Air Power "Abstraction"

Air Power "Abstraction" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III

Message

John S -> Air Power "Abstraction" (5/13/2006 6:55:29 PM)
I saw some posts on the issue of air power in TOAW and just wanted to add my two cents in favor of simple clarity. I played TOAW a LOT years ago and really thought it was a great game...BUT...I've played war games since 1960 and I'll be darned if I could ever figure out how to most effectively use air power in those scenarios where the computer's air power started out in a strength comparable to mine. I must have read the air power rules two dozen times and yet, when I played the various NATO vs Warsaw Pact scenarios, I always felt that my air units really got tagged in the first few turns irrespective of which side I played - I could switch sides and see the same negative results. I always suspected a cheat but could never be really sure. I found all of this to be a huge negative in an otherwise great game. As far as I am concerned, you can abstract the air power all you want but be fair and explain what the heck is really going on and don't let the abstraction defeat the game.

golden delicious -> RE: Air Power "Abstraction" (5/13/2006 7:31:19 PM)
In the postwar scenarios in particular, I tend to make a list of the types of aircraft in the scenario and their respective ratings for air superiority and ground attack roles, and rank them for their relative suitability for the former. I then go down the rankings setting each type of aircraft onto air superiority until I have a decent degree of superiority. The rest then go on combat support (or occasionally interdiction). If you set too much on combat support in a scenario where the other side has a substantial air force then you'll take a lot of losses and your opponent will rapidly acquire air superiority.

Richrd -> RE: Air Power "Abstraction" (5/15/2006 11:47:18 PM)
Isn't attacking your opponents airfields a big factor as well. I remember playing the Tunisia scenario and the AI trashing my air force by attacking my airfields, no matter which side I played.

golden delicious -> RE: Air Power "Abstraction" (5/16/2006 12:22:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Richrd Isn't attacking your opponents airfields a big factor as well. I remember playing the Tunisia scenario and the AI trashing my air force by attacking my airfields, no matter which side I played. Airfield attacks can only be effective if you use them very carefully. If your air units are based on distance hexes, though, this very often means that fighters which in the real world would be very close to the attacked airfield can't fly in defence of them- in effect, they have to fly all the way to the battlefield and all the way back again. Do you use the PO handicap (+1, +2)? That is just a multiplier of unit strength so far as I am aware. That would go some way to explaining the PO being successful in the air no matter which side it plays. On the ground, you can overcome the handicap bonus to some extent with better play (though it depends on the scenario). In the air, though, the PO's shortcomings are less crippling.

roboczar -> RE: Air Power "Abstraction" (5/17/2006 5:47:29 PM)
Combat support is a total waste of aircraft until far into a scenario where you already have air superiority.

golden delicious -> RE: Air Power "Abstraction" (5/17/2006 6:10:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: roboczar Combat support is a total waste of aircraft until far into a scenario where you already have air superiority. ... unless you want to actually achieve something on the ground.

Chuck2 -> RE: Air Power "Abstraction" (5/17/2006 6:38:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: roboczar Combat support is a total waste of aircraft until far into a scenario where you already have air superiority. ... unless you want to actually achieve something on the ground. No, this can actually be a problem sometimes. As NATO, I'm usually prevented from nuking targets with bombers in SSteven's Berlin Crisis due to Warsaw Pact air superiority.

golden delicious -> RE: Air Power "Abstraction" (5/17/2006 6:54:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chuck2 No, this can actually be a problem sometimes. As NATO, I'm usually prevented from nuking targets with bombers in SSteven's Berlin Crisis due to Warsaw Pact air superiority. It's a trade off. As the manual notes, generally the rate at which your air force is attrited is directly proportional to the direct impact it has on the ground. Now, it might be nice in theory to focus solidly on winning the air war before devoting any effort to ground attack, but this might well result in you losing the ground war in the meantime. As one of my professors pointed out (albeit regarding the Persian Wars), man lives on land. Winning in the air doesn't mean a thing if you're losing on the ground.

Chuck2 -> RE: Air Power "Abstraction" (5/17/2006 7:32:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: Chuck2 No, this can actually be a problem sometimes. As NATO, I'm usually prevented from nuking targets with bombers in SSteven's Berlin Crisis due to Warsaw Pact air superiority. It's a trade off. As the manual notes, generally the rate at which your air force is attrited is directly proportional to the direct impact it has on the ground. That's incorrect. If your side has strong air superiority then combat support will have a bigger impact with fewer losses. If the other side has strong air superiority, combat support will have a lesser impact with higher losses.

golden delicious -> RE: Air Power "Abstraction" (5/18/2006 2:38:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chuck2 That's incorrect. If your side has strong air superiority then combat support will have a bigger impact with fewer losses. If the other side has strong air superiority, combat support will have a lesser impact with higher losses. .... but strong air superiority is achieved by setting aircraft on air superiority rather than combat support. Naturally, having more aircraft on combat support means that it will have a greater impact. Obviously I try to get air superiority. But there is no point in having air superiority if you don't use it.

roboczar -> RE: Air Power "Abstraction" (5/19/2006 1:19:51 AM)
I never said that using combat support was a waste of aircraft in general. I said it's a waste of aircraft when you don't have significant air superiority. Your CS planes are going to get chewed up otherwise, and you'll have nothing to show for it but a reduced capacity to support ground troops. In most NATO/modern scenarios with a fair balance of air power, this simply means that throughout the beginning phases of the scenario, both sides are going to be concentrating all their air assets on AS, interdiction and airfield attack, which nets far fewer losses over time than if you started directly bombing stacks of units. The only time you would ever catch me using CS in the beginning phases is if I'm fairly certain I'm on the way to gaining superiorty. I'll take a lone bomber unit, throw everything else on AS and watch the enemy planes grind themselves to bits trying to stop the ground attack. It's pretty gamey unless the other person is doing the same thing, which tends to happen in games with experienced players. As a side note, it's also best to do your CS and Airfield attacks at the tail end of your turn's combat phases, because the likelihood of your enemy's planes being in re-org status are much higher and the resistance will be much weaker.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.859375