national morale. Gets Germany a sightly useful sidekick at a cost. Basically you don't take the Spain route for the money but for Gibraltar access and maybe some support units. Maybe boost neutral Spain trade so that the 'economy choice' is to keep it neutral but Axis leaning.

I like both ideas!
"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)
Ktonos
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:25 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Ktonos »

I think it would overcomplicate the matter. Just give a straight cap to each minor's tech bonuses. For example have Canadians & Finns be at lvl 2 infantry weapons, Romanian maybe at 0, Spanish at 1 etc.
Alternatively you could add a tab named something like "Tech assistance to minor powers", where each parent power would have a list of it's minors and an option to subsidise each's tech to be on par with his own.
jlopez
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:57 am

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by jlopez »

I think a simple solution isn't to tinker with the game engine but for players to accept game play restrictions before they start a game. For example, here are the restrictions I would like in my next PBEM game to deal with various issues that decrease my enjoyment of the game:

1. Germany cannot invest in amphibious warfare
2. No amphibious landings permitted on the European coast from October to May inclusive.
3. No amphibious landings permitted on the African coast, Mediterranean islands or Middle East from December to April inclusive.
4. No landings permitted on the Lybian coast at any time.
5. No more than 4 air units allowed in Africa and the Middle East per nation.

Victory conditions based on the surrender of Germany:

Allied total victory (10-0): Germany surrenders in or before December 1944
Allied crushing victory (9-1): Germany surrenders in January 1945
Allied victory (8-2): Germany surrenders in February 1945
Allied tactical victory (7-3): Germany surrenders in March 1945
Allied minor victory (6-4): Germany surrenders in April 1945

Draw (5-5): Germany surrenders in May 1945

Axis minor victory (4-6): Germany surrenders in June 1945
Axis tactical victory (3-7): Germany surrenders in July 1945
Axis victory (2-8): Germany surrenders in August 1945
Axis crushing victory (1-9): Germany surrenders in September 1945
Axis total victory (0-10): Germany surrenders in October 1945

As you can see, the restrictions are simple and any cheating is easily detected. Not saying it's perfect but I hope it gives my opponent and myself a better simulation of WW2 and a fun game too.
Guderian1940
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:55 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Guderian1940 »

I believe house rules would be in order at this stage of game development. Major changes will probably not be forthcoming in this version.

jlopez hit some of the issues on the head with amphibious capabilities. I mentioned (complained) this issues in other threads. The ability to launch AVL (All available) from any port you control on any sea including Caspian and Baltic is totally unexpected and abusive. Available in any weather condition. Use of long range AVL to be able to land in a very wide area for the Axis is beyond their capabilities in any scenario. AV yes, AVL no. The US and UK had this capability (with tech upgrades) but not Germany,

I would propose some house rules in reducing the issues.

Axis - No AVL use anytime or anywhere. Can buy Amphib to increase AV but no AVL. This will still give the Axis capabilities anywhere (and more within their means) but reduced with more risks. Something that is somewhat more realistic.Might want to do this till 43.

Note that I have abused this basically because it was used against me and I learned. An understanding between players is important to avoid this abuse and a big play downer.

Mass Air groups. Logistically this is a nightmare out side of Europe. The infrastructure is just not available anywhere else unless you have the time(More than a turn!!!). In the game one Air op and you are there. I have to disagree that the MPP costs are a valid restriction> If you can mass and destroy your opponent units (Army 250MPP), take Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Iraq, Libya Tunisia not to mention just eliminating out any defense in Russia. Seems to be worth the costs to me. I do not think that the game Air combat system can be changed without drastic changes to the whole system. Personalty I prefer odds based combat. Sending in one unit at a time is against combat principles in my view for any game.

Recent HQ/Air restrictions is not enough

I suggest the following. Outside of Europe. Only Air on roads/Town hexes. Will not prevent mass but increase some restrictions. Mountain, swamp hexes for one.

Just some thoughts on the subjects.


Sugar
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Sugar »

In a well balanced game no houserules are necessary. Obviously some forget that all the mechanics are available to both sides; therefore restrictions only affecting one side are nuts. The next patch will turn things into better balancing.
Sugar
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Sugar »

Image[/img]
You don't see the destruction of a german fighter and tac. bomber, they just left empty hexes.

Just to illustrate why restrictions can be counterproductive; the Brits won't hardly be able to counterattack with some of the recommended restrictions.

In the same turn another fighter and tac. bomber were placed at Cairo, one additional fighter just left the production queue.

That would be 9! aircraft, and 5 carriers. Restricting the numbers of aircraft simply means the Axis will never be able to keep Libya, and consequently lose the war.



Guderian1940
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:55 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Guderian1940 »

I think sugar you are missing the point. The purpose is not to balance a game but to try to help fix flaws in the game. These are obvious flaws. Both players knowing all the flaws and gimmicks in the game does not make a balanced game. Knowing a game gimmick and doing a gotcha move is not a fun experience. A house rule is to limit those gatcha plays and make it enjoyable for BOTH players. Having better strategic and tactical experience in military affairs is one thing but the use of flaws to take advantage is another.

Unfortunately many players do not know of many 'gimmicks' that really reduces the fun for inexperienced as well as experienced players. I don't think the intent of the game design is to be a free for all game. Do anything because you can.

I like to know what you think a well balanced game is. I sure have not seen any. Someone always seems to come up with a game possibility I was not aware of and creates a bad experience. I am not complaining about the use but of the existence.

For me a well balanced game would be when both players can stay within the realm of probable and practical play for the period in question. When you play the AI for example, it works well when you stay within the historical timeline and decisions. Go outside and the AI fails. Same between two players stay within the course of probability and not fantasy the game ends up being more fun.
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9936
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by sPzAbt653 »

Axis - No AVL use anytime or anywhere.
[:-]
restrictions only affecting one side are nuts.
[&o]
From what I understand, neither side had much AV or AVL type capacity at the start of the war. Norway, BEF, and Dunkirk wee all done in transports from port to port.
The Allies started designing and building landing craft after the US entered, and by the time of their first amphibious assault [Torch] they had enough capacity to deliver about seven divisions.
The Germans started designing and building landing craft after France fell, but stopped when they turned focus to Russia.
Therefore, in my opinion, all Majors should start 1939 with one transport and no AV's or AVL's. Tech Upgrades should allow one AV and one AVL for each level, and one more Transport too. Then there is nothing un-historical and both players have the same opportunities.
Guderian1940
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:55 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Guderian1940 »

Your example highlights the infrastructure issue. Morocco has a better infrastructure then the Allied side and should (logically) be able to support more. The Allied side has a much weaker infrastructure and therefore maybe the choice of a campaign there is a poor one. There are some places where an attack is just not feasible because of terrain and the ability of logistics. An amateur looks at tactics a professional logistics.

Here the game shows its weakness in regards to, terrain, supply and logistics.. The forces shown are just more than what the area should be able to sustain for any period of time. Even today, 2018, it would be hard to sustain a major modern force without a lot of logistic backup. It took a couple of years for the Allies to build up a logistic network for such endeavors. The Axis never did and I pretty sure could not fighting on many fronts.
Sugar
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Sugar »

What "flaw" are you talking about?

This game starts with more or less historical OoBs. From then on it's exclusively the players decision what kind of army, navy or airforce he'd like to have, and what to develop. This counts for both sides. And sad enough to mention, for every strategy or tactics there's an adequate counter; one just needs to find it.

The game well balanced I'm talking about is the direct predecessor. And as I already mentioned, before playing the best opponents I also had many misconceptions about that scenario. Stop telling me what historically was possible; if it didn't happen doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

Guderian1940
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:55 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Guderian1940 »

Historical is what can possibly happen based on historical knowledge of the period not what should happen. Your mixing up what historical means. Choose whatever strategy you like within the realm of possibility during the period, both politically and what was physically capable. This is all I am advocating. Being able to use AVL in the Caspian sea in 41 has no basis for reality and is a design flaw. Restricting AVL use mitigates some issues not perfect by any means.
Sugar
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Sugar »

Sorry Guderian, I don't care about your AVLs at all, I never used them anyway. But If the Axis decides to develop this special branch from early on I can't see any reason they should be worse than Allied AVLs. And if an opponent decides to not develop Int., he has to face the possibility of AVLs in the Caspian Sea in 41; why shouldn't he?

What I meant were those people telling an invasion of Malta wasn't possible, or the deployment of more than a few aircraft in NA.



User avatar
xwormwood
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bremen, Germany

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by xwormwood »

I have to agree with Sugar.
"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)
Ktonos
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:25 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Ktonos »

Whats AVL? I assume amphibious transports?

Same here. Got to agree with Sugar. If the player invests precious mpps in amphibious tech he has already departed from what Germany did historically. As Sugar said, the game must set the pieces as they were on the eve of the war and it does. From then on each one can and must take his own string of choices. Why railroad the strategical decisions to copy what really happened?

Why do you believe that Germany would never have amphibious capabilities should they wanted to really focus on this? Historically the Wehrmacht didn't ever reach the Caspian (rumors and legends of recon detachments doing so exist though). If Germany captured and holded a Caspian port for considerable time, what would stop her from building a makeshift landing fleet to traverse the sea?
Harun
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:57 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Harun »

AVL is the long-range amphibious transports that don't have supply go down. So you can send forces long distances and have them land.

I assume these are mainly designed to allow Torch landings.
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”