Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: air war under 1.08.05

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: air war under 1.08.05 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/2/2015 3:24:21 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100
Go back to a modification of the old rule, that had air strikes on bases if the air group had used <33% of its miles.


Won't it translate into the old problem of razing enemy air bases, one at a time? I know being prevented from doing a mission because the group has used 1% (because air base moved tiny bit etc) is totally annoying, but I think all these restrictions were added because of a snowballing effect of multiple strikes at the same target. If there would be a limit of 1 strike of given type per hex per turn, without any miles flown restrictions, I think this could make air power easier to use, without having to think about % flown, and air power having greater impact due to more various missions flown. However players would try to reduce targets by, for example, keeping 3 air bases per hex. How to solve that problem?

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 31
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/2/2015 3:42:07 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10378
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100
Go back to a modification of the old rule, that had air strikes on bases if the air group had used <33% of its miles.


Won't it translate into the old problem of razing enemy air bases, one at a time? I know being prevented from doing a mission because the group has used 1% (because air base moved tiny bit etc) is totally annoying, but I think all these restrictions were added because of a snowballing effect of multiple strikes at the same target. If there would be a limit of 1 strike of given type per hex per turn, without any miles flown restrictions, I think this could make air power easier to use, without having to think about % flown, and air power having greater impact due to more various missions flown. However players would try to reduce targets by, for example, keeping 3 air bases per hex. How to solve that problem?


Well most of us have house rules that stop that. I've offered opponents a combination of no more than x attacks per base and y in total in the turn (my inner statistician is clearly on show here ), if they are worried. Other than that the 3 raids per turn rule works out pretty well, I can rarely muster more than 2.

thing is with the Soviets you have to be able to reach into German airspace for 3 reasons. One its a tool to reduce recon capacity (and that in turn allows you to think in terms of gaining a strategic surprise in the land war). Two its a tool to hit their resupply capacity, both if they are advancing or if they have units where you are constricting overland supply missions. Finally it allows you to counter a sustained city bombing campaign - usually a port you are using for supply yourself.

None of this is the gamey spam bomb the Luftwaffe off the map tactic. Each is a specific response to a specific problem using the WiTE game engine.

The current coding ends all this. In WiTW its not important, you can use air superiority missions in their air space, leave your fighters set up to defend you own (with no mission) or go hunting critical airfields (and as LS notes, you recon as you bomb so that solves the problem of perfect information).

If you want to hard code a limit/base attack - set it at 2. I think that is a decent balance point.

_____________________________


(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 32
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/2/2015 3:48:39 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
I was spam bombing Luftwaffe off the map with self-imposed limit of 1 strike per base (two by accident), and it was working quite well.

What about the other type of missions (unit bomb, city bomb). I would like to unlink all those mission from the "traveled 0%" limit for consistency (and they are dead longer than air base strikes, because they are blocked longer this way). Should all those count as "special mission in the hex" or should they be counted separately?

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 33
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/2/2015 4:07:04 PM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline
quote:

This was more like bug introduced with 1.08.00. The idea is to keep the units generally where they were (so moving from disbanded Corps to it's Army etc), making smallest possible adjustment when one unit is disbanded.


Well, I liked the Stavka version better. More fun. Less tedious. With sappers now costing 2 AP and railroad repairs units costing 3 AP it would be nice if the Russians could get a slight break in the AP department.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 34
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/2/2015 4:42:36 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
Concur with Bozo but is a seperate issue- the huge pressures on Soviet AP use....its abit absurd.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 35
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/2/2015 4:58:52 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
After all it took them two years to get into shape. I remember wasting way too many AP on upgrading aircraft and disbanding unwanted SUs, created with every army. Later it costed much to reassign corps. These AP would be saved now, spent on more expensive SUs (would stop me from spamming sappers regiments) and air units.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 36
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/2/2015 5:23:15 PM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline
quote:

I remember wasting way too many AP on upgrading aircraft and disbanding unwanted SUs, created with every army.


You still have to waste APs upgrading your biplanes in 41. The system does a terrible job upgrading these airplanes in 41. And you don't get new air regiments until August so you have to upgrade some of them manually. Of course, with the new air system you might just forget about all that.

Unwanted SUs are of no importance in 41 because you don't build that many armies in 41. Unwanted SUs were annoying but they didn't cost you any APs and it was always the players choice to disband them.

I believe it's also a mistake to look at these things in isolation. I have grave concerns regarding the new airhead supply system. What looks like a cool feature will most likely lead to extremely gamey tactics. What prevents the German player from using all his long range bombers to supply cut-off spearheads in 41? Once they are in beachhead supply their CV will be so high that they can just continue fighting even if the pocket is never reopened. Just put all your long range bombers on night mission and keep dropping supplies. You just have to make sure that at least one airbase is in the pocket. I am envisioning weird Axis orange blobs slowly (and sometimes not so slowly) traveling towards the Urals.

< Message edited by Bozo_the_Clown -- 11/2/2015 8:18:01 PM >

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 37
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/2/2015 8:06:08 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Too risky and there is no capacity to lift enough fuel for movement. Transports quickly wear off, a lot are damaged and morale drops even without enemy fighters interfering. I wouldn't be afraid of that moving isolated blob at all. Too inefficient.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 38
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/2/2015 8:25:42 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
also once you find that transport airbase a couple air strikes later and it greatly drops off the airlift....probably not a valid tactic now with super limited first of turn strike capability but I now I struck Peltons transport airbases several times in 1942 costing him a fair amount of transport aircraft here and there on the ground when they didnt have good fighter cover.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 39
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/2/2015 10:50:21 PM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline
I like the idea of airhead supply. Keeping pockets alive is a good thing. I have seen too many games were entire armies get wiped out in one week. But I am concerned that it might lead to gamey stuff. Time will tell.

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 40
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/2/2015 11:24:17 PM   
mktours

 

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

You want to know what I really hate about this patch? In .04 you could disband HQs and the units were then automatically under Stavka. I guess that was just too much fun for the Russians to be able to easily customize their army.


This was more like bug introduced with 1.08.00. The idea is to keep the units generally where they were (so moving from disbanded Corps to it's Army etc), making smallest possible adjustment when one unit is disbanded.

That is very week argument. I didn't see it as a "bug". Suppose a HQ getting disbanded,the order must come from the Highest command, in that case, units under the disbanded HQ report to OKH or STAVKA. In history, one could look at what happened to the Germany 11th army, after it finished the Crimea campaign.
Wite is a strategy game, and this feature is a core feature in managing the game, to change such features must take more caution and weigh the pros and cons carefully before executing the change. You can't regulate all drivers to changing habit to driving in the left lane in one month and then regulate them to returning to driving in the right lane in another month.
In my opinion, the introduction of this feature is a good improvement, adjust to the new feature cost me some time, but is rewarding. It helps both sides (I play well at both sides). Now it has been removed, then all my effort in adjusting to it has no use and I have to re-adjust to the new rules, I can't welcome this.
WITE can't be perfect reflecting of a real history game, it is a strategy game for training people's thinking. I hope the developing teaming could take consideration in serving players' interest and don't change the regulations too often.




(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 41
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/3/2015 10:13:13 PM   
charlie0311

 

Posts: 942
Joined: 12/20/2013
Status: offline
First mission per turn rules have meant that when I use my fighters to escort "bomb unit" attacks, then I have none left for escorted recon.

Take recon escort off first mission list?

(in reply to mktours)
Post #: 42
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/3/2015 11:42:05 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
You have to recon with no fighter escorts or recon after your bombing raids. I learned this the hard way early in me and peltons game.

The airwar is a mess/worthless now with this patch. It made even attempting to use planes a pain, and nerfed them to uselessness aside from ground support and recon as least for the Soviets.

(in reply to charlie0311)
Post #: 43
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/4/2015 5:31:12 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
I'm leaning towards limits per hex in the air war, and no limits on % traveled:
- for airbase bombing one per hex per airbase in hex
- for unit bombing one per hex per unit in hex
- for city bombing one per hex, unless light urban (then two), or heavy urban (then three)

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 44
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/4/2015 6:27:53 AM   
charlie0311

 

Posts: 942
Joined: 12/20/2013
Status: offline
ok with me, maybe 2 per port?

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 45
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/4/2015 9:53:20 AM   
M60A3TTS


Posts: 3979
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline
Three per hex across the board, never mind how many units are there. That's what the house rule was for airbases and it worked fine. I don't see any rationalization for restricting city bombing based on the size or urban density of the target.

(in reply to charlie0311)
Post #: 46
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/4/2015 10:15:58 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10378
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

Three per hex across the board, never mind how many units are there. That's what the house rule was for airbases and it worked fine. I don't see any rationalization for restricting city bombing based on the size or urban density of the target.


completely agree.

we all know the problems inherent in the WiTE air game ... and that WiTW resolves them. For the moment leave it as it is and let players sort out their own rules. Its easy to set limits so its no problem. My fear about arbitrary limits used to police a too liberal system is you end up repeating the problem of the latest patch

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

...

The airwar is a mess/worthless now with this patch. It made even attempting to use planes a pain, and nerfed them to uselessness aside from ground support and recon as least for the Soviets.


which sums the situation up perfectly


_____________________________


(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 47
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/4/2015 11:55:42 AM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline
Agreed. The current air system is too restrictive and simply boring. Axis players never have to fear losing their recon assets or anything else. The only reason to keep long range bombers is for airhead supply of encircled units.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 48
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/4/2015 12:16:35 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
3 per hex seems fine to me and still keeps air support valid for a variety of missions instead of an air army with 500+ aircraft doing one mission and being done for an entire week.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 49
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/5/2015 9:34:44 PM   
charlie0311

 

Posts: 942
Joined: 12/20/2013
Status: offline
Bombers drop bombs, then run for it. No supply/fuel for bombers, ok?

Biplanes don't drop supply, a few girlie magazines and that's all.:)

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 50
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/6/2015 5:48:59 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10378
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

...

Biplanes don't drop supply, ...)


actually they did, the Soviets resupplied a tank brigade that had cut the German communication lines at the start of the Stalingrad offensive this way. Captured an airfield, landed U2s and resupplied the tanks with fuel drums they flew in.

Now by resupply, I think what this allowed was the 15-20 Soviet tanks to be able to make tactical moves in combat, not to then race off into the steppe ... actually they used the resupply to pull back a bit to a safer location

_____________________________


(in reply to charlie0311)
Post #: 51
RE: air war under 1.08.05 - 11/6/2015 6:40:13 AM   
charlie0311

 

Posts: 942
Joined: 12/20/2013
Status: offline
Pesky Ivans, what will they dream up next..:)

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 52
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: air war under 1.08.05 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.531