island op-fire

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

island op-fire

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 World at War: A World Divided >> island op-fire

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

island op-fire - 2/4/2008 7:52:43 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

I could have sworn that there was originally (in GGWAW) a rule that you could move from your starting region without suffering op-fire. For the longest time, I thought that WAW had a bug in this regard, until I read the manual, which matches the implementation.

For island air op-fire (on naval units leaving the island's seazone), naval units that _start_ in the sea zone will be op-fired upon by enemy air units on the island. I don't believe this should be the case, I believe it should only apply to naval units that have _moved_ into the sea zone in that turn.

For example, say I have a huge stack of WA fleets in the central Med. The German now places a TB on Sicily. Now I can't get the naval units out. They may sit there turn after turn, getting picked off one by one, but the last thing they can do is run away. This strikes me as very nonsensical.

What would people think of removing island op-fire for naval units that _start_ the turn in that sea zone? Allow them to at least run away!

Post #: 1

RE: island op-fire - 2/4/2008 8:27:18 AM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

Guess I'm not seeing how the game manual says this is OK; first it says:

quote:

8.2.1 Conditions that Cause Op-Fire (3rd bullet)

- Air units on an island will Op-Fire at non-submarine units and units moving strategicall via transports that move out of the sea region containing the island.

but then it says:

quote:

8.2.2 Op-Fire Details and Exceptions (1st bullet)

- A unit will never be Op-Fired at by units in the region it occupies whien it first moves out of the region it occupies at the beginning of its turn.

This seems to prohibit the problem you refer to. If it's happening in the game I would call it a bug that should be corrected.

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 2

RE: island op-fire - 2/4/2008 6:20:39 PM

Vilhjalmr

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/15/2007
From: Boston, MA
Status: offline

I agree it doesn't make sense for a group of naval units to be pinned down by perhaps just a single air unit, unable to retreat from the sea region while at the same time getting picked off one by one in the ensuing turns.

I am still playing WaW rather than AWD (so I'm not sure if these particular rules have changed between the versions), but I believe naval units currently do not receive island op-fire when they move into a sea zone, but rather when they move through it or when they leave the sea zone after having stopped there during the previous turn.

One solution might be to have the naval units op-fired upon when they first move into the sea zone, rather than when they move through it or leave the sea zone. This would preserve the current ability to op-fire against all naval units that move through the zone, whether they stop or not.

Another solution is to simply do away with the op-fire for units that start their turn in the sea zone. Thereby, if the naval units stopped in the zone, the onus would entirely be upon the island air units to attack the intruders if the naval units were to be fired upon at all during their passage through that sea zone.

In the first solution (in which op-fire automatically occurs for all naval units entering a sea zone), all the vessels would be op-fired upon. In the latter solution (in which no op-fire occurs against naval units who stop in the sea zone), none of the vessels would be op-fired upon - and the air units (during their turn) could only attack a portion of the naval units if they are fewer air units than naval units. In my opinion, the latter solution seems to be counterintuitive in that the naval units would be safer by lingering an additional three months (one turn) in the region, than by steaming through at full speed.

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 3

RE: island op-fire - 2/4/2008 8:46:39 PM

GKar

Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vilhjalmr

I agree it doesn't make sense for a group of naval units to be pinned down by perhaps just a single air unit, unable to retreat from the sea region while at the same time getting picked off one by one in the ensuing turns.

I agree. I had a decent fleet "trapped" by just one plane (CAG?) on a Pacific island once. It wasn't realistic that it could take a shot at every ship (5+) leaving the zone (be it in the same turn as entering the zone or not, which it wasn't in my case).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vilhjalmr

I am still playing WaW rather than AWD (so I'm not sure if these particular rules have changed between the versions), but I believe naval units currently do not receive island op-fire when they move into a sea zone, but rather when they move through it or when they leave the sea zone after having stopped there during the previous turn.

That is true.

(in reply to Vilhjalmr)

Post #: 4

RE: island op-fire - 2/4/2008 9:26:51 PM

Forwarn45

Posts: 718
Joined: 4/26/2005
Status: offline

I have no objection to the change to allow ships to avoid op-fire at the beginning of their turns. But I'd suggest that the no-opfire rule only apply if the units are moving to a friendly or unoccupied seazone (as opposed to initiating combat by moving to a seazone occupied by enemy naval units).

(in reply to GKar)

Post #: 5

RE: island op-fire - 2/5/2008 12:04:31 AM

MrQuiet

Posts: 805
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice

Guess I'm not seeing how the game manual says this is OK; first it says:

quote:

8.2.1 Conditions that Cause Op-Fire (3rd bullet)

- Air units on an island will Op-Fire at non-submarine units and units moving strategicall via transports that move out of the sea region containing the island.

but then it says:

quote:

8.2.2 Op-Fire Details and Exceptions (1st bullet)

- A unit will never be Op-Fired at by units in the region it occupies whien it first moves out of the region it occupies at the beginning of its turn.

This seems to prohibit the problem you refer to. If it's happening in the game I would call it a bug that should be corrected.

Notice 8.2.2 says units will not be op-fired by units in the region it occupies when it first moves out of the region...

Islands are actually another region inside the sea zone. I think of it as a Island CAP Zone.
*note* If you place a air unit on CAP over a enemy occupied sea zone the enemy naval units will be allowed to steam away on there turn with no op-fire because the CAP is in the region it occupies

What you guys are asking for is akin to saying naval units should be able to move through narrows without op-fire if they start there turn boardering the narrows (extreme example I know)

I think the strength of Island op-fire is very important and should be preserved against naval units that get themselves into bad situations.

But the suggestion above to change the opfire to happen at the time the Naval unit enters the Island Cap Zone is very good and would match the same way it happens in a Narrows op-fire, making the op-fire rule more intuitive and uniform. Also I presume the warning pop-up would allert a sleepy player of impending danger.

So my oppinion stands at:
1) change the opfire to happen at the time the Naval unit enters the Island Cap Zone
if 1) not doable
2) NO Change to Island Op-fire

-MrQuiet

(in reply to SGT Rice)

Post #: 6

RE: island op-fire - 2/5/2008 1:11:18 AM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

I see your point. I agree with Brian's proposal to simply prohibit all OpFire against units in their starting regions.

(in reply to MrQuiet)

Post #: 7

RE: island op-fire - 2/5/2008 6:12:03 AM

christian brown

Posts: 1441
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Vista, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrQuiet

What you guys are asking for is akin to saying naval units should be able to move through narrows without op-fire if they start there turn boardering the narrows (extreme example I know)

Not so, the crossing of a narrows involves moving through a narrows. Simply leaving your sea zone for another should not result in op-fire.....the Sicily example Brian uses above is a pretty scary concept. I'm actually really surprised it has not yet been exploited (to my knowledge at any rate.)

_____________________________

"Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both."
~ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to SGT Rice)

Post #: 8

RE: island op-fire - 2/5/2008 8:46:33 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrQuiet
What you guys are asking for is akin to saying naval units should be able to move through narrows without op-fire if they start there turn boardering the narrows (extreme example I know)

Not really. I wasn't explicit about this, but actually all I want to change is island op-fire. I wouldn't suggest that naval units should be able to safely traverse a narrows just because they start adjacent to it. That would indeed be rather ludicrous.

I can see an unsupplied pair of TBs just capturing a whole stack of fleets that can never run away, yet can't actually be fired on by the TBs. Those fleets really ought to be able to flee.

I can see some surprising things happening in the Pacific as well, if you could perhaps sneak an airborne unit over a fleet onto an island then move air units to the island. Which would be more rare, but still the whole mechanic doesn't feel right. It doesn't reflect what I think op-fire is really intended to do.

And if naval units move into an island sea zone, wait a whole turn, then move on the next turn, I say more power to 'em. They sat there as perfectly good targets for a whole turn.

(in reply to MrQuiet)

Post #: 9

RE: island op-fire - 2/5/2008 8:56:37 AM

GKar

Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

I wouldn't suggest that naval units should be able to safely traverse a narrows just because they start adjacent to it. That would indeed be rather ludicrous.

(...)

And if naval units move into an island sea zone, wait a whole turn, then move on the next turn, I say more power to 'em. They sat there as perfectly good targets for a whole turn.

I agree on both accounts, although the main problem for me is that just one plane can pin down every number of fleets and shoot at each of them leaving the sea zone.

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 10

RE: island op-fire - 2/5/2008 5:09:50 PM

Vilhjalmr

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/15/2007
From: Boston, MA
Status: offline

It would be good to see any type of fix made, since it is indeed a flaw in gameplay.

I still recommend having op fire occur when the fleets enter the sea zone, as opposed to allowing fleets enter a sea zone, wait a turn, and then move on without taking any op fire at all. It just doesn't seem right that naval units wind up taking a much lower risk by spending an extra three months in a hot zone.

MrQuiet made an excellent point about equating island-based air units to CAP. If you move naval units into a CAP protected area, you immediately take fire. And if you end your turn in that zone, the air units have the option of attacking you again when it's their turn. Having island op fire occur immediately would be consistent with how CAP works.

If that would be a lot of work to implement or not the general consensus, that I certainly would be happy with just removing the op fire for units leaving a sea zone, as opposed to leaving the current system in place.

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 11

RE: island op-fire - 2/6/2008 2:35:38 AM

MrQuiet

Posts: 805
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vilhjalmr

I still recommend having op fire occur when the fleets enter the sea zone, as opposed to allowing fleets enter a sea zone, wait a turn, and then move on without taking any op fire at all. It just doesn't seem right that naval units wind up taking a much lower risk by spending an extra three months in a hot zone.

I agree with Vilhjalmr.

The biggest strenth of airpower on Islands is there op-fire, I hate to see islands lose that strenth or have it watered down.

If you could treat a island with air like a unsinkable Carrier loaded with CAGs (for op-fire purposes) then that would be about right imo.

< Message edited by MrQuiet -- 2/6/2008 2:40:50 AM >

(in reply to Vilhjalmr)

Post #: 12

RE: island op-fire - 2/6/2008 5:39:23 AM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vilhjalmr

I still recommend having op fire occur when the fleets enter the sea zone, as opposed to allowing fleets enter a sea zone, wait a turn, and then move on without taking any op fire at all. It just doesn't seem right that naval units wind up taking a much lower risk by spending an extra three months in a hot zone.

I support this idea as well.

(in reply to MrQuiet)

Post #: 13

RE: island op-fire - 2/6/2008 9:45:42 AM

GKar

Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrQuiet

If you could treat a island with air like a unsinkable Carrier loaded with CAGs (for op-fire purposes) then that would be about right imo.

I like the idea in general, but what I don't like is that you won't know you're going to be shot at, right? Unless I'm mistaken you won't see planes on an island from the adjacent sea zone. I'd consider that an inconsistency to how op-fire usually works. Or is there going to be an op-fire warning either way?

(in reply to MrQuiet)

Post #: 14

RE: island op-fire - 2/6/2008 5:01:51 PM

Vilhjalmr

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/15/2007
From: Boston, MA
Status: offline

You're right in that there should be an op fire warning of some sort so that you aren't suddenly locked into being op fired upon. (Although the evil side of me kind of likes that idea.) MrQuiet had a good suggestion earlier on in that the op fire warnings for islands be handled as similar as possible to the op fire warnings for narrows to keep everything uniform and intuitive. And hopefully that would mean less work to implement as well.

(in reply to GKar)

Post #: 15

RE: island op-fire - 2/8/2008 3:32:08 AM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

The current implementation has always bothered me too. As much as I like the idea of swapping it around so that op-fire occurs as you enter instead of when you leave, was an idea I jumped on a long way back but dismissed once I guessed(whether correctly or not) that this was probably thought of during the making of WAW but rejected in the end because it made islands to powerful. Consider this. If it was changed think how hard it would be for the Allies to attack the Italian fleet in the Central Med when some tac-air are on Sicily. Every HF making the move in would suffer tremedous suppression making it very unlikely they could ever score a hit. We all know the necessity of placing CAP over the Italian fleet to help protect it from superior British forces. However each one of those CAP planes can only shot at one ship. Place it on Sicily however and it all of a sudden it gains the ability to attack every ship coming to do combat in the Central Med. If this change was made I would never place a tac-air on CAP over the Central Med. Why when it would become exponentially more powerful on Sicily. I can see the arguments for making islands act just like CV's, but this change would take away a special ability that only CAG on CV's now enjoy. Would you want to cheapen that? Besides it just messes with balance way to much.

What I always wanted however was a limit on how many pot-shots air get to make on departing ships. Say a limit of 5 or less. In this way the power of opfire can be preserved, but would not be over the top. You take a risk on the first 5 you move out then the rest can escape without worry. The moving player gets to decide what to risk which is what I like about it. And the concession to the defending player is that island opfire can not be avoided by moving one sea zone at a time.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to Vilhjalmr)

Post #: 16

RE: island op-fire - 2/8/2008 9:41:39 AM

GKar

Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

What I always wanted however was a limit on how many pot-shots air get to make on departing ships. Say a limit of 5 or less. In this way the power of opfire can be preserved, but would not be over the top. You take a risk on the first 5 you move out then the rest can escape without worry. The moving player gets to decide what to risk which is what I like about it. And the concession to the defending player is that island opfire can not be avoided by moving one sea zone at a time.

I thought about that as well. Maybe there should be a negative modifier for every op-fire shot done already. Like full attack for the first shot, -x for the second, -2x for the third, -3x for the fourth and so on. It's not like the same unit can shoot at everyone at the same time. I guess that x should be 2 or 3 in this case.

Overall I agree with Lebatron that we should be careful not to make planes on islands to powerful. There are a number of places in the Pacific where generous op-fire rules could be exploited as well.

< Message edited by GKar -- 2/8/2008 9:43:05 AM >

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 17

RE: island op-fire - 2/8/2008 5:57:51 PM

Vilhjalmr

Posts: 30
Joined: 6/15/2007
From: Boston, MA
Status: offline

Great points!

And thanks for the clarification with a prime example, as that rule hadn't made much sense to me until now.

Capping the total number of op fires would certainly help the problem WanderingHead had presented. Taking that a little further, I was wondering if there might be a way to randomize the total number of op fires allowed, say between 3-6, to still preserve a strong element of risk.

(in reply to GKar)

Post #: 18

RE: island op-fire - 2/8/2008 9:42:55 PM

MrQuiet

Posts: 805
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Consider this. If it was changed think how hard it would be for the Allies to attack the Italian fleet in the Central Med when some tac-air are on Sicily. Every HF making the move in would suffer tremedous suppression making it very unlikely they could ever score a hit.

That is the whole point.
If the Britts want to engage the Italian Fleet without suppresion then they have to bring in the Assets to neutralize the air bases on the islands.
I dont see this as a balance problem because I feel the Italians are a liability more than a asset for Germany.
This rule would help Italy and Japan which are the weakest powers (excepting china)

So I am still at:
1) change the opfire to happen at the time the Naval unit enters the Island Cap Zone
if 1) not doable then:
2) NO Change to Island Op-fire

-MrQuiet

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 19

RE: island op-fire - 2/9/2008 1:46:56 AM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

MrQ, I totally agree with what you said earlier "I think the strength of Island op-fire is very important and should be preserved against naval units that get themselves into bad situations." As I said, in general I like the idea of placing op-fire before, instead of after, island passings because it's more intuitive and uniform. My post was a warning that it would seriously effect game balance. I can already imagine how I would exploit such a change. As is it just can't be reversed without opening a big can of worms. But if op-fire was toned down then reversing it could work well.

A truely intuitive and uniform op-fire system should look like this.
1. Have air on islands op-fire immediately on hostile ship entry.
Why not make island based air act like the CAG/CV combo? disregard my balance objections for now. Just think in logic and principle.
2. Have air on sea zone CAP op-fire immediately on hostile ship entry.
Isn't a CAG on sea zone CAP inherently the same as a CAG on a CV? Then op-fire in both cases immediately.
There should be no difference between whether air is on the island or on CAP.

Additionally combat should
3. Include air on CAP in the sea battle. This is now standard practice.
4. Include air on the island in the sea battle too. This is new.
If air on an island is basically for air superiority over that sea zone, then why do they not participate in the sea battle? They should. If rule 4 existed it would no longer be necessary to keep replacing your fighter CAP each turn, they would defend the ships by default. The only time it would be necessary to use the standard CAP would be when a fleet moves into a new sea zone and doesn't yet have an island region to base from. For instance Japan has 4 fighters at Wake and his fleet moves to Midway. He would use the traditional CAP method over Midway to protect his fleet until he could rebase air to Midway. But if Japan's fleet stayed back in Wake with his 4 fighters on Wake, then by rule 4 it would be unecessary to for him to put those fighters on CAP because by default all air on an island provides automatic CAP on that sea zone.

Example 2. Italy has his fleet in the Central Med with one tac-air on CAP and one tac-air on Sicily. The way I see it there should be no difference between the two tac-air in terms of what they provide in defence. So given that logic they both would provide a small amount of op-fire on all entering hostile shipping, then both would take part in the sea battle. I envision the reason why Italy used a CAP instead of just placing both on Sicily to do the same thing could be intentional so that he could have the flexiblity of using range from Southern Italy to fly north next turn and was willing to pay the 1 supply point to put it on CAP instead of on Sicily. So yes there are times when CAP will still be used when placing on the island would suffice.

Since I'm saying there is no effective difference between sea zone CAP and air based on a island, and that both get to provide op-fire and participate in battle, then it's obvious that op-fire would need to be toned down. By how much? Hard to say.

This is the way I would like to see the system work, but it may be to much of a pain to program the battle engine to include units on the island for a battle taking place in the sea zone.

< Message edited by Lebatron -- 2/9/2008 1:51:02 AM >

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to MrQuiet)

Post #: 20

RE: island op-fire - 2/9/2008 2:29:40 AM

MrQuiet

Posts: 805
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

MrQ, I totally agree with what you said earlier "I think the strength of Island op-fire is very important and should be preserved against naval units that get themselves into bad situations." As I said, in general I like the idea of placing op-fire before, instead of after, island passings because it's more intuitive and uniform. My post was a warning that it would seriously effect game balance. I can already imagine how I would exploit such a change. As is it just can't be reversed without opening a big can of worms. But if op-fire was toned down then reversing it could work well.

A truely intuitive and uniform op-fire system should look like this.
1. Have air on islands op-fire immediately on hostile ship entry.
Why not make island based air act like the CAG/CV combo? disregard my balance objections for now. Just think in logic and principle.
2. Have air on sea zone CAP op-fire immediately on hostile ship entry.
Isn't a CAG on sea zone CAP inherently the same as a CAG on a CV? Then op-fire in both cases immediately.
There should be no difference between whether air is on the island or on CAP.

Glad you agree about the importance of Island air based op fire.

quote:

As is it just can't be reversed without opening a big can of worms.

Not sure what you mean by that.

quote:

But if op-fire was toned down then reversing it could work well.

I agree with that, It currently is very potent. The best Idea I can think of is to limit air vs naval opfire to the airpower ship attack or torpedo attack only (whichever is greater after armor considerations). If keeping everything uniform is a concern I could live with that same rule applied universally includeing CAG/Carrier, narrows etc opfire.

I am not big on the idea of having the air units on the island auto involved in the sea battle. Maybe a way to flag them as available for sea battle but I really dont want my HB flying off to meet its fate when a HF with 10 fighters enters the Island zone. Even better would be to allow a player to place airpower on CAP on the same turn it has moved strategicly if the region is a Island (0mp to fly CAP) and the player expends 1supply.

Now when you say they 'fire imediatelly' I presume you mean after the player reads the op-fire warning and agrees to it. Because its very possible a player does not even know there is airpower on that island until he enters the sea zone, so they would have to be warned first.

< Message edited by MrQuiet -- 2/9/2008 2:33:58 AM >

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 21

RE: island op-fire - 2/9/2008 4:34:54 AM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

Now when you say they 'fire imediatelly' I presume you mean after the player reads the op-fire warning and agrees to it. Because its very possible a player does not even know there is airpower on that island until he enters the sea zone, so they would have to be warned first.

Yes there would have to be an op-fire warning first. By immediately I'm refering to applying the suppression points immediately for combat purposes once the attacking fleet enters combat with the defending fleet.

quote:

"As is it just can't be reversed without opening a big can of worms." "Not sure what you mean by that."

Reversing when islands op-fire is what I meant. When entering the sea zones vs leaving it.

quote:

I am not big on the idea of having the air units on the island auto involved in the sea battle. Maybe a way to flag them as available for sea battle but I really dont want my HB flying off to meet its fate when a HF with 10 fighters enters the Island zone. Even better would be to allow a player to place airpower on CAP on the same turn it has moved strategicly if the region is a Island (0mp to fly CAP) and the player expends 1supply.

Yes, we won't want our HB's doing that in all cases. The idea of allowing air to go on CAP immediatley after a strategic move was argued before. If I remember right it didn't fly because testing and programming time didn't allow for it. With Brian volunteering his time, this may be a non-issue now. So it's possible this could return to the debating table. However I still think my earlier way to handle islands is still the better way to go. At least it would make it unnecessary to expend supply to move air units out on CAP every turn. So how do you prevent air units on islands from participating in combat you ask? Well how about using the current CAG to CV linking that now exists, and apply it to any air on islands that you want to use for island CAP. In other words link your selected air units to the island like it was a CV and they will act like they are on an unsinkable CV and provide the incoming op-fire and participate in the naval battle. Those that you don't link to the island would sit there like they currently do. This would be a simple way of telling the program what orders you are giving. Two possibilities. Either sit at the island and do nothing unless attacked at the island itself, or provide air superiority over the sea zone.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to MrQuiet)

Post #: 22

RE: island op-fire - 2/9/2008 7:02:18 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

Hmm.

Well, I was proposing a simple fix to what I consider an obvious problem. I didn't expect any controversy.

Giving air units op-fire when naval units move into the sea zone makes the op-fire much too powerful, IMO. It also removes most of the motivation to actually post CAP. Op-fire is already rather disproportionate since it hits every target unit the same.

I really don't think there should be all this op-fire before naval units can even engage. I'm not even fond of the CAG op-fire. I want the combat to be represented in the combat, not some funky disproportionate pre-combat phase (every CAG gets to fire on every ship coming in).

I'm a bit perplexed why one would prefer to keep it the same versus letting ships run away from the air units that threaten them. This has to be one of the more unrealistic mechanics out there ... "I'm too scared to run away from the planes, so I'll just sit here 200 miles from the airfields a few more seasons."

Op-fire on-entry provides a defensive only benefit. Why should the defense get this great benefit when the offense doesn't? This is a 3 month turn game, each turn represents offensives and counter offensives and regroups and minor retreats. If air needs to be more powerful against shipping, increase the stats. Air op-fire doesn't need to be extended.

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 23

RE: island op-fire - 2/9/2008 7:32:03 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

Actually, this discussion and the other discussion about the effectiveness of naval units at anti-air (suggestions like letting HFs double fire against air) make me think that

1) all land based air should get an antiship boost.
2) HFs should get an anti-air boost (maybe also LFs, probably not)
3) oh, and I still think island op-fire should be removed for ships leaving their starting region :)

You've still got to CAP your land based air to help defend your navy in a sea zone, which IMO is perfectly reasonable.

Only #3 is a code change :).

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 24

RE: island op-fire - 2/9/2008 5:05:50 PM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

1) all land based air should get an antiship boost.

I don't think that's necessary. Besides increasing SA or Torp values removes any incentive to invest here.

quote:

2) HFs should get an anti-air boost (maybe also LFs, probably not)

Perhaps. I already have them at 4 AA in UV2.x. Would still like to see HF's get 2 shots. LF's don't need this boost as they already have a nice dedicated job in ASW. HF's should be the Flak support.

quote:

3) oh, and I still think island op-fire should be removed for ships leaving their starting region :)

I know I'm never going to see it, but I envisioned a great combination of gameplay improvements working together. Namely the whole approach to op-fire I outlined above in combination with the stacking limits discussed before. Reversing op-fire so that it occurs when ships enter instead of when they leave in addition to air limits on islands would limit the potential impact this suppression would have on combat. In addition, the stacking limit would prevent to much abuse of the linking of air units to islands I also suggested above. You would never see Wake island turn into an unsinkable CV with a dozen aircraft attacked to it. CV would therefore still have their uses.

In general I dislike the idea of downplaying op-fire in the way you suggest. If you got yourself into that mess with a fleet just deal with it. The idea was to make it absolutely important that you achieve air dominance before sending the fleet in. In other words the Allies should be trying to remove the air threat on Sardinia before they attempt to sail to the Central Med, not bypass it by stopping at Sardinia and then continuing on the next turn. That would be cheap. And no, the one turn delay does not in my mind make up for this. What if most of Germany's air was out of range, other than what was posted on Sardinia? The best this game can do is simulate that threat on Sardinia though op-fire. Waiting around for one turn should not give one a free pass to ignore that threat. I agree with MrQ. Either we leave it alone or change it to a more uniform and intuitive system. That is having op-fire happen during entry and the associated weakening needed to go along with this change.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 25

RE: island op-fire - 2/9/2008 5:22:22 PM

MrQuiet

Posts: 805
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

In general I dislike the idea of downplaying op-fire in the way you suggest. If you got yourself into that mess with a fleet just deal with it. The idea was to make it absolutely important that you achieve air dominance before sending the fleet in. In other words the Allies should be trying to remove the air threat on Sardinia before they attempt to sail to the Central Med, not bypass it by stopping at Sardinia and then continuing on the next turn. That would be cheap. And no, the one turn delay does not in my mind make up for this. What if most of Germany's air was out of range, other than what was posted on Sardinia? The best this game can do is simulate that threat on Sardinia though op-fire. Waiting around for one turn should not give one a free pass to ignore that threat. I agree with MrQ. Either we leave it alone or change it to a more uniform and intuitive system. That is having op-fire happen during entry and the associated weakening needed to go along with this change.

Pretty much my sentiment.

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 26

RE: island op-fire - 2/9/2008 5:29:10 PM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

Here's a simple example of how reversing op-fire can have the same impact as before.

Lets use Sardinia again. The current system: A British fleet sails past Sardinia to the Central Med heedless of the suppression its going to recieve. It takes 8 suppresion on every ship from Sardinian air, then does combat with the Italian fleet.

The alternate system placing op-fire first with reduced results: A British fleet sails into the Sardinia sea zone and takes 4 suppression, then sails onto the Central Med taking 4 more suppression upon entering. Fleet engauges with 8 suppression on each ship like before. Granted this is an oversimplification, but does illustrate that reversing it could work as long as suppression was reduced, because in effect moving a couple sea zones can place the attacker into a cituation where he recieves suppression twice. First from the sea zone he passed through then the one he finishes up in. This change also makes the case for removing op-fire on ships that started in the sea zone at the beginning of the turn moot.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 27

RE: island op-fire - 2/9/2008 7:09:21 PM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
The idea was to make it absolutely important that you achieve air dominance before sending the fleet in. In other words the Allies should be trying to remove the air threat on Sardinia before they attempt to sail to the Central Med, not bypass it by stopping at Sardinia and then continuing on the next turn. That would be cheap. And no, the one turn delay does not in my mind make up for this. What if most of Germany's air was out of range, other than what was posted on Sardinia?

Unfortunately I very strongly disagree. What if the rest of Germany's air is out of range? That's Germany's fault. They aren't there, they're out of range. That's the whole point of having range for them.

If you are forced to pause then op-fire did exactly what it was supposed to do. It prevented you from skirting around enemy strongholds while he was asleep during your turn, making up for the IGO-UGO system. If you pause, you give the air unit the opportunity for one shot just like it should have.

It's not cheap. It is quite explicitly giving every air unit in range of the sea zone one chance to fire once, fixing (to a reasonable extent, at least) the problem with the IGO-UGO. For that matter, it also means that the other player has a WHOLE TURN to see what is coming and do something about it.

As it is now, it __introduces__ a problem with IGO-UGO. Which is that fleets can get stuck when air moves into an island in the fleet seazone.

I don't think that op-fire on entry is any more or less intuitive than on exit. Although I do think that op-fire for fleeing an island air base is very counterintuitive (I know that I would have done it many times if not for the pop-up warning).

I could never support island based op-fire on entry. CAP based op-fire on entry might make sense, but you've got to at least be actively patrolling to get such a huge benefit. I don't even care for that, but at least it makes more sense.

Op-fire on entry would also give air units two opportinities to op-fire on amphib landings.

These other changes only work if you're completely rejiggering op-fire. I don't think that is appropriate at this stage, even if I wanted the work and risk clearly we'd never get enough agreement.

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 2/9/2008 7:11:24 PM >

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 28

RE: island op-fire - 2/10/2008 12:25:44 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

Hey, I've got an idea that maybe we can all agree on. Not everyone's wish list, maybe, but I think it satisfies all the main points and makes much more sense than what we have now.

First of all, I would posit that air on CAP in a sea zone should always be "more effective or equal to" air on an island. After all, it is exposing itself to fighters and can be dispersed by ships. Yet I also observe that this "more or equal" concept does not currently apply in the specific aspect that started this thread: island air will op-fire on naval units starting in the sea zone and moving, while CAP air will not.

Hence, I propose three rules changes:

1) island based air will not op-fire on ships leaving the sea-zone if the ships start their turn in that sea zone.
2) air on CAP will op-fire on ships (non-sub) leaving the sea zone, even if those ships start their turn in the sea zone.
3) air units that have experienced combat can post CAP over enemy controlled regions.

Look at the implications of this. Air units on an island can try to trap enemy naval units that end their turn in the sea zone, but to do so they must be proactive (and have supplies) and post CAP. The air units would now be able to attack the ships, and then fly out again on CAP.

Now, if the ships move into the sea zone they can pause to avoid op-fire. But then the air attacks and posts CAP. Now the ships can leave, but they face op-fire from the CAP air. The naval ships can disperse the air by initiating combat, meaning they get fired on (a SECOND TIME from the same air, so defensively the air is now more powerful). Then the air returns to its island base. The naval units are now free to leave the sea zone without op-fire. However, since the naval units have already experienced combat THEY CANNOT ENTER COMBAT AGAIN.

So this mechanism lets the naval units run away from island air if they start in the sea zone (suffering some losses on the way since they either suffer op-fire from CAP or must combat the CAP), but they can never leave the seazone to initiate combat unless they suffer the CAP op-fire.

I think this should make everyone happy, and it makes much more sense since it makes proactive CAP op-fire better than passive island op-fire.

Give me some quick feedback, maybe I can do this tonight!

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 2/10/2008 12:28:57 AM >

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 29

RE: island op-fire - 2/10/2008 12:36:09 AM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

Sounds like a good compromise to me.

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 30