Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Suggestions

 
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] >> WarPlan >> Suggestions Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Suggestions - 4/8/2021 3:34:58 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2498
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
This is the best WWII Strategy game I have ever played, either board or computer. But I continue to believe that it has a few flaws. One is the effect of unit "Shatters" Another is that airpower is too weak. The final is that both Germany and Russia can collapse too quickly. My proposed solution would be to change it so that when a units Shatters (which happens frequently particularly if it has no hex to retreat too) it sustains further strength loss damage, but then is placed in the production queue to reappear after a certain number of turns. This would be similar to what happens to an air unit when it is overrun. This would, IMHO, have several beneficial effects:

1. It would make the "All-In" defence of France less attractive because the destroyed German units (almost all of which are lost to shatters) would not be permanently destroyed;

2. It would make the effects of not having a place to retreat less harsh;

3. It would prolong the collapse of both Germany and Russia; and

4. It would make it far more important to put enemy units out of supply so as to cause them to "Surrender" rather then "Shatter". In my experience I rarely bother trying to surround large numbers of enemy units. I generally find it far more efficient to retreat other enemy units in such a way that they have no place to retreat and then shatter them.

I suggest coupling this with boosting the effects of air bombardment so that ground units suffer greater effectiveness loss from the bombing. It seems to me that when I bomb an enemy unit my bombing air unit will lose as much effectiveness as the defender. By increasing the effectiveness of bombing it will allow an attacking player to concentrate on a particular spot of the enemy line thus increasing the chances of a breakthrough. This is what Blitzkrieg was all about.
Post #: 1
RE: Suggestions - 4/8/2021 4:00:33 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 6045
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

This is the best WWII Strategy game I have ever played, either board or computer. But I continue to believe that it has a few flaws. One is the effect of unit "Shatters" Another is that airpower is too weak. The final is that both Germany and Russia can collapse too quickly. My proposed solution would be to change it so that when a units Shatters (which happens frequently particularly if it has no hex to retreat too) it sustains further strength loss damage, but then is placed in the production queue to reappear after a certain number of turns. This would be similar to what happens to an air unit when it is overrun. This would, IMHO, have several beneficial effects:

1. It would make the "All-In" defence of France less attractive because the destroyed German units (almost all of which are lost to shatters) would not be permanently destroyed;

2. It would make the effects of not having a place to retreat less harsh;

3. It would prolong the collapse of both Germany and Russia; and

4. It would make it far more important to put enemy units out of supply so as to cause them to "Surrender" rather then "Shatter". In my experience I rarely bother trying to surround large numbers of enemy units. I generally find it far more efficient to retreat other enemy units in such a way that they have no place to retreat and then shatter them.

I suggest coupling this with boosting the effects of air bombardment so that ground units suffer greater effectiveness loss from the bombing. It seems to me that when I bomb an enemy unit my bombing air unit will lose as much effectiveness as the defender. By increasing the effectiveness of bombing it will allow an attacking player to concentrate on a particular spot of the enemy line thus increasing the chances of a breakthrough. This is what Blitzkrieg was all about.


+1 for the shatter change, not sure about the air power change, but that part could certainly be rather easily tested with a minor mod.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 2
RE: Suggestions - 4/8/2021 4:29:29 PM   
Nirosi

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 9/17/2017
Status: online
From what I have seen in my games, concentration of air power can already be very deadly latter on in the game. When you get 7 soviet air units striking a German armor, the CV can easily go from 25 to 20! I would personally be afraid to make it even more effective.

The turn track shatter would be a nice addition! Maybe not for the overwhelming odds shatters, but certainly the too long retreat path ones for the reasons stated here!

While we are on it, I think that one of the things that makes the USSR fragile is the April Barbarossa. A June one is already big difference. If the game was balanced with history in mind, it would be normal that an early Barbarossa would be unbalanced.

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 3
RE: Suggestions - 4/8/2021 4:32:48 PM   
Nirosi

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 9/17/2017
Status: online
PS : if Alvaro is reading, concerning Ground strike vs ground support : would it be correct to say that the first ground strike is probably more effective than ground support (for the same plane under same conditions etc.), but that ground support is more probably effective than a second ground strike?

(in reply to Nirosi)
Post #: 4
RE: Suggestions - 4/8/2021 5:09:45 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 7920
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline
Thats about right

_____________________________

Creater Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to Nirosi)
Post #: 5
RE: Suggestions - 4/8/2021 6:59:15 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 4680
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

This is the best WWII Strategy game I have ever played, either board or computer. But I continue to believe that it has a few flaws. One is the effect of unit "Shatters" Another is that airpower is too weak. The final is that both Germany and Russia can collapse too quickly. My proposed solution would be to change it so that when a units Shatters (which happens frequently particularly if it has no hex to retreat too) it sustains further strength loss damage, but then is placed in the production queue to reappear after a certain number of turns. This would be similar to what happens to an air unit when it is overrun. This would, IMHO, have several beneficial effects:

1. It would make the "All-In" defence of France less attractive because the destroyed German units (almost all of which are lost to shatters) would not be permanently destroyed;

2. It would make the effects of not having a place to retreat less harsh;

3. It would prolong the collapse of both Germany and Russia; and

4. It would make it far more important to put enemy units out of supply so as to cause them to "Surrender" rather then "Shatter". In my experience I rarely bother trying to surround large numbers of enemy units. I generally find it far more efficient to retreat other enemy units in such a way that they have no place to retreat and then shatter them.

I suggest coupling this with boosting the effects of air bombardment so that ground units suffer greater effectiveness loss from the bombing. It seems to me that when I bomb an enemy unit my bombing air unit will lose as much effectiveness as the defender. By increasing the effectiveness of bombing it will allow an attacking player to concentrate on a particular spot of the enemy line thus increasing the chances of a breakthrough. This is what Blitzkrieg was all about.


If you have air superiority, yes. I like your "shatter" treatment.

_____________________________

Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 6
RE: Suggestions - 4/9/2021 12:10:46 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2498
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nirosi

From what I have seen in my games, concentration of air power can already be very deadly latter on in the game. When you get 7 soviet air units striking a German armor, the CV can easily go from 25 to 20! I would personally be afraid to make it even more effective.


With respect, that is my point. 7 air units striking a single unit (presumably 14 total strikes) should do a lot more than simply reduce its strength by a measly 20%. I mean if you attacked that same German armour three times with 3 Russian mechanized units they would cause a lot more damage to that armour then just reducing it's strength from 25 to 20. And the cost of those 3 mechanized units is significantly less than the cost of 7 air units. This is why very few players build very many air units. It is why some Russian players scrap the Red air force before Barbarossa. Air units are simply not cost effective.

IMHO that armour's strength should be reduced by about 50% after just 7 or so such strikes. This assumes the attacker is using ground attack air units (not medium bombers or fighter bombers), flying in clear weather against a unit that is not dug in. It should also be on a decreasing scale. Assuming all the air units were of equal (and good) strength and average luck throughout than the effectiveness losses should be something like this:

1st attack: 15% effectiveness loss ie 25 strength to 21.3,
2nd attack: 12% effectiveness loss ie 21.3 to 18.7,
3rd attack: 10% effectiveness loss ie 18.7 to 16.8
4th attack: 8% effectiveness loss ie 16.8 to 15.5
5th attack: 7% effectiveness loss ie 15.5 to 14.4
6th attack: 6% effectiveness loss ie 14.4 to 13.5
7th attack: 5% effectiveness loss ie 13.5 to 12.8.
Each succeeding strike would do 1% less.

Of course, units dug in or in fortified locations would suffer less effectiveness loss and weather would also reduce bombing effectiveness. Anything less than this is making a mockery of what air power was actually able to accomplish in WWII. Keep in mind that each attack by an air unit reduces its own effectiveness by 6% (someone please correct me if I have this wrong) so by the time of your 4th attack the air unit is losing about as much effectiveness as the ground unit being attacked.








< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 4/9/2021 5:12:34 AM >

(in reply to Nirosi)
Post #: 7
RE: Suggestions - 4/9/2021 11:26:11 AM   
stjeand


Posts: 278
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: online
Perhaps the type of attacking air should have an effect?

Level bombers are not as effective as ground attack against say dug in units...

But that requires a lot of thought.

I need to perform some testing to see what air truly does.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 8
RE: Suggestions - 4/9/2021 1:08:43 PM   
Nirosi

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 9/17/2017
Status: online
Hi,

Well by the 4th attack the air unit would not have lost as much since it would have been spread over two air units (or one over two turns) that will recover some of it at the end of turn. I do understand your point though, but I do not know what result should actually be the right one. 50% seems to me very harsh. Since we usually try to attack in either important spots or already weak spots, 50% would be an almost guaranteed success of the offensive and make the game look a little more like SC. Also let's not forget about ground supports which adds up to that. I am not sure of how to mesure it, but ground support seems quite effective. In the example I gave it would add up another x% (I would guess at least another 10% to a total of 30 or so?). Not 50% yet I agree, but certainly not bad.

Are air units cost effective? That is a tough one, but instinctively I would say yes (but probably depends on the context, front, emergency or not etc.). Those things have so many variables that it is hard to calculate. Yes three mechs would do more damage but also take more damage and maybe put themselves at risk of counter-attacks. So they give more but they take more. But most importantly, there is a limit of land units you can concentrate on one attack, but once that limit reached, you can still add bombers if you have some.

Yes bombers can also take lose as well, but then it means more German fighters (if you are the soviet for example) in your front and not in Germany protecting the economy. Bombers can also fly ground support in defense to slow down (maybe) the enemy (i have seen my probable attack odds going doing by one quite a few times when enemy bombers came in). They can serve against fleets etc. (well not for the Soviet I agree).

Maybe we could actually just lower the effectiveness loss of air units (or boost their recovery rate)? Or maybe lower the loss just for the ground attack units? I admit I am surprised by how fast they lose it even if they take no loses! You simply look up for a sub two turns in a row and then you need to rest for at least a turn if not two! Strategic would even lose 8% searching for subs!

Anyway, we all agree that air should be effective, but my impression was that the 20% (probably 30 or so with the extra air support) was quite something already.

< Message edited by Nirosi -- 4/9/2021 1:43:51 PM >

(in reply to stjeand)
Post #: 9
RE: Suggestions - 4/9/2021 3:17:34 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2498
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nirosi

Hi,

Well by the 4th attack the air unit would not have lost as much since it would have been spread over two air units (or one over two turns) that will recover some of it at the end of turn. I do understand your point though, but I do not know what result should actually be the right one. 50% seems to me very harsh. Since we usually try to attack in either important spots or already weak spots, 50% would be an almost guaranteed success of the offensive and make the game look a little more like SC. Also let's not forget about ground supports which adds up to that. I am not sure of how to mesure it, but ground support seems quite effective. In the example I gave it would add up another x% (I would guess at least another 10% to a total of 30 or so?). Not 50% yet I agree, but certainly not bad.

Are air units cost effective? That is a tough one, but instinctively I would say yes (but probably depends on the context, front, emergency or not etc.). Those things have so many variables that it is hard to calculate. Yes three mechs would do more damage but also take more damage and maybe put themselves at risk of counter-attacks. So they give more but they take more. But most importantly, there is a limit of land units you can concentrate on one attack, but once that limit reached, you can still add bombers if you have some.

Yes bombers can also take lose as well, but then it means more German fighters (if you are the soviet for example) in your front and not in Germany protecting the economy. Bombers can also fly ground support in defense to slow down (maybe) the enemy (i have seen my probable attack odds going doing by one quite a few times when enemy bombers came in). They can serve against fleets etc. (well not for the Soviet I agree).

Maybe we could actually just lower the effectiveness loss of air units (or boost their recovery rate)? Or maybe lower the loss just for the ground attack units? I admit I am surprised by how fast they lose it even if they take no loses! You simply look up for a sub two turns in a row and then you need to rest for at least a turn if not two! Strategic would even lose 8% searching for subs!

Anyway, we all agree that air should be effective, but my impression was that the 20% (probably 30 or so with the extra air support) was quite something already.


Sorry Nirosi, considering the cost of air units to purchase, a 20% reduction after multiple attacks is ridiculous. If air units are effective then how come nobody builds very many of them? As the Axis from the start of the game until the start of Barbarossa I will generally build 8 armour, 4 mechanized, 8 infantry and 6 U-Boats; but only 1 air superiority and 1 ground attack. I believe other players follow a similar build plan. As the Italians, French and Russians I don't build any air units. Some players even scrap the Russian air force, or at least a good chunk of it. As the UK I don't build any air units in 1940 or 41. Starting in 42 until the end of the War I will build an air superiority or 2 and 2 or 3 ground attack. The same with the States. But even for the UK and the US the number of air units I build pale in comparison to the number of armour, mechanized and infantry that I build. I know some players like to build up a large strategic bombing force for the UK and US; but I don't know any good players who build large numbers of ground attack and medium bombers. Take a look at the number of air units the UK and US start with in the 1944 scenario and how weak in comparison their armies are. You will never see that in a game starting in 1939 because no Allied player would be stupid enough to do that. Air units have their uses, but they do not have anywhere near the impact on ground operations in the game that they had historically. Not even close.

(in reply to Nirosi)
Post #: 10
RE: Suggestions - 4/9/2021 5:20:27 PM   
stjeand


Posts: 278
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: online
I wonder if air units were smaller and spread out more if that might make a larger difference?

Max size of 10 like a carrier and double the number to start.
This would make them cheaper too...
Then again might cause stacking issues in the UK

I rarely build any as the Axis...fighters as 42 hits to keep the strat bombers at bay. But AA is cheap overall...

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 11
RE: Suggestions - 4/9/2021 7:29:14 PM   
Nirosi

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 9/17/2017
Status: online
quote:

arbarossa I will generally build 8 armour, 4 mechanized, 8 infantry and 6 U-Boats; but only 1 air superiority and 1 ground attack


Hi again,

To be honest that is very close to what I do as well (and is actualy damn close to the 41 scenario!). But it is just normal to build more land than air units since the second ones are only there to support the first ones. It does not means they are useless. And if I look at the scenarios (I trust Alvaro that the numbers are pretty close to history), we as players seem to naturally builds very close to history for some countries. I also never build air units as the USSR (or maybe one or two; depends), but that is because they have a lot already! If we compare the 41 and 44 scenarios, German air force is not much bigger (equivalent of only 3, maybe 4 extra air units over 3 years!) and USSR is the same I think or within one air unit. For the Soviet, all you have to do is make sure no unit is destroyed 100% (not that hard) and you will have plenty already by 44. So at least for those two countries the historical incentive, for lack of better word, seems to work.

I am not saying all games should be historical of course, but the perceived usefulness translated in "desire to build" seems fair for Axis and USSR. Of course, they will build many more troops before planes in their case. The contrary would be quite strange due to their situation both in game and history.

Allies seems different I agree for most games I saw. And maybe it could be due to problem with the air force effectiveness as you say indeed. But it could also maybe be a question of perception, supply, reaction to Axis strategy... I would be curious to see opinions on why from players.

As far as historical effectiveness goes, I think it is a given that all specialists agree that air force was decisive. But I also know that experts do disagree to what extend. The game must make a choice in this case and chose its "level" if I may say. Is 20% ridiculous? Maybe. I certainly read books on the subject that would, I assume, agree. Others would not, and would probably consider 50% way too strong. I am not a specialist. I rely on them and... they vary.

So just to be sure, I am not saying you are wrong. You may very well be right, but it does not seem to be something obviously irrefutable, but mostly of perception : what % or abstract number to translate real-war experience?



< Message edited by Nirosi -- 4/9/2021 7:41:20 PM >

(in reply to stjeand)
Post #: 12
RE: Suggestions - 4/9/2021 8:25:49 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2498
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nirosi

quote:

arbarossa I will generally build 8 armour, 4 mechanized, 8 infantry and 6 U-Boats; but only 1 air superiority and 1 ground attack


Hi again,

To be honest that is very close to what I do as well (and is actualy damn close to the 41 scenario!). But it is just normal to build more land than air units since the second ones are only there to support the first ones. It does not means they are useless. And if I look at the scenarios (I trust Alvaro that the numbers are pretty close to history), we as players seem to naturally builds very close to history for some countries. I also never build air units as the USSR (or maybe one or two; depends), but that is because they have a lot already! If we compare the 41 and 44 scenarios, German air force is not much bigger (equivalent of only 3, maybe 4 extra air units over 3 years!) and USSR is the same I think or within one air unit. For the Soviet, all you have to do is make sure no unit is destroyed 100% (not that hard) and you will have plenty already by 44. So at least for those two countries the historical incentive, for lack of better word, seems to work.

I am not saying all games should be historical of course, but the perceived usefulness translated in "desire to build" seems fair for Axis and USSR. Of course, they will build many more troops before planes in their case. The contrary would be quite strange due to their situation both in game and history.

Allies seems different I agree for most games I saw. And maybe it could be due to problem with the air force effectiveness as you say indeed. But it could also maybe be a question of perception, supply, reaction to Axis strategy... I would be curious to see opinions on why from players.

As far as historical effectiveness goes, I think it is a given that all specialists agree that air force was decisive. But I also know that experts do disagree to what extend. The game must make a choice in this case and chose its "level" if I may say. Is 20% ridiculous? Maybe. I certainly read books on the subject that would, I assume, agree. Others would not, and would probably consider 50% way too strong. I am not a specialist. I rely on them and... they vary.

So just to be sure, I am not saying you are wrong. You may very well be right, but it does not seem to be something obviously irrefutable, but mostly of perception : what % or abstract number to translate real-war experience?


With respect, it is just natural to build land units because you get far more bang for your buck with them in than you do for air units. If air units performed in the game as effectively as they did historically then players would perhaps build historical levels of them. I took a look at the 41 scenario and the Russians had 14 bomber units and 9 fighter units. This is way more than they will ever have in the game. The reason why the Germans had so few aircraft at the start of Barbarossa historically isn't because they were not building aircraft, it is because they lost so many during the Battle of Britain. But in the game no good German players are going to build lots of air units. I did not say that air units were "useless"; but they are way underpowered compared to their historical effectiveness.

(in reply to Nirosi)
Post #: 13
RE: Suggestions - 4/9/2021 8:56:30 PM   
Nirosi

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 9/17/2017
Status: online
quote:

I took a look at the 41 scenario and the Russians had 14 bomber units and 9 fighter units. This is way more than they will ever have in the game.


Ya... I agree that no Soviet player will build 10 air units between 1939 and 1941 (did not see this one)! But that is also because we all know there will be a Barbarossa and that not matter what the Soviets need speedbumps. Not sure what will help with that.

Right now strategic bombers lose 8% on use instead of the normal 6%. What if we would follow the same logic and reduce the loss for Ground support units to 2% and probably to 4% for fighters (keep 6% for tacs only). If you can use Stukas and Sturmovicks, or the like, effectively every turn, maybe that be enough to encourage buying them? Preparing an assault for over 2 weeks or more is not illogical and probably happened a lot. So you could basically reduce a unit much more because you can bomb it two turns.

Also, as I said before, we do not really know the effectiveness of ground support as it is less visible than ground strike (maybe it is very high, maybe not)? Maybe another (and/or) solution would also be to improve it if necessary?

PS : on a similar note if Alvaro is reading, I honestly think that air units simply searching for subs and not been shot at should not lose 6% (or even 8% for Strategics)


< Message edited by Nirosi -- 4/9/2021 8:59:46 PM >

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 14
RE: Suggestions - 4/10/2021 1:11:22 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2498
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
I would rather see air units causing more effectiveness loss to ground units rather than losing less effectiveness themselves; but I would accept anything Alvaro is prepared to give. You are correct that we don't really know the effectiveness of ground support; but based on my playing experience I don't believe it is make much of a difference for most attacks. I will run some tests.

(in reply to Nirosi)
Post #: 15
RE: Suggestions - 4/10/2021 2:44:49 PM   
ComadrejaKorp

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline
Personally, I see air power represented in Warplan, I like how aviation currently works, I think that a massive bombardment softens any position and as support increases the attack power a lot, although I am not against some small change, but here big changes would quickly unbalance the game.

I do not know if the amount of aviation we use is correct, but that is something that depends on us.
In a game against Hadros, he carried out a strategic bombing campaign that ended Axis in '44.

A personal thought in which I could be wrong is that the massive use of aviation in WWII was due in part to its effectiveness and in part to the ratio of losses suffered vs. damages caused. I am sure that the number of casualties received was a great concern for its impact on public opinion. As the game does not limit this aspect we are bloody commanders, and we prefer to build troops than airplanes.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 16
RE: Suggestions - 4/10/2021 3:14:33 PM   
ComadrejaKorp

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline
Your treatment of 创shatters创 is interesting, it is a possible solution to the problem that they break so easily, but personally I do not like that tanks come back to life, nor do I like that there is only one way to end them.

I liked it a lot as in previous versions it was very difficult to destroy them, it faithfully reflected the terror when seeing them, but this disappeared with the latest changes in the ratio of casualties / effectiveness, now they break easily, they are no longer scary.

(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)
Post #: 17
RE: Suggestions - 4/10/2021 4:30:02 PM   
ncc1701e


Posts: 4680
Joined: 10/29/2013
From: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards
Status: offline
Another thing that could break the all-in strategy. Today, when an unit, with two entrenchement levels, is attacking (I should say counter attacking) and not moving, it is not losing its entrenchement level. Perhaps we must change this.

The Allies are so successful in the all-in strategy because they are just waiting without moving. If a two entrenchement level unit counter attacking is losing one entrenchement level per attack, it would help the Axis to attack the next turn.

_____________________________

Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.

(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)
Post #: 18
RE: Suggestions - 4/10/2021 4:40:34 PM   
ComadrejaKorp

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline
quote:

Another thing that could break the all-in strategy. Today, when an unit, with two entrenchement levels, is attacking (I should say counter attacking) and not moving, it is not losing its entrenchement level. Perhaps we must change this.

The Allies are so successful in the all-in strategy because they are just waiting without moving. If a two entrenchement level unit counter attacking is losing one entrenchement level per attack, it would help the Axis to attack the next turn.


I think this is part of the benefit of good tactical positioning, I would not make changes here, this change would be very bad for the Soviets later in the game.

(in reply to ncc1701e)
Post #: 19
RE: Suggestions - 4/10/2021 7:01:36 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2498
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComadrejaKorp

Personally, I see air power represented in Warplan, I like how aviation currently works, I think that a massive bombardment softens any position and as support increases the attack power a lot, although I am not against some small change, but here big changes would quickly unbalance the game.


Again, I am not saying that aircraft are useless. I am saying that they are a lot less effective and essential than they were Historically. Air power was a key component of the combined arms required for the German Blitzkrieg and the Allied successes in both the West and the East from 1943 on. But in the game the Germans can conquer Poland in 2 turns without using any air units at all and I have seen them blitz into Russia using only a couple bombers. I have seen the Allies successfully invade France and Italy with only a small fraction of the air units they had historically. So yes, air units can be useful in softening enemy positions like Leningrad or Tobruk, but in the game they are definitely not essential at all for Blitzkrieg style warfare.

IMHO air power in ground attacks and ground support needs to be significantly increased. But I understand the need to make minor corrections at first and see how they impact the game.

quote:

I do not know if the amount of aviation we use is correct, but that is something that depends on us.
In a game against Hadros, he carried out a strategic bombing campaign that ended Axis in '44.


I have no serious complaints (just a few minor quibbles) about the way strategic bombing warfare is represented in the game. My concern is with the fact that ground attack and support are underpowered.

quote:

A personal thought in which I could be wrong is that the massive use of aviation in WWII was due in part to its effectiveness and in part to the ratio of losses suffered vs. damages caused. I am sure that the number of casualties received was a great concern for its impact on public opinion. As the game does not limit this aspect we are bloody commanders, and we prefer to build troops than airplanes.


You are probably partly correct with this. But that doesn't change the fact that air power was far more effective historically than it is in the game. Take Italy as an example. Historically the Allies didn't have any more men in Italy than the Germans, yet in the summer months they steadily advanced and pushed the Germans back while fighting along a narrow front in some of the most difficult terrain imaginable. They could not have done this without overwhelming air power.

(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)
Post #: 20
RE: Suggestions - 4/10/2021 7:08:44 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2498
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
Oops, double post.

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 4/10/2021 7:12:15 PM >

(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)
Post #: 21
RE: Suggestions - 4/10/2021 7:10:45 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2498
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComadrejaKorp

Your treatment of 创shatters创 is interesting, it is a possible solution to the problem that they break so easily, but personally I do not like that tanks come back to life, nor do I like that there is only one way to end them.

I liked it a lot as in previous versions it was very difficult to destroy them, it faithfully reflected the terror when seeing them, but this disappeared with the latest changes in the ratio of casualties / effectiveness, now they break easily, they are no longer scary.


I don't believe a Shatter is supposed to represent all of the tanks, guns and personnel of a particular units being destroyed or killed. I believe it is supposed to represent a unit losing total combat effectiveness as a result of losses, exhaustion, disorganization and morale loss. So placing that unit back on the build queue, albeit at reduced strength, makes logical sense to me.

And there would still be 2 ways to destroy a unit. One is to cause it to surrender and the other is to destroy all of its strength.



< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 4/10/2021 7:11:13 PM >

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 22
RE: Suggestions - 4/10/2021 7:41:38 PM   
ComadrejaKorp

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: ComadrejaKorp

Your treatment of 创shatters创 is interesting, it is a possible solution to the problem that they break so easily, but personally I do not like that tanks come back to life, nor do I like that there is only one way to end them.

I liked it a lot as in previous versions it was very difficult to destroy them, it faithfully reflected the terror when seeing them, but this disappeared with the latest changes in the ratio of casualties / effectiveness, now they break easily, they are no longer scary.


I don't believe a Shatter is supposed to represent all of the tanks, guns and personnel of a particular units being destroyed or killed. I believe it is supposed to represent a unit losing total combat effectiveness as a result of losses, exhaustion, disorganization and morale loss. So placing that unit back on the build queue, albeit at reduced strength, makes logical sense to me.

And there would still be 2 ways to destroy a unit. One is to cause it to surrender and the other is to destroy all of its strength.




Seen like this, it also seems logical to me, I would only add a roll of the dice where there is a possibility that it will be definitely destroyed to add spice and randomness.

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 23
RE: Suggestions - 4/10/2021 8:42:00 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2498
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
Perhaps another way to simulate the importance of air power to Blitzkrieg warfare is to decrease the effectiveness of "tanks" in causing a unit to retreat, but adding an increased chance for a retreat based on the "tactical" strength of the ground supporting air unit. In other words, applying 50% of an air units "tactical" strength as if it were a "tank" factor. I note this will also help the Germans in France as it will reduce the chance of the Allied "tanks" from causing a German unit to retreat; while increasing the chances of a German ground attack supported attack on Allied units from causing a retreat.


(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)
Post #: 24
RE: Suggestions - 4/10/2021 9:00:06 PM   
ComadrejaKorp

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline
I like what you say, in a way I think it already works like that, but they are difficult values to calibrate.

I will look for a thread where you will see how effective air support is. You can attack without it but you pay a higher price (more casualties, more attacks, more loss of effectiveness)

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 25
RE: Suggestions - 4/10/2021 9:15:06 PM   
ComadrejaKorp

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 5/31/2020
From: Sitges-SPAIN
Status: offline
It is not what I was looking for, but it also explains the importance of air support and reasons for not giving more power to aviation.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4796004

(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)
Post #: 26
RE: Suggestions - 4/10/2021 9:34:56 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2498
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
I already ran a bunch of tests myself. Yes if you air strike an enemy unit with a ground attack prior to attacking it with ground units you will reduce the effectiveness of the enemy unit. This will result in less casualties to your ground units that subsequently attack the enemy unit. You will also inflict more casualties on the enemy unit. But you could achieve the same result by adding an extra infantry into the attack and achieve a better result by using a mechanized unit in the attack rather than infantry. I admit that air units are useful when you only have a limited number of hexes to attack an enemy from. But generally it is better to soften up a strong enemy hex with a few infantry attacks at low odds (2:1 or less) and then attack with your mobile forces. The infantry will do a much better job at softening up the enemy than air units and they potentially get more attacks. Yes, your infantry will take casualties that will cost you production and manpower to replace. But they will also cause far more casualties to the enemy.

Again, I am not saying that air units are useless. But I am saying that they are underpowered compared to historical for ground attacks. The exception is CV air which, if anything, are over powered compared to historical.

(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)
Post #: 27
RE: Suggestions - 4/10/2021 10:10:30 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 2498
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComadrejaKorp

It is not what I was looking for, but it also explains the importance of air support and reasons for not giving more power to aviation.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4796004


With respect Comrade, this post explains how air units assist in combat; but it doesn't provide any reasons for not giving more power to aviation. I understand that prior to my playing the game air units were overpowered and by using air units alone a player could outright destroy an enemy unit. That was wrong and I very much like the rule that only the first air attack has any chance to destroy a strength point. But historically, air units were generally very effective at disorganizing enemy units, interdicting their movements and lowering their morale. I don't see this adequately simulated in the game. But I have harped on this before and apparently not very many others feel as I do. So we will continue playing the game with the Western Allies and Russians building massive land armies, lots of mobile forces and very few if any air units.

(in reply to ComadrejaKorp)
Post #: 28
RE: Suggestions - 4/12/2021 3:58:28 PM   
baloo7777


Posts: 1133
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline
The main use of airpower on a tactical scale in WW2 was to keep armor from moving, to not allow nearby units to reinforce the narrow (unless you're the Soviets) attack front. Interdiction was the first most important tactic, with reducing strongpoints a close second. The third thing was to reduce effectiveness AND morale. How this should be modeled on in a corps-level game is a much more difficult proposition. Sometimes airpower seems too effective, sometimes not effective enough in the game. The US bombed some of those Jap held islands massively to little effect. Except for massive allied carpet-bombing in the breakout of the beaches/hedgerows in Aug '44, massive level bombing did little to damage the enemy's will or defensive ability in WW2. However, tactical fighter-bombers were so deadly against armor that by mid-'43, Axis armored units mostly moved at night. Same with tactical use of medium bombers against subs. Land-based air was deadly against shipping (why the Germans tried to hide in Fjords). Strategic bombing works poorly in this game, doing little real PP damage for a major cost. In reality, bombing city's and factories, and railyards was a highly effective tactic on an enemy's National Morale and ability to produce enough, although the cost in men and material to do so was massive and it takes a long time to finally begin to affect production.

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 29
RE: Suggestions - 4/12/2021 9:12:11 PM   
AlvaroSousa


Posts: 7920
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline
Bombing air units down reduce no cement in WP

Start bombing is generally a negative return game if the opponent defends with appropriate counter force.



_____________________________

Creater Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to baloo7777)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> Suggestions Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.227