Thoughts on the airwar (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

Wild -> Thoughts on the airwar (12/27/2010 1:49:32 PM)

I know the airwar has been brought up many times. The developers are currently working on this, but i was wondering if there is any consensus among players as to what they would like to see.

I have seen some suggest more abstraction might be the way to go. I tend to think the opposite. I think we need more detail and control especially considering that the west and med fronts will be added.

We almost need an eagle day to bombing the reich/Witp AE type of system, but it's probably too late for that now.
I'm really concerned that deficiencies in the airwar might marr what otherwise would be a masterpiece of epic proportions.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/27/2010 2:21:07 PM)

One of my suggestions (maybe impractical) is to have two game play options:

- Option 1 = one day turns (like WiTP) with total player control over the air war and unit micro-management, as well as the naval war.

- Option 2 = one week turns with the air war and naval war being much more abstracted to deal with the different tempo of operations between air and ground over a 1 week period.

Does that make sense?



PyleDriver -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/27/2010 5:19:26 PM)

Well one day turns won't happen. But the fact you can fly sorties from the same airfield 4 or 5 times in a week reflect daily turns..



Joel Billings -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/27/2010 7:08:41 PM)

I just want to throw in that from what I can recall of Gary's early design thinking was that the bulk of the airwar on the eastern front was direct ground support of ground units in combat. Now that doesn't mean there were not airfield attacks, strategic bombing, and bombing of ground units not actually part of a major operation, but these were minor in comparison to the ground support work. His goal was to automate as much of the ground support as possible and allow the many missions that were flown by planes in a week to carry out this ground support (or interception of ground support). The air model will see improvements over time to hopefully generate more realistic results, but I'd be surprised if you see a major redesign of the basic system (i.e. giving a lot more control, or giving less control). It does seem that opinions on exactly what is desired vary considerably.



Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/27/2010 7:32:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

One of my suggestions (maybe impractical) is to have two game play options:

- Option 1 = one day turns (like WiTP) with total player control over the air war and unit micro-management, as well as the naval war.

- Option 2 = one week turns with the air war and naval war being much more abstracted to deal with the different tempo of operations between air and ground over a 1 week period.

Does that make sense?


Makes perfect sense in the Pacific war you were not getting 150k Russian combat sorties in two months like in Bagration the whole scale is different, in the Pacific there was air skirmishes in Europe east and west there was just a greater intensity. There were massive inderdiction campaigns you just did not get that in the Pacific. People saying I would like it like WiTP need to address the scale of the two conflicts.



Korzun -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/27/2010 8:31:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
The air model will see improvements over time to hopefully generate more realistic results, but I'd be surprised if you see a major redesign of the basic system (i.e. giving a lot more control, or giving less control). It does seem that opinions on exactly what is desired vary considerably.


Just out of interest, what exactly is unrealistic about the results? There are different threads and different opinions, obviously. I have never been that much into airwar before WiTE as I used to play operational games. So, can anyone please enlighten me?



Mehring -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/27/2010 10:34:13 PM)

I'd like to see the existing air war work before thinking about changes to it.



Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/28/2010 9:43:35 PM)


If I can trouble with you with more evidence that the scale of the air model is completely wrong, it is noticable that eveyone forms all their air units into clumps so if everyone is doing that why not just one unit.



Helpless -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/28/2010 10:10:28 PM)

quote:

If I can trouble with you with more evidence that the scale of the air model is completely wrong


WITE air model is not the example of excellence, but..

You can use the same kind of arguments and call land warfare scale completely wrong, by creating unit of 100 men in editor and placing it on map. Engine can be misused.

No one is forcing you to use 1 plane single air group per airbase. It is perfectly possible to run air strikes with the whole Air Army or Fliegerkorps. And amount of planes you see in the battle report doesn't represent the amount of actual sorties performed.



abulbulian -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/28/2010 10:11:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


If I can trouble with you with more evidence that the scale of the air model is completely wrong, it is noticable that eveyone forms all their air units into clumps so if everyone is doing that why not just one unit.


What do you mean by forming clumps? Please explain more?

Thanks



Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/28/2010 10:23:01 PM)

quote:

What do you mean by forming clumps? Please explain more?

Thanks


If everyone is putting all their airbases in the one area on the map for each HQ it seems to me like why not have just created one higher echelon formation, it not like the airbases are strung out all over the map in peoples games. It kinda defeats the purpose of the model.



Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/28/2010 10:40:48 PM)

quote:

WITE air model is not the example of excellence, but..

You can use the same kind of arguments and call land warfare scale completely wrong, by creating unit of 100 men in editor and placing it on map. Engine can be misused.

No one is forcing you to use 1 plane single air group per airbase. It is perfectly possible to run air strikes with the whole Air Army or Fliegerkorps. And amount of planes you see in the battle report doesn't represent the amount of actual sorties performed.


It is hard to get your point across on a forum without sounding rude, I apologize in advance. Nope the air model is not an example of excellence but lets ignore the research and and depth which are positive and look at what is physically wrong. The unit scale of the game is basically divisional, and a hex represents 10 miles the level were aircraft become represented on the map is too small. It does not fit the mechanics of the rest of the game. One counter could idealy replace ten of the present ones



Helpless -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/28/2010 11:00:41 PM)

quote:

The unit scale of the is basically divisional, and a hex represents 10 miles the level were aircraft become represented on the map is too small. It does not fit the mechanics of the rest of the game. One counter could idealy replace ten of the present ones


Every air base is an abstraction of air division (or even a bit more). You can stack 9 groups in one base - 200-300 planes. 5-6 bases would represent an Air Army (2-3 Air Corps). So far I don't see where the model itself is out of scale. Yes it could be misused, especially by AI, but this can be done with other elements as well.




Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/28/2010 11:24:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

The unit scale of the is basically divisional, and a hex represents 10 miles the level were aircraft become represented on the map is too small. It does not fit the mechanics of the rest of the game. One counter could idealy replace ten of the present ones


Every air base is an abstraction of air division (or even a bit more). You can stack 9 groups in one base - 200-300 planes. 5-6 bases would represent an Air Army (2-3 Air Corps). So far I don't see where the model itself is out of scale. Yes it could be misused, especially by AI, but this can be done with other elements as well.


Transpose what you are talking about to the map, are you going to put your transports bombers and ground attack aircraft away from your fighters? What we are seeing from players are clumps of bases



Helpless -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/28/2010 11:34:09 PM)

quote:



Transpose what you are talking about to the map, are you going to put your transports bombers and ground attack aircraft away from your fighters?


Well, it can be done both ways. You can open any of late war scenarios and see historical setups - no clumps as you call them

quote:


What we are seeing from players are clumps of bases


I don't see much of clumps in human player games. What you referring to is more describing the AI "habit". But this is more a "problem" of the AI than the engine.



KenchiSulla -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/28/2010 11:42:21 PM)

Smirfy, I guess you dont want to micromanage the bases... There seems to be flak in each of those "bases". You have to recon to find them and you can organise them as you see fit. You can attack them. Its part of this game, its not out of scale imo. Could it use improvement? Ofcourse - we all can use some improvement :P, but I like the way it is represented in the game..

Hell, you could abstract the entire conflict and just have a generator "create" battle results.. Would you get realistic results? Yep.. Would it be fun? I would rather read a book.....




Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/29/2010 12:33:16 AM)


The present air system is fun? Unfortunatley I have read books and unfornunately I have played enough wargames to know a bad mechanic when I see one, I have done beta on enough computer games to identify something that wont work pretty quickly and I have seen devs lemming like attempt to get flawed systems to work and failed everytime. Take inderdiction for example (BTW is inderdiction actually inderdiction as we understand it in WWII or just something to fit what we have?), take air superiority as another. Ask yourself are they up to the standard for the rest of the game? Is the defensive nature of the airwar working? If taking the air war in the east and convoluting it into multipe clicks and counters is called depth I prefer the abstaction of strategy of getting the best men and machines to the decisive location without having to jump through hoops that pass as that depth.



Mynok -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/29/2010 1:53:49 AM)


You still haven't said what you think doesn't work except that that AI clumps bases. [8|]



Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/29/2010 9:04:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok


You still haven't said what you think doesn't work except that that AI clumps bases. [8|]




I believe I mentioned I dont think the system encapsulates the 24/7 nature of the airwar vis a vis air superiority and inderdiction. When you cannot get people to accept fundamental flaws like the scale of air units being out of sync which is a basic building block of the game its hard to take it to the next level and say 10 He 111 flew over 300 fighters in a base and killed 1500 men about ten hexs away unmolested. Now that is not an isolated result in my games. Now the scale is a week and 10 He 111's do not nessecarily represent 10 sorties [sic]. I think the airwar system has problems dont you.



KenchiSulla -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/29/2010 9:09:11 AM)

Ok, pro's and con's :-)

Pro
- You can decide on which front you commit your crack regiments and how you will concentrate your force
- It is possible to create defense in depth with your airforce (handy deployment of your airbases to cover retreating troops)

Con
- It takes more time to play a turn?
- There is no air superiority mission, perhaps introduce it? Commit percentage of fighter to front or sector fighter sweeps?



janh -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/29/2010 9:32:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless
WITE air model is not the example of excellence, but..


Maybe not excellence per se, but I think it works extremely well and sets the standards. It is just a bit tedious at times to organize all air missions, but that's what players of AE asked for -- control over as many facets of the air war as possible. Some stuff could have an additional "standard/AI control" setting to avoid micromanaging of routine issues (unless you feel like it), but I simply love the depth that having all these options and detail in there create.



Steeltrap -> RE: Thoughts on the airwar (12/29/2010 12:49:50 PM)

Well as a new player I can say the whole air system is somewhat of a nightmare to comprehend/organise.

As is the case for the rest of it, the manual tends to talk about 'what/how' but nothing much about 'why/when'. It is very off-putting as a new player with dozens of airbase counters and all sorts of arcane mechanics behind them (the air commitment etc etc).

Not having range obvious on the map seems a remarkable oversight. How do I know what coverage I have from all those different fields?

I'm talking from the Soviet perspective. The first 20 turns are so dreadful to organise through the interlocking mechanics of the game - C&C, support units, air etc etc - that I've all but thrown my hands up and decided not to play until I see the 'user guide' being put together.

I do think looking at the complexity a player has to confront to play the game is a different thing from the complexity behind what's on the screen. Right now, I find it all so horrible to get to grips with I'm regretting spending my money to be blunt.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.75