air power

Matrix Games Forums

Paypal System Update

Distant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!

Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

air power

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> War In Russia: The Matrix Edition >> air power

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

air power - 3/26/2002 9:21:50 PM

loveman

Posts: 91
Joined: 7/8/2001
Status: offline

GOOD GRIEF

Regarding the use of air power , a point please to note.

1-- only recently i discovered this over use of air strikes against me. i never knew that an opponent could hit one target so many times , i.e. an hq with 1 fighter and 3 bombers could fly 3 separate bombing missions.

when i found this out , i was perhaps shocked to learn that an exploitation of lorenzos rules , if u could call it that could devastate a player no matter what entrenchment level he is at.
so perhaps the fault is in the rules.

:eek:

(in reply to Morgan Schiff)

Post #: 31

- 3/27/2002 12:24:25 AM

RickyB

Posts: 1155
Joined: 7/26/2000
From: Denver, CO USA
Status: offline

I have a couple of thoughts to add to the airpower discussion, guys, as it is an important issue.

First, the airpower needs tweaked back down in losses, as they are just too high right now, basically they seem back to where they were in the 1.? versions. In conjunctions with this, though, the readiness losses need boosted back up some, as there basically is none now - maybe a cap at no lower than 50% readiness??? Anyway, the issues themselves have been raised by Ed and myself. Also, the idea was to normalize losses so that the small attacks did no more damage than large attacks, and this may be happening, but if so the large attacks are too strong. I also don't believe this is happening, as the small attacks still cause a significant percentage of losses compared to the larger attacks.

Regarding multiple attacks, it can be abused, but a fixed rule is hard to obey in some situations also. I have a different suggestion, which is a complete turnaround from how it has always been done. Basically, I have always felt the air ranges for ground support are overstated. Yes, the ranges cover what bombers could theorectically cover, but in actual combat were rarely attained for a variety of reasons. This I feel applies more in a ground support role (including interdiction) where the specific target location is only known at takeoff than airfield or strategic attacks, where a target is fixed and a full blown attack plan is laid out before striking. A tactical attack like this requires extra time and fuel to identify and strike the target, thus reducing the range these attacks were carried out at.

What I propose to fix this, is that air units retain their current range ratings, but for tactical combat (ie. interdiction and ground support), air units can only fly a limited range, say 7 hexes, which is 140 mile or 220 km. This would prevent the massing of air power as currently can happen, unless the HQs are also massed in which case the airpower should be massed also. If the losses get fixed, then the airpower situation should be looking really good.

One negative about this idea is it prevents the normal Soviet tactic of keeping the bombers back well in the rear and striking. This is a realistic restriction but it does have some major impact on Soviet airpower usage. I still kind of like the idea, but am not sure.

Any thoughts???

_____________________________

Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi

(in reply to Morgan Schiff)

Post #: 32

- 3/27/2002 4:28:37 AM

moonfog

Posts: 70
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Switzerland
Status: offline

Another idea how multiple interdiction attacks by small bomber groups could probably be restricted. If it would be possible (codes), I propose to allow only ONE ESCORT MISSION for fighter groups per week (one escort mission, but it should IMO still be possible to set them on CAP after they flew their mission).

With such a change a player must concentrate fighters AND bombers to go on with the multiple interdiction tactic. But that would leave other sectors of the front defenceless against counterattacks by air. The german bombers f. ex. could only fly their deadly missions with total air superiority. To prevent that, the soviet player would be forced to hold some fighter units in the line. That seems fair to me, because a player who retreats ALL his airforce deserves being crushed by the others bombs;)

Concerning the effect of the Luftwaffe (at least in the beginning of Barbarossa): I recently read an article where a former Wehrmacht officer (lower ranks) described how german Stukas CLEANED a soviet defence line in a lenght of several kilometers. He wrote that the following land troops didn't find ANY resistance left. I doubt that this isn't a bit exaggerated, but one should keep in mind that the Luftwaffe WAS a deadly weapon (my opinion).

Ray

(in reply to Morgan Schiff)

Post #: 33

- 3/28/2002 3:29:43 PM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

Hmmm, a 7 square restriction wouldn't stop the player from hitting a unit multiple times from an HQ with a fighter and multiple bomber units.

Restricting the fighters to just one escort mission is more interesting. This would effectively force the player to one large strike because he has fighter cover for only one attack. This would essentially do what we want, and will be easy to implement.

I still think the better solution is to tweak the combat routines so that large attacks produce more damage than 2 or 3 small attacks, but I have no idea whether we can get Arnaud to tackle this problem again.

(in reply to Morgan Schiff)

Post #: 34

- 3/28/2002 3:53:30 PM

czerpak

Posts: 271
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Poland
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
[B]
Restricting the fighters to just one escort mission is more interesting. This would effectively force the player to one large strike because he has fighter cover for only one attack. This would essentially do what we want, and will be easy to implement.

[/B][/QUOTE]

With some exceptions :
1. For 1941 I dont think Luftwaffe bombers need cover all the time to perform mission ( but this might force soviet players to keep at least part of VVS on line )
2. If you keep e.g. 4 fighter groups in HQ, still you can perform at least 2 misions with fighters on escort ( 2+2)
3. Once I get He177 I dont worry about soviet fighters that much (untill they get La series in production)

Just to name few, I am sure there are lots more

[QUOTE]I still think the better solution is to tweak the combat routines so that large attacks produce more damage than 2 or 3 small attacks, but I have no idea whether we can get Arnaud to tackle this problem again.[/QUOTE]

This one, I think, would be much better solution.

(in reply to Morgan Schiff)

Post #: 35

- 3/28/2002 7:08:34 PM

Paul McNeely

Posts: 607
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline

I think RickyB's suggestion on limiting ground attack range is a good one.

But there are a couple of things that could be done to otherwise limit interdiction effects.

1. Limit air units to flying only one type of mission per turn. This is realy only reasonable. Units engaged in bombing enemy airfields are not avialable to be used in supporting ground attacks. This is even more true for units engaged in interdiction attacks. Or heavily penalise units which fly player directed air missions in terms of readiness. This would especially work well to limit things as otherwise you will find you have no fighter cover. There is a limit on what you can do with your air craft in PACWAR and so I see no reason not to limit things in WIR.

2. For interdiction attacks adjust the readiness loss by the entrenchment level. Units with entrenchment levels of 0 should suffere heavy readiness penelties but highly entrenched units should suffer virutally none. The same should be true as well with the actual equipment losses. Interdiction is primarily intended to prevent the movement of troops and supplies it is not that effective against troops that are stationary.

Is it possible to have the interdiction attack reduce the supply level of the hex rather than affect the absolute readiness level of the units?? This would more accurately reflect what is going on.

Equipment loss is also something that is much more difficult to inflict on stationary unit. It was at that time very hard to spot troops.

Ground support was also something that required significant coordination and so on so restricting the range at which it can be applied (half the range of the plane might work well) would be reasonable. Or else reduce the effectiveness of any attacks but strategic bombing by the fraction the range is over half the planes nominal range.

(in reply to Morgan Schiff)

Post #: 36

- 3/28/2002 8:40:35 PM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul McNeely
[B]1. Limit air units to flying only one type of mission per turn. This is realy only reasonable.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Not necessarily. This has come up before. In West Front Gary allowed air units do both a mission and ground support. For some reason he didn't do so with WIR, but just about everyone agrees that in a week's time an air unit can execute 2 missions (interdict/ground support) even when the missions require multiple flights. When you watch a unit fly 4 or 5 ground support missions in one turn, its hard to say the unit couldn't also fly a player directed mission. The air units lose readiness so they will enter the ground support phase with less strength, so the player directed mission isn't "free" in that sense.

(in reply to Morgan Schiff)

Post #: 37

- 3/29/2002 4:28:51 AM

moonfog

Posts: 70
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Switzerland
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by czerpak
[B]

With some exceptions :
1. For 1941 I dont think Luftwaffe bombers need cover all the time to perform mission ( but this might force soviet players to keep at least part of VVS on line )[/B][/QUOTE]
That's exactly what I meant. If the soviet player doesn't even try to fight in the air he has to pay the price for that decision.

[QUOTE][B]2. If you keep e.g. 4 fighter groups in HQ, still you can perform at least 2 misions with fighters on escort ( 2+2)[/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, that would be still possible. But you don't have infinite fighter groups. Such a concentration would leave a big part of your frontline unprotected and vulnerable for the same multiple bomber attacks performed by your enemy (who doesn't need fighter support since you assembled your fighters anywhere else)

[B][QUOTE]3. Once I get He177 I dont worry about soviet fighters that much (untill they get La series in production)
[/B][/QUOTE]
With the He-177 available not before early 1943 (as disussed in another thread) you would have to wait a long time:)

Ray

(in reply to Morgan Schiff)

Post #: 38

- 3/29/2002 6:31:57 AM

Bernard

Posts: 673
Joined: 3/27/2002
From: Belgium
Status: offline

I suppose I have same profile as you. Didn't play the game for some years, downloaded when saw it, didn't play it yet and asked same question on formum on air power.
I guess I may be as old as you.
other question could be : is it possible to lose against IA in new version ?
Best regards

_____________________________

Ben

Verzage ni

(in reply to Morgan Schiff)

Post #: 39

- 3/29/2002 7:38:43 AM

Die Kriegerin

Posts: 58
Joined: 1/30/2002
From: Harligen, Texas
Status: offline

The answer is that air units have to support troops from thier HQ's, or spend the time to transfer them. I agree, and I've done it, enemy intercepetion doesn't occur so I send bombers from across the map to aid in an attack???? Realistic? NO!

Jon
:cool:

(in reply to Morgan Schiff)

Post #: 40

- 3/29/2002 4:44:24 PM

moonfog

Posts: 70
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: Switzerland
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Die Kriegerin
[B]The answer is that air units have to support troops from thier HQ's, or spend the time to transfer them. I agree, and I've done it, enemy intercepetion doesn't occur so I send bombers from across the map to aid in an attack???? Realistic? NO!

Jon
:cool: [/B][/QUOTE]

Attacking from across the map is certainly not realistic, I agree. But only allow aircraft to support the units of the HQ they are placed in isn't realistic either, I think. At least for the german side, the airforce was organized in "Luftflotten". Each Army Group had its own Luftflotte, commanded by a Luftflottenkommando (with own staff, logistics etc.). Because of this command structure and to remain "realistic", it must be allowed to attack a hex from different HQs, [B]as long as the involved army HQs belong to the same Army Group[/B]. Restricting that would IMO be similar to propose that Korps of different armies are not allowed to attack the same hex together.

Ray

(in reply to Morgan Schiff)

Post #: 41