Aircraft stacking.. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series



Message

TheArchduke -> Aircraft stacking.. (4/3/2009 9:15:54 AM)

The current AT situation encourages huge stacks of fighters sent against huge stacks of fighters on the other side.

Is it possible to edit a stacking limit much alike the ground stacking into air attacks?

Or a aircraft limit to airfields?

Is one of both possible without hassling the AT creator for a patch?

The current situation is ignoreable on small scenarios like WaW where the whole air assets of both sides are in range of each other, but on scenarios like GPW or Barbarossa with 100+ hexes, stacking leads to cases of 120+ fighters going at each other turn after turn without much management needed.



seille -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (4/3/2009 9:45:17 AM)

Iīm sure this is not possible the easy way.
Vic should do a patch for. We had this discussion already in my and Georgeīs
Russia-AAR-thread.

The idea is good, but a limit for the attacked hex isnīt. Why ? The defender could defend with fighters
(which have a 25%-intercept bonus already) and flak. This would make successful air attacks nearly impossible.

BUT: a limit for aircrafts per airfield is much better !
So if the number of aircrafts on a airfield exceeds a special number (variable) their attacks start to be less effective (penalty).
Would have the same effect of overstacking penalty, but with enough airfields the attacker could still build bigger
attack concentrations.
So 50 plane SFTīs coming from one airfield give a hard penalty in effectiveness, same number coming from 5 airfields give no penalty.
It forces the player to spread his planes. Just as example.

With this beeing implemented it would be also good to have a small and medium sized airfield (just another location)

Vic liked the idea if i remember right, but iīm not sure heīll integrate it in AT. But he should do...


Btw, the same problem with actual no overstacking penalty we have during sea battles.



Widell -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (4/3/2009 7:58:28 PM)

We could maybe imagine a system like in WitP with different levels of airfields that are able to support a certain number of aircraft. The SFT should also be linked to a minimum level of airfield size to make sure a huge level bomber can't operate from a clearing in the woods, while a Storch or Lysander could. The use the same approach for harbors and ships..... Would open up for submarine bases or E-boat bases while battleships would be limited to more developed facilities.



Joshuatree -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (4/3/2009 9:01:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Widell

We could maybe imagine a system like in WitP with different levels of airfields that are able to support a certain number of aircraft. The SFT should also be linked to a minimum level of airfield size to make sure a huge level bomber can't operate from a clearing in the woods, while a Storch or Lysander could. The use the same approach for harbors and ships..... Would open up for submarine bases or E-boat bases while battleships would be limited to more developed facilities.


Now that's an interesting idea I really like. That would surely add more depth to the game. Huge bombers need well prepared airstrips, early fighters only a grass field.
On the other hand, the Seabees could prepare an airfield pretty quickly for the bombers.

(just checked Google to see if my spelling of the word "Seabees" was correct, -it was- but what I didn't know is that nowadays they are still called "Seabees" I was only aware of the term being used in WWII)



Bombur -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (4/4/2009 2:14:14 AM)

I would go for different airfield levels, each with a limit to aircraft numbers. Each aicraft SF should also be rated for size and it would need a big airfield to fly bigger aircraft.



Grymme -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (4/4/2009 7:40:23 AM)

I think its actually a bigger issue when it comes to sea battles than air battles. In aerial combat, sure you can always make huge stacks. But you cant be everywhere at the same time. In naval battles you just move your megastack to the enemys coast and there isnt much he can do about it.

Anyway. A small sollution for sea battles would be to give aircraft and subs and increasment in fighting ability when attacking large stacks (larger chance to find their targets). Also the subs would need something like a 50-75% chance of being able to withdraw after combats. Then maybe subs could actually be usefull.



seille -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (4/4/2009 10:59:08 AM)

Yes Grymme this is right. Actually a naval megastack of the right unit composition is hard to defeat.
Some cruisers and the attacking planes will die like flies. Some DDīs against subs and so on.
Here overstacking has the same importance as for ground or air combat to give the player attacking naval stacks a chance.

A change here would be a good idea, so that it canīt come to 20 ship-stacks or the huge 80 fighter battles.



Bombur -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (4/5/2009 8:49:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: seille

Yes Grymme this is right. Actually a naval megastack of the right unit composition is hard to defeat.
Some cruisers and the attacking planes will die like flies. Some DDīs against subs and so on.
Here overstacking has the same importance as for ground or air combat to give the player attacking naval stacks a chance.

A change here would be a good idea, so that it canīt come to 20 ship-stacks or the huge 80 fighter battles.



I think I fixed this feature in my mod. With coastal guns, itīs dangerous for ships to remain close to enemy cities. And my ships have less AA power, while planes, particularly torpedo bombers, have much better antiship ratings.



Widell -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (4/6/2009 7:10:23 PM)

Agree - Sea hex stacking is a lot fuzzier compared to air strips and ports. Some serious work on the SF type stats like Bombur is suggesting will hopefully help in the sense naval mega stacks is bad value for invested PP's and still vulnerable to torpedo and dive bombers as well as subs and coastal artillery.

Of course stacking penalties should apply at sea as well to reflect that planes and subs find targets easier, and the penalty may even be increased for certain types of terrain, i.e coastal hexes, or shallow sea to reflect less room to manouever. Soo many ideas, so little time to implement them [:D].



Grymme -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (4/6/2009 7:33:50 PM)

Making units that are just "generally better against ships" will not help against the naval megastack since the ultimate tactic will still be to have a large a stack as possible. It will just increase the benefit of having large stacks since small stacks will be even more vulnerable.

What is nescessary is enemy units that benefits directly from large naval stacks, or that large stacks themselves get penalties. I favour the former alternative. To give subs and bombers a larger hit chance on big stacks feel quite historical. (with a large number of enemy forces spread out through the territory it would be easier to find the enemy). Also subs/airforces should have the possibility to strike and retreat.



Jeffrey H. -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (4/6/2009 7:39:25 PM)

This should extend to all combat, higher unit density = more things getting hit from the same attack. Makes sense.

I have the feeling land combat already sort of has this but I guess I'm not really sure.



Grymme -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (4/6/2009 7:42:30 PM)

Land combat already have this in the form of overstacking penalty which is really deadly.



Jeffrey H. -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (4/7/2009 2:56:58 AM)

Is it true for artillery attacks on big stacks ? I don't know.



Barthheart -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (4/7/2009 11:31:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Is it true for artillery attacks on big stacks ? I don't know.


Yes!



TheArchduke -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/6/2009 9:50:17 AM)

So any chance for this in AT? Some sort of Air stacking penalty at least?



seille -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/6/2009 10:28:59 AM)

This is really a weak point in the game.

I would like to have different airfield size.
normal ones with max 10 planes allowed
bigger ones with 15 planes allowed.

For overstacking the unit there should get a readiness penalty of 50%
or (what i would like more) a reduction in combat effectiveness related to
the amount of overstacking ->the more overstacking the more penalty.
Could work similar for naval hexes. Letīs say max 15 ships in one hex.
This could be values to change in rulevars.

And i would also like to have something like this implemented in AT, not in any future games [;)]
Iīm a AT player and i donīt know if iīll play future games close to AT.

Iīm still in the AT testcrew and i would help testing such a new feature of course.

PS. In a current game we fight with naval stacks of 50+ ships and some airfields contain 50+
planes. This is not really funny....



TheArchduke -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/7/2009 7:56:28 AM)

Operation Barbarossa sees Boron and me fighting with 200 fighter stacks over single airfield, as spreading out airforce is a bad idea.



Jeffrey H. -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/7/2009 8:23:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: seille

This is really a weak point in the game.

I would like to have different airfield size.
normal ones with max 10 planes allowed
bigger ones with 15 planes allowed.

For overstacking the unit there should get a readiness penalty of 50%
or (what i would like more) a reduction in combat effectiveness related to
the amount of overstacking ->the more overstacking the more penalty.
Could work similar for naval hexes. Letīs say max 15 ships in one hex.
This could be values to change in rulevars.

And i would also like to have something like this implemented in AT, not in any future games [;)]
Iīm a AT player and i donīt know if iīll play future games close to AT.

Iīm still in the AT testcrew and i would help testing such a new feature of course.

PS. In a current game we fight with naval stacks of 50+ ships and some airfields contain 50+
planes. This is not really funny....



I agree that this area is a weak point in the game. However with aircraft the term overstacking should only apply to to the base hex, (airfiled/city) and not the attack. Or if it does apply to the attack, it should be a different limit.

The idea being; multiple airbases supporting a single attack was common in WWII.




seille -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/7/2009 9:42:21 PM)

I suggested this already earlier in this thread.
I also think limits per airfield would be good.

An attack should not be limited or the defender would have a way too high advantage
using fighters only for defense with 25% intercept bonus vs. mixed attackers with bombers and fighters.
No to forget possible AA fire from the ground by Flak.
Itīs obvious that any penalty here must be based on airfield capacity.

A simple readiness loss for overstacked airfields is a solution which is probably doable
using the current eventengine.
Letīs say 10 planes are the max for a hex:
12 planes (20% overstacked) = 80% readiness
14 planes (40% overstacked) = 60% readiness
.
.
20 planes (100% overstacked)= 0% readiness

This is the hardcore way. The weak point is that the player must be VERY
careful with moving his plane groups and routing his production to avoid
beeing hit by these readiness penalty.
Perfect would be a warning to the player when he want to move more planes than
allowed into a airfield hex. Like the warning for ships and planes when you try to move them
into a damaged location.

For ships it could work the similar way....



Grymme -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/7/2009 9:49:16 PM)

Sounds good, but is it possible to set an offensive/defensive mod instead of a readiness loss? There is nothing so horrible as a readiness penalty.



seille -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/7/2009 9:59:48 PM)

offensive/defensive penalty would be the smarter way thatīs right, BUT the player should always be informed he fights with
a penalty when he set up his attack (similar to what is shown for concentric bonus or ground overstacking).

Readiness loss is the hardcore version, but i think easier to implement and it prevents player from
PLACING to many units at a too small airfield.
A key is imho that the player is not surprised by any penalties. He must be informed.



seille -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/17/2009 8:38:13 AM)

Will something like this be implemented in AT to make it more realistic ?



TheArchduke -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/21/2009 11:36:06 AM)

I know I am annoying, but one quick answer would help wonders, Vic.

1.) Could you fix aircraft stacking in AT?

2.) Could you enable a perimeter so we can fix it ourselves if we want?

3.) Is it impossible to code in AT, too much hassle right now or do you think it is fine and WAD.

Thanks in advance.



seille -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/21/2009 8:32:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheArchduke

I know I am annoying, but one quick answer would help wonders, Vic.


It canīt be annoying to ask for a fix for a obvious problem the game engine has.
Vic canīt like such a enormous overstacking at sea and air while he found such a good solution
for ground combat.

A limit per airfield would be good. Just donīt allow to move more planes in or let new production deliver to.
This way we could avoid any other penalty.

Similar to the CVīs. Here you can transfer in a limited amound of aircrafts and then the engine says "ENOUGH".

For a sea hex maybe max 10 or 15 ships. After that "NO" for moving more in.

Could be a additional option.



GrumpyMel -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/26/2009 5:24:14 PM)

    You know there is another way to go with this too. Part of the reason for the "mega-stacks" of fighters is to achieve air superiority against your opponent. It's not a real advantage in most cases to throw everything in one big attack against a single target hex for the purposes of ground support (at least in the larger scenerio's).... as yeah...you'll devestate that target.... but a bit of a waste if there are a few dozen other good target hexes to hit.

One thing you could do is to abstract out this "Air Superiority" phase of the combat.... by allowing fighters to be assigned an "Air Superiority" mission for a particular theatre. At the beggining of the round... All fighters assigned an "Air Superiority" mission for both sides in that Theatre would fight an air combat. The results of which would determine who had "Air Superiority" for that Theatre and at what level (along with fighter losses).

Then during the regular turns.... your bomber forces could be assigned ground attack (or strategic bombing) missions as normal.... and the "Air Superiority" results for that theatre would determine the chances that they were intercepted and the number of opposing Fighters that intercepted (along with maybe the number of combat rounds that intercept lasted). You could assign Fighters to fly escort for the bombers (as long as they hadn't participated in Air Superiority that round).... but they would fight at a significant disadvantage against the intercepetors (at least in terms of kill chances... though maybe not so much absorbing losses...or forcing retreats).

Even though this is an abstraction....I think it might actualy better reflect what historicaly happens..... and would do away a little bit with the gamey feel of the "mega-stack fighter tactic"  so prevalent in AT now.

A side uses it's fighter forces to try to gain Air Superiority against it's opponent so that it's safer to fly bombing/ground strike missions. Once it has "Air Superiority"..... it is able to fly bombing missions....although there is still some risk that some of those missions will be intercepted by small groups of defensive fighters. It can mitigate that risk to a certain degree by flying escort missions. However, it's escorts are not particularly great at killing enemy fighters...as they are tied to protect the slower moving bombers.... and not free to chase down and kill interceptors that break off....or straffe thier fields, etc.

It would also represent the fact that fighters geared for ground attack/escort missions are not as well equiped for dogfighting as those set on doing air superiority (possibly being loaded down with, bomb-payloads, rockets, or auxillarly fuel tanks themselves...which would tend to slow them down in a dogfight).


















explorer2 -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/26/2009 6:57:38 PM)

Grumpy Mel's idea is a great one IMHO.

Because Vic is working hard on the next game, I don't think he's going to be doing anything else on AT unless someone finds something where the game is broken-crashes, as opposed to a feature/balancing thing we don't like.

I'm guessing he'll do something about this in next game.



Mehring -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/26/2009 9:42:03 PM)

Grumpy Mel's idea is not significantly different to a system older than AT and I'm sorry to say it doesn't solve the problem. Games like War in the East/West/Europe employed such a system and instead of the mega stack air superiority, you get the mega front air superiority and enormous air forces lying dormant for weeks and months while massive land battles rage, just waiting for the pounce. Changing this system is already a popular topic on the new computer War in Europe forum.

With it come all sorts of problems around air front boundaries, and supply. Sorry not to have an alternative to put forward at this time, but as I see it, this one's a step backwards.

One idea that may be worth toying with though, given that outnumbered airforces were usually able to gain local air superiority/parity is reducing or eliminating any combat advantage for outnumbering an opponent.

RE: ground support dogfighting, all ordnance/fuel tanks could be jettisoned if need be.



Vic -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/27/2009 8:54:51 AM)

yes i read this thread :)

its on the to-do list for the next release.



Mehring -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/27/2009 9:52:31 AM)

I think having stacking limits to different airfield classes would be great but it's not a complete solution. What about allowing a player to rout their air missions up to an aircraft type specific range, say leaving one airfield, hitting  a target, and landing somewhere else if they want? It wasn't uncommon.



seille -> RE: Aircraft stacking.. (5/27/2009 10:44:20 AM)

I think it should be a realistic solution without Vic having to rewrite too much of the "air engine".
And a solution Vic can implement in the current game.

With airfield limits it is easier to reach.
We need just a variable for the airfield capacity, maybe calculated by plane weight. If a player tries to transfer or move more planes
to the airfield the engine must say "max capacity reached" or something like this.

It would force the player to build additional airfields if he want to use bigger plane concentrations.
Same time it would be easier to implement for Vic.

That plane weight thing should be a variable with the possibility to edit for all locations in the editor.
Levelbombers could have twice the weight as fighters or divebombers.
Three possible standard airfield types:
normal = 10 planes (100 EP)
medium= 15 planes (150 EP, 2PP)
big      = 25 planes (300 EP, 5PP)

Something like this.....would imho improve the situation a lot.
Player can still have bigger concentrations, but he has to pay for and has to improve his
infrastructure.

For navy we need either a combat penalty for overstacked hexes or something
like a max value for number of ships in a sea hex. I prefer the combat (overstacking) penalty.

This could all be a option you can activate or deactivate.

edit:
@GrumpyMel
If those phases or missions would be allowed in AT we could also have automated search missions
against subs, automated attacks to enemy movement, or automated attacks to enemy taskforces coming in range.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.390625