IronDuke_slith -> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? (6/29/2006 1:51:23 AM)
ORIGINAL: Warship NWS
Some of you might want to see our conversations on this topic on our forums at NWS,
IMHO, I also feel that CAS, artillery, and tactical air strikes are too weak (especially regarding WW2) and I sent over some emails to the design team regarding this topic and also offered any resources at our disposal as assistance if needed. I do know the dev team is listening to feedback on this subjective topic.
As to AAA effectivness.. I definitely agree that AAA is presently too stong.
The threads agree with me, I think, in that few Tanks would be destroyed but the effects could be seen in other ways, reduced supply, morale and readiness.
Gooderson's book is the best one I've seen on the subject,and I can't think of a better study to have to hand when modelling the effects.
On the subject of Armed Recce, this was essentially interdiction so can be modelled within the game to some extent. Interdiction does replay showing you where the strike was made so it does model to some extent both of the key effects of Armed Recce, intel and combat.
I think the game's key ground for development is in:
1. modelling national doctrine and characteristics. The artillery rules, for example, seem generic when real life was anything but, and I think the reasons some scenarios can be unbalanced when they were even in real life is that everybody gets to fight in the manner they want here and now which wasn't an option back then. These rules would have to be optional for the uber realists only but might take the game forward.
2. If not modelling doctrine so much, the arty rules could still be reasonably tweaked to make them more historical.
3. Some work on the formation rules. Fixed formation and OOBs works fine within the short mechanised campaigns Norm envisaged for the game originally, but most of the best experiences I've had with the game have been with the longer scenarios covering weeks or even months and years of scenario time. In these circumstances, we need the ability within allied OOBs to switch Divisions between Corps etc, and within German formations to create ad hoc groupings on the KG model.
4. I'd like a couple of extra reserve orders (eg Counterattack, where the unit would act as tac or local reserve unless the hex was taken before it intervened in which case it would counterattack the breach of the line). German defensive doctrine is impossible to model on games with more than half day turns without this sort of order.
5. Probably an extra loss tolerance that just told the unit to ensure (provided the combat power, mobility and recce numbers applied against it were not too overwhelming) that it held until pressured and retreated in good order. Moving second, fighting retreats are hard to pull off with routed units held in place until the next turn or ordered to reorganise. Even if these could be ordered to just pull back a small percentage of their movement allowance instead of being tied in situ, it would help create the ebb and flow a little better of a front line being pushed back under remorseless pressure.