suggestion for next patch

Moderator: Hubert Cater

Post Reply
Rodimstev
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 7:07 am

suggestion for next patch

Post by Rodimstev »

hi all,

is it possible to forbid forest/swamp/moutain hex for plane?

because 1000 planes in swamp hex, are not very realistic….the same think for mountain or forest….

kinds regards

Rodim

"l'audace encore de l'audace toujours de l'audace" Danton devant l'assemblée nationale 20 septembre 1792.
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 4871
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by Tanaka »

ORIGINAL: Rodimstev

hi all,

is it possible to forbid forest/swamp/moutain hex for plane?

because 1000 planes in swamp hex, are not very realistic….the same think for mountain or forest….

kinds regards

Rodim


+1

I think this is a great idea and is very realistic. Maybe forest hex is ok but swamp and mountain for sure. Or at least just mountain. Would solve a lot of MP problems as well...
Image
Xenocide
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:37 am

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by Xenocide »

While I like the idea for historical reasons would this cause problems due to the unavailability of stacking in any theaters? I am wondering if it would make air operations in places like Burma and in some regions of Russia (and possibly others) too difficult.

Any thoughts?
MrLongleg
Posts: 715
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:45 pm
Location: Plymouth, MA, USA

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by MrLongleg »

I don't agree, due to map scale and no stacking that would take air power away, especially in the pacific. Since a hex is 100km or more there is certainly some space for airbases, even in swamps.
MrLongleg

Life is too short to drink bad wine ;-)
User avatar
Steely Glint
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:36 pm

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by Steely Glint »

I've been in the real life equivalents of many of the forest, swamp, and mountain hexes in the game. There is still plenty of space in them for major airbases.
“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.
Rodimstev
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 7:07 am

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by Rodimstev »

steely,

i am sorry but your analyse is false.

have you got any exemple of airbase in bielorussia swamp or the moutain Caucase for more 1000 planes?

the response is no more 100 planes...not 1000..
the scale on Strategic for one unit of plane is more 50O planes (luftflotte/air army ....)

so i think it is a good idea to forbid this hex


"l'audace encore de l'audace toujours de l'audace" Danton devant l'assemblée nationale 20 septembre 1792.
User avatar
xwormwood
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bremen, Germany

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by xwormwood »

ORIGINAL: Rodimstev

steely,

i am sorry but your analyse is false.

have you got any exemple of airbase in bielorussia swamp or the moutain Caucase for more 1000 planes?

the response is no more 100 planes...not 1000..
the scale on Strategic for one unit of plane is more 50O planes (luftflotte/air army ....)

so i think it is a good idea to forbid this hex



That would be true if we would be talking about a single air field. But as always in Games likes Strategic Command, even though we only see one unit on the map, this unit could easily be stationed on 1 to 10 air fields.
At least that is my point of view on this matter. There are already quite a lot of regulations which will effect the effectivness of (air) units, like supply, readyness and morale. Usually you get not the best supply in wood, mountain and swamp hexes. This is more or less a good and already existing way to help you in your decision where to place an air unit (or not).
"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)
User avatar
Steely Glint
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:36 pm

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by Steely Glint »

[font="Arial"]
ORIGINAL: Rodimstev

steely,

i am sorry but your analyse is false.

have you got any exemple of airbase in bielorussia swamp or the moutain Caucase for more 1000 planes?

the response is no more 100 planes...not 1000..
the scale on Strategic for one unit of plane is more 50O planes (luftflotte/air army ....)

so i think it is a good idea to forbid this hex

Junior, that wasn't an analysis, it was field experience. And yes, areas that include worse swamps that the White Russian one and worse mountains than the Caucausus have had large airfields in them. Consider hex size.[/font]
“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.
room
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:56 am

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by room »

Well one thing at least is illogical: planes on bad terrain hex get a bonus when attacked on the airfields by planes! Why should the airfield be more protective there?

It's actually more important to place your planes in bad terrain for defensive purposes (where they actually fare better than in plains) than for offensive ones. It's one of those not very instinctive plays.

Maybe planes should at least not benefit from terrain defensive bonuses (or less so than normal units)
User avatar
ivanov
Posts: 1111
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:16 pm
Location: European Union
Contact:

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by ivanov »

I have a different suggestion: introduce the stacking of air units with the land units and make them automatically relocate to a different location, when attacked by enemy ground units ( with some attritional loses of course ) [:D]

As for the current system - aren't there penalties for placing air units in the swaps and forests?
Lest we forget.
boudi
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:43 am
Location: France

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by boudi »

Playing in PBEM++ with an ELO filter should be good. [;)]
elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by elmo3 »

My suggestions are to allow naval interception in the same manner as air interception, and allow each air unit to do one free recon each turn without using up it's ability to also do a regular mission.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
User avatar
xwormwood
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bremen, Germany

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by xwormwood »

The interception logic in SC is something to think about, to be improved or changed in future releases. It is the only game feature which a player can't play himself, which he can't influence, and it is limited in its options (like there is only one interception even though there are several air units and flak around).
From my point of view the interception should leave the entire game, or it should be introduced for all kind of combats. Right now its a solution for represent air war. Maybe not the best one. But I have to admit that this question is a trickery one.
"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)
User avatar
Steely Glint
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:36 pm

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by Steely Glint »

ORIGINAL: room

Well one thing at least is illogical: planes on bad terrain hex get a bonus when attacked on the airfields by planes! Why should the airfield be more protective there?

Because it's harder to damage things in bad terrain and often harder to find them to damage them at all. There's a good reason bad terrain generates defensive bonuses.
“It was a war of snap judgments and binary results—shoot or don’t, live or die.“

Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.
Saturn V
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:35 am

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by Saturn V »

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

There's a good reason bad terrain generates defensive bonuses.
For ground assaults by infantry and armour, that makes sense. But an airfield requires large, flat areas for runways, taxiways, revetments, hangars, and an array of operations buildings. Indeed, it is difficult to locate an airbase on bad terrain because of the engineering that has to be done to prepare that terrain for the requirements of an airbase. And all that flat ground needed makes an airbase easy enough to spot from the air.

So airfields should not be gaining a defensive benefit from bad terrain when attacked from the air.

(If it's a land assault, then the defensive benefit makes sense as it would indicate the terrain surrounding the airfield which the ground forces have to move through to assault it.)
room
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:56 am

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by room »

ORIGINAL: Saturn V

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

There's a good reason bad terrain generates defensive bonuses.
For ground assaults by infantry and armour, that makes sense. But an airfield requires large, flat areas for runways, taxiways, revetments, hangars, and an array of operations buildings. Indeed, it is difficult to locate an airbase on bad terrain because of the engineering that has to be done to prepare that terrain for the requirements of an airbase. And all that flat ground needed makes an airbase easy enough to spot from the air.

So airfields should not be gaining a defensive benefit from bad terrain when attacked from the air.

(If it's a land assault, then the defensive benefit makes sense as it would indicate the terrain surrounding the airfield which the ground forces have to move through to assault it.)

My thoughts exactly. I also second Boudi suggestion of having an elo ranking. It would add both motivation and interest in some games.
Numdydar
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by Numdydar »

ORIGINAL: Saturn V

ORIGINAL: Steely Glint

There's a good reason bad terrain generates defensive bonuses.
For ground assaults by infantry and armour, that makes sense. But an airfield requires large, flat areas for runways, taxiways, revetments, hangars, and an array of operations buildings. Indeed, it is difficult to locate an airbase on bad terrain because of the engineering that has to be done to prepare that terrain for the requirements of an airbase. And all that flat ground needed makes an airbase easy enough to spot from the air.

So airfields should not be gaining a defensive benefit from bad terrain when attacked from the air.

(If it's a land assault, then the defensive benefit makes sense as it would indicate the terrain surrounding the airfield which the ground forces have to move through to assault it.)

I hate to bust your bubble but I can tell you that as a pilot it can be extremely hard to find an airfield even when you need to. It was even harder during WWII. Plus none of these airfields were lit up at night nor had visible landing lights. I've had to find airports with three+ major runways after their normal operational hours (i.e. all lights were turned off) and it was not easy at all. Especially when you forgot the com code to turn on the runway lights [:@]

So the terrain modifier for air attacks could simple be the 'cost' in fuel/airtime for attacking aircraft to actually locate the airfield. Also local weather, haze, etc. all play a part so I see no reason to change this at all.
room
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:56 am

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by room »

Why are you talking about night? That is irrelevant. Until you send me a map with most WW2 airfield in forest, marsh and mountains, you are wrong.

For simple logistical problems, it was much easier to buld airfield near roads and in plains.

Basically you re saying in WW2 the best place to build airfield and then place airplanes was in marshes, forest and mountains [8|]

Even nowadays, they are not built there when avoidable [8|]
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 5781
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by BillRunacre »

Just to jump in here as I think there is a valid point about the defensive bonuses, not that I would want to take things too much the other way either, but what I'm planning is reducing the defensive bonus if air units are attacked by Infantry or Armour while they are in a Marsh or Mountain hex.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
Numdydar
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:56 pm

RE: suggestion for next patch

Post by Numdydar »

ORIGINAL: room

Why are you talking about night? That is irrelevant. Until you send me a map with most WW2 airfield in forest, marsh and mountains, you are wrong.

For simple logistical problems, it was much easier to buld airfield near roads and in plains.

Basically you re saying in WW2 the best place to build airfield and then place airplanes was in marshes, forest and mountains [8|]

Even nowadays, they are not built there when avoidable [8|]

A few minutes with Google. [:)]



Image
Attachments
haast_air_field.jpg
haast_air_field.jpg (58.76 KiB) Viewed 197 times
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII: World at War”