Matrix Games Forums

Decisive Campaigns: The Blitzkrieg gets a Steam release! Pike & Shot Twitch Let's PlayTo End All Wars Twitch Stream and Announcement! Vietnam 65 Announced and in Beta!War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!
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 >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Panzer Corps >> Air Power Page: [1]
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Air Power - 9/11/2011 10:54:10 AM   


Posts: 10
Joined: 7/20/2011
Status: offline
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?
Post #: 1
RE: Air Power - 9/11/2011 3:41:10 PM   


Posts: 156
Joined: 8/8/2006
From: Rhode Island
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to gerg71)
Post #: 2
RE: Air Power - 9/11/2011 4:09:53 PM   


Posts: 10
Joined: 7/20/2011
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Jestre)
Post #: 3
RE: Air Power - 9/11/2011 11:02:56 PM   

Posts: 6235
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline


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.



"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to gerg71)
Post #: 4
RE: Air Power - 9/12/2011 12:27:55 AM   


Posts: 10
Joined: 7/20/2011
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 5
RE: Air Power - 9/17/2011 11:42:03 PM   


Posts: 11
Joined: 9/17/2011
Status: offline
in PG2 we never worried about their fuel but I like the way they work like now. It adds to strategy.

(in reply to gerg71)
Post #: 6
RE: Air Power - 9/19/2011 8:18:38 AM   
Erik Nygaard


Posts: 568
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to gerg71)
Post #: 7
RE: Air Power - 9/19/2011 7:19:08 PM   

Posts: 633
Joined: 2/9/2007
Status: offline
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.


This war is not about slavery. --Robert E. Lee

(in reply to gerg71)
Post #: 8
RE: Air Power - 9/20/2011 11:15:20 PM   


Posts: 4
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Greybriar)
Post #: 9
RE: Air Power - 9/21/2011 4:39:27 AM   

Posts: 174
Joined: 8/14/2011
Status: offline


...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.

< Message edited by VR_IronFist -- 9/21/2011 4:40:03 AM >

(in reply to MagiK)
Post #: 10
RE: Air Power - 9/21/2011 3:23:41 PM   


Posts: 68
Joined: 8/14/2011
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to VR_IronFist)
Post #: 11
RE: Air Power - 9/22/2011 2:18:52 PM   


Posts: 1240
Joined: 11/4/2008
Status: offline
Come on people, it's a game, you have to have some abstractions.

(in reply to AceDuceTrey)
Post #: 12
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Panzer Corps >> Air Power Page: [1]
Jump to:

New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI