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

Post Reply
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

Mass Air Groups

Post by PvtBenjamin »

Some one please explain to me how the following air force placement in any way represents what was possible in WW2.






ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin
ORIGINAL: Sugar

Image[/img]

Current situation: 2 of the brit. tanks are destroyed, as well as one of their HQs. The appearing of an am. strat. bomber shows the happening during Chrispy's turn: USA joined the Allies early dec.. I'm expecting my esteemed opponent to immediately invest all the am. Chits into Spain, providing him with a chance of 20%/turn to decrease Franco's pro Axis' leaning. Since it`s taking an additional turn for the DE to fire, the race will continue.

German income has reached 1050 MPPs/turn with the developement of the 5. stage of industial research. Russian Winter has happened.







11 Axis air groups in the mountains of Morocco, the realism abounds. Thank you for proving my many posts on the mass air limitations of the game. Folks if you want to know why Sugar wins this is it in one picture. I really hope the developers are reading this.


KorutZelva
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:35 am

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by KorutZelva »

I wonder what the game would look like if planes we tied to cities and their adjacent hex. Something like Cities with supply 5 and under can host 1 air unit, 6 and up, 2 air unit. Basically, where there is high town density there would be infrastructure to maintain large air fleet and desolate, under-developed places would see smaller squadrons. In exchange the rule on the HQ having to be the closest would be weaved.
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by PvtBenjamin »

I'm really hoping to get a comment from Bill or Hubert if this is their intent in the game.




I agree Korut some type of limitations (air bases) would be a major improvement.
User avatar
YohanTM
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:14 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by YohanTM »

interesting idea KZ - it is indeed out of hand right now - maybe add the option to build an airbase in clear terrain at a certain cost for forward deployments - more in woods/desert
KorutZelva
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:35 am

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by KorutZelva »

Another one, that was suggested by someone else I forgot was to limit the amount of air unit per HQ, like 2-3. I always cringe a little when I turn Rommel into a aircraft carrier. [:D]
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by PvtBenjamin »

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

Another one, that was suggested by someone else I forgot was to limit the amount of air unit per HQ, like 2-3. I always cringe a little when I turn Rommel into a aircraft carrier. [:D]






Another good idea, maybe air HQ's (Dowding etc)
Sugar
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Sugar »

Take a look at pictures of typical airfields in NA or Russia and tell me how they were related to cities or towns.

I agree the relation between tac. bombers and especially tanks doesn't fit, in fact I would gladly trade some of the tac. bombers for tanks in that situation (like in most). They're quick and don't rely on weather.

I also agree the Axis to have the edge, allthough the tourney suggests the opposite.

When it comes to balancing, the issue is not only to reduce some possible advantages, but to enable any side to reach it's goal.
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Taxman66 »

As I have argued before, the issues of 'realism' (and mass air groups is not the only one) tie into the design of the game and particularly into the victory conditions; and the balance of trying to achieve a game where the axis win the war about 50% if the time. Which, in my opinion (as I also argued in other threads) raises significant issues on its own).
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by PvtBenjamin »

Maybe just zones (green/yellow/red)

Green - all Major countries Europe & USSR - no limit

Yellow - Eastern Africa & Middle East Southern Scandinavia 3 bombers/3 fighters (including carriers) this could include other areas just throwing it out

Red - Western Africa & Northern Scandinavia 3 planes
User avatar
xwormwood
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bremen, Germany

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by xwormwood »

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

Some one please explain to me how the following air force placement in any way represents what was possible in WW2.


You play a "what if" kind of game. That is why it is possible. No, better: why it should be possible.

"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by PvtBenjamin »

quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

Some one please explain to me how the following air force placement in any way represents what was possible in WW2.




You play a "what if" kind of game. That is why it is possible. No, better: why it should be possible.






Its not a "what if" its something that was (and probably still is ) absolutely impossible. This is a historical game not a fantasy game.
User avatar
crispy131313
Posts: 2124
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:37 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by crispy131313 »

To be fair there are 1000 MPP worth of HQ/supply/base parked in those mountains which simulate somewhat of air-basing.

What I have felt from Beta (2016) was that the Bombers were too strong, it was the first change I made in Fall Weiss II and I have never looked back or had a complaint (only compliments). The air force should support the Armies not the other way around. Having 2-3 ground units supporting an advancing air force is where we are going off the rails. I can not blame Sugar for doing this, but I can fault the game for creating the incentive to do it. The answer is to simply scale bombers back in their ground attack value, they should be softening up targets (lowering morale, entrenchment, doing damage) not nuking entire army groups.
Fall Weiss II - SC3 Mod
tm.asp?m=4183873

PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by PvtBenjamin »

[&:]
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by PvtBenjamin »

THE PLANES ARE IN THE MOUNTAINS IN MOROCCO IN 1940 FOR GOD"S SAKE.

You are correct Sugar is absolutely operating within the parameters of the game.


Bill - Hubert any comments?
User avatar
xwormwood
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bremen, Germany

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by xwormwood »

you play against sugar, not an average joe kind of Strategic Command player.
Let me explain what this means: you play against a side which surely trains, reads the manual up to all decision events, plans long turns ahead, looks out for a game system weaknesses, and tries to bring the entire package against all of their human opponents.

Stop playing games against these kind of opponents if you don't like what they are able to do to you.
It doesn't matter what kind of game you play. Stop playing against those people who prefer to win no matter what. They will never give you the feeling of the time period.
And I write this with the utmost respect for players like sugar or people who play against them.
"You will be dead, so long as you refuse to die" (George MacDonald)
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by PvtBenjamin »

I'm hoping the game will. I expect players to use all strategies that are available to them.

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

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by Hairog »

Carpet bombing did of course take place and was pretty effective. It did cause whole units to be ineffective in responding to the follow up ground attacks. Please remember that units that are shattered are not destroyed but go back into the replacement pool for refit and replacements.
The first successful use of the technique was on 6 May 1943, at the end of the Tunisia Campaign. Carried out under Sir Arthur Tedder, it was hailed by press as Tedder's bomb-carpet (or Tedder's carpet). The bombing was concentrated in a four by three-mile area preparing the way for the First Army.[10] This tactic was later used in many cases in Normandy Campaign, for example in Battle for Caen.[11]

That being said IMHO the AI and some players get carried away. Carpet bombing was used very rarely and took enormous amounts of resources to plan and carry out. Numerous carpet bomb attacks should not be possible every turn. I like Crispy's solution. You can easily cut back on the damage to hard and soft targets while still give the SB the ability to hit resource hexes hard.
WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be
James Taylor
Posts: 676
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Contact:

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by James Taylor »

Ktonos brought up a very important point in his "pbem impressions" thread about the movement of aircraft(ferrying) from one local to another.

According to sources I've read, one being "A Fire in the Sky" and also John Elis' "Encyclopedia of WW II Facts and Figures" operational losses of aircraft were quite significant. That is losses from other factors excluding combat. Training, ferrying, take offs and landings, as well as cannibalization of semi-operational aircraft quickly diluted out the overall effectiveness of air units.

This means a fair representation of losses during an SC operational movement of aircraft should have some possibly major(25%) circumstances involved.

I believe that such a feature would be realistic especially when ferrying aircraft to remote regions where infrastructure was surely lacking.

There is even a case that just for rebasing a SC air unit could result in a 10% chance of suffering a loss.

Something to consider along with my suggested cap of 2/3 air units per SC HQ.
SeaMonkey
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9936
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by sPzAbt653 »

ORIGINAL: crispy131313
What I have felt from Beta (2016) was that the Bombers were too strong, it was the first change I made in Fall Weiss II and I have never looked back or had a complaint (only compliments).
Same here with 653H [and it carried over to 653N]. Totally agree with you. So there are possible options.
This is a historical game not a fantasy game.
Actually, it is a game based on an historical conflict. There are many things that are not historical about it, in varying degrees depending on ones knowledge of history.
Stop playing games against these kind of opponents if you don't like what they are able to do to you.
Well put. SC3 doesn't kill people, people kill people !
PvtBenjamin
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:57 pm

RE: Mass Air Groups

Post by PvtBenjamin »

Panzer Corps 2 release was just announced here are some of the features



Air combat is being improved – every airplane is now tied to an airfield that will be a hex-feature. You can attack and destroy the airfields to cause air units to run out of fuel and/or ammo.
Airfield hexes may be able to be repaired under certain circumstances.



653's posted following:
This is a historical game not a fantasy game.
Actually, it is a game based on an historical conflict. There are many things that are not historical about it, in varying degrees depending on ones knowledge of history.



my response:

I should have been clearer. It was operationally (airfields, fuel, ammunition, terrain) impossible to put 1/2 the German airforce in the mountains of Morocco in 1940. If you think it was well.


Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII War in Europe”