suggestion for next patch
Moderator: Hubert Cater
suggestion for next patch
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
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.
RE: suggestion for next patch
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...
RE: suggestion for next patch
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?
Any thoughts?
RE: suggestion for next patch
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
Life is too short to drink bad wine
- Steely Glint
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:36 pm
RE: suggestion for next patch
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.
Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.
RE: suggestion for next patch
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
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.
RE: suggestion for next patch
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)
- Steely Glint
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:36 pm
RE: suggestion for next patch
[font="Arial"]
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]
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.
Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.
RE: suggestion for next patch
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)
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)
RE: suggestion for next patch
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?
As for the current system - aren't there penalties for placing air units in the swaps and forests?
Lest we forget.
RE: suggestion for next patch
Playing in PBEM++ with an ELO filter should be good. [;)]
RE: suggestion for next patch
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
WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
RE: suggestion for next patch
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.
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)
- Steely Glint
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:36 pm
RE: suggestion for next patch
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.
Wargamer since 1967. Matrix customer since 2003.
RE: suggestion for next patch
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.ORIGINAL: Steely Glint
There's a good reason bad terrain generates defensive bonuses.
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.)
RE: suggestion for next patch
ORIGINAL: Saturn V
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.ORIGINAL: Steely Glint
There's a good reason bad terrain generates defensive bonuses.
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.
RE: suggestion for next patch
ORIGINAL: Saturn V
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.ORIGINAL: Steely Glint
There's a good reason bad terrain generates defensive bonuses.
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.
RE: suggestion for next patch
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|]
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|]
- BillRunacre
- Posts: 5781
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
- Contact:
RE: suggestion for next patch
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/
We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
RE: suggestion for next patch
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. [:)]
- Attachments
-
- haast_air_field.jpg (58.76 KiB) Viewed 197 times