Air system - change from AT to ATG? (Full Version)

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



Message

jjdenver -> Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/28/2011 4:28:21 PM)

Hi,

I was a long-time player of AT and my biggest beef was the "big stack" air system. For example in big East Front scenarios - both sides would be smart to put all of their FTR in 1 or 2 big stacks. If the other guy didn't do that your big stack would systematically smash all of his small stacks with very few losses - leaving your side with air superiority. I think this didn't seem realistic since fighter strength was more dispersed across the front historically and many smaller engagements were fought.

Has this changed in ATG?

Thanks



Barthheart -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/28/2011 4:40:17 PM)

Yes. Air combat now has stacking point limits like land combat.

Also artillery attacks also have stacking point limits.



jjdenver -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/28/2011 5:08:30 PM)

Great news. Thanks Barth.



Vic -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/28/2011 6:58:46 PM)

actually air stack limit is for air to ground, not for air to air.

but measures have been taken to tackle the mega stack problem. first: airfield attack penalty for defenders, second: uncertainty of intercept.

looking forward to your feedback on these two measures.

read more on:
http://www.vrdesigns.nl/atwiki/doku.php?id=combat_calculations#uncertainty_of_intercept
http://www.vrdesigns.nl/atwiki/doku.php?id=combat_calculations#airfield_attack_hp

best,
Vic



mgaffn1 -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/28/2011 7:06:00 PM)

Although these changes make it harder for me to use my old gamey tricks, it has made the game more challenging (& interesting).



jjdenver -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/28/2011 9:55:58 PM)

Hi Vic,

First thank you for clarifying. Let me take these one at a time:

1) "Uncertainty of Intercept An intercept, even if within intercept range and with right readiness and standing order, is never certain. However the closer to the airfield where the interceptors are stationed the airstrike is taking place the bigger the chance an intercept will take place. Rulevar 837 can disable this or set the % chance of intercept to fail at edge of radius of unit. Rulevar 838 can set the % of intercept to fail at theoretical 0 distance. The % to fail somewhere in between 0 range and ultimate range is somewhere in between rulevar 837 en 838. <Not in AT classic rules>"

My comment: This doesn't seem to address the big air stack problem at all. Either the big stack will intercept or it won't. If it does - it'll smash all small stacks that take part in the engagement, taking almost no losses in exchange for eliminating almost all of the opposition planes. In fact it might even make the problem worse. Imagine I have 50% of the Luftwaffe in Stack A and 50% in Stack B. I fly Stack A to bomb a hex within range of 6 small Soviet stacks each consisting of 5% of their air force. So in essence there's a chance for 50% of Luftwaffe to fight 30% of Soviet air force (which I'll call VVS to make it simple). Let's say intercept chance on avg for VVS stacks happens to be 66% in this case. On avg now we've gone from 50% of Luftwaffe vs 30% of VVS down to 50% of Luftwaffe vs 20% of VVS (since only 2/3 chance for each VVS stack to intercept). Now it's even MORE one-sided than it was under the old rules. The big stack is even stronger than before and the VVS can expect to lose most of their engaged planes while shooting down very few German planes.

2) "Airfield Attack HP When the airstrike is targeting an airfield the aircraft stationed there will fight with a penalty. Air units that are attacked on their airfield hexes fight with a penalty on their hitpoints in the first combat rounds. Penalty depends on rulevar 835 and rulevar 836. <Not in AT classic rules>"

My comment: What I understand here is that if Big Stack A which contains 50% of Luftwaffe can be bombed at its airfield the engaging VVS planes might kill a higher number than expected on round 1 only. This might be some small help for the big stack problem but not much - because it's only 1 round and we have to suppose the VVS can: find the Big Stack A, rebase enough VVS planes to oppose them into range and then have enough movement to bomb Big Stack A. All of that is supposing that the VVS can even get enough planes into range to make it reasonable to fly vs Big Stack A - likely 40% or more of VVS. Really both sides need the big stack still - it's just who can get off the first airbase bombing to win the air war. I don't see how this really addresses the big stack problem.


Overall I'm really really really (did I say really?) disappointed that ATG didn't address what I saw as the main gamebreaker problem with AT. I thought it would be an absolutely no-brainer that this would be addressed by ATG through one of the many mechanisms recommended in threads a year or two ago when the big stack problem was discussed at length.

*BIG SIGH*



kendollem -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/28/2011 10:08:00 PM)

If you keep all your airfoce based at an airbase that gets destroyed you lose all the planes it seems.

In my game with a friend i lost 20 fighters caused he blew up the airbase from under me with divebombers ...

So that helps some.. Tho more could prolly be done ..



Vic -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/29/2011 8:47:17 AM)

@jjdever,

i think it works pretty well now.
though i am open to fine-tuning this.

for example adding a rulevar that will let air to air be subject to air stacking point rules as well. i'll look into that for the next patch.

but the reason i didnt is:
-air battles are game-wise fought on one hex but they abstract/resemble a larger area fight for dominance and thus limitations seem odd. thats why there are limitations for air->ground since that sort of combat is limited to the actual hex.
-any form of penalties due to stacking opens the game up to tricking the enemy into overstacked intercepts. (i couldnt find a nice way around this)

also the airbase penalty is for combat round 1 + 2 (its quite effective), but i'll add rulevars to extend that if player wished to combat penalties in round 3+4 as well... and to be honest i can think of no better rule do deter stacking a lot of aircraft on a single airfield appart from making that a very vulnerable strategy.... so you are forced to spread out.

best,
vic



jjdenver -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/29/2011 2:08:47 PM)

Hi Vic - thanks for the reply!

It seems like some stacking penalty for air would make sense. Yes you could be tricked into overstacking on intercept but I don't see that as a huge problem since it would take a bunch of planes in a small area to amount to a big overstack, and even if you overstacked you might beat the phasing player due to having so much firepower anyway.

The problem that I see w/ big stack is that all planes get get to fire at all the other side's planes. This results in almost no losses for big stack and huge losses for small stack. There's no "smarts" for the outnumbered side to refuse combat when drastically outnumbered which is what would happen in a real air combat I think. If you have 5 FTR and see 25 FTR incoming - you try to refuse combat, not engage and be destroyed. What's even more likely is that the 5 FTR engage 5 or 10 of the 25 not all 25 at once.

So maybe one way to address it would be to reduce FTR vs FTR deaths per round and make it last more rounds. That way if big side is attriting small side, small side will retreat after taking a couple losses rather than losing all of its planes to one big smack by big side.

In fact overall combat in AT might benefit from reduced deaths per round and more rounds to let the combat play out gradually. This lets the disadvantaged side retreat before the one big round smashes everything they have - i.e. if a 1 round combat would kill 80% of one side, and the losses are halved or quartered per round then the side that will lose might lose 20% per round and decide to retreat after a couple of rounds instead of take the one big smack that happens with high losses and few round combats. Just an idea to smooth out the curve of losses.

Anyway I'm encouraged that you are listening so thanks.



GrumpyMel -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/29/2011 8:34:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

@jjdever,

i think it works pretty well now.
though i am open to fine-tuning this.

for example adding a rulevar that will let air to air be subject to air stacking point rules as well. i'll look into that for the next patch.

but the reason i didnt is:
-air battles are game-wise fought on one hex but they abstract/resemble a larger area fight for dominance and thus limitations seem odd. thats why there are limitations for air->ground since that sort of combat is limited to the actual hex.
-any form of penalties due to stacking opens the game up to tricking the enemy into overstacked intercepts. (i couldnt find a nice way around this)

also the airbase penalty is for combat round 1 + 2 (its quite effective), but i'll add rulevars to extend that if player wished to combat penalties in round 3+4 as well... and to be honest i can think of no better rule do deter stacking a lot of aircraft on a single airfield appart from making that a very vulnerable strategy.... so you are forced to spread out.

best,
vic



Vic,

From my perspective, the core cause of the mega-stack phenomenon is that the attacker can pile in as many planes from as many bases as he wants into one strike. As the defender, if you try to spread out your planes among different bases, typicaly the attacker will pick a hex that is only in intercept range of part of your force and you get killed peicemeal. Forces the defender to stack up in one hex to have any chance to perserve thier airforce.

The airfield defense penalty makes the situation even worse (IMO) because now if the defender does stack in one hex he's at a combat penalty when attacked so he get's his airforce wiped (though he can make up for it with flak protection on the hex)...and if he doesn't stack up but spreads out...he gets wiped because he gets taken down peicemeal. It's a catch-22.

Note, in this phase of the air war....the attacker doesn't care about the overstack penalty against ground targets, because his objective is not to kill ground targets, it's to wipe out the opponents fighter force...so that later he can hit ground targets without much opposition. Usualy, in this phase...I'll usualy pick the LEAST important measly ground target I can find...because it's not likely to have much flak protection. I don't want to kill ground units, I want to kill enemy interceptors...so a few turns from now when they are all gone, I can hit ground targets without worrying much.

In reality, the defending air commander could say something like "Yeah, go ahead and hit that camp of reservists typing up reports 20 miles behind the line with your 100 planes.... I'm not going to waste my 20 planes to engage to defend against that.... I'll save them for something more important." Problem is with the current mechanics, the defender doesn't have much input on whether to engage or not based on the circumstances... it's just intercept or not.

It's a tough problem to solve for sure. Some mechanisms I could think of to address it would be...

1) An extra setting for the defender (or attacker for that matter) based on agressiveness. Essentialy rather retreat percentage it would determine how much the unit was willing to stick in combat based upon the ODDS it found itself against rather then simply the damage it took (i.e. if your in a 1 vs 1 fight you wouldn't want to break off after 5% loss, if you are in a 1 vs 10 you would). Of course you might have to endure a round or two while trying to break off.

2) Giving Airbases an air-capacity (just like carriers) and imposing a readiness penalty if more air units are stacked in the base then it has capacity. This means a player would be negatively effected both on offense and on defense by basing too many planes in one hex.

3) An overstacking penalty for air to air combat....and another tag for the defender to determine if they'd intercept if doing so would make them overstacked. This would make it costly for the attacker (or defender) to pile on too many planes from multiple bases into one attack. It still could be done but they wouldn't fight as efficiently. You can rationalize this as the historical difficulties encountered when trying to coordinate the operations and timing of multiple different squadrons from multiple different bases in a single sortee.

I realize that's alot of different changes...but I can't think of any other ways to address the mega-stack air combat issue. Forcing a player to spread out over multiple airbases and instituting some uncertainty about whether a unit will intercept or not helps incentivize the defender to spread out more....but doesn't do much to deter the attacker from using mega-stacks on attack from multiple bases.... and as long as the attacker can manipulate conditions (by picking targets at the edge of intercept range) so that they'll only face part of the defenders forces in any one combat, they've got a HUGE advantage in doing mega-stack attacks. Just my opinion.




















henri51 -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/29/2011 10:41:59 PM)

The problem is how to avoid both the 'monster-stack' abuse and the 'soak-off' attack tactic, where the attacker sends in a small sacrificial unit to use up the defending interceptors, then comes back with the real attack against zero air defense. The only way to comletely avoid this is for the AI to be more intelligent than is probably possible.

'Unintelligent' compromises could be for the defender to never send more than 50% interceptors against an enemy air attack, thus keeping some in reserve. But an intelligent attacker could exploit this to some extent by using a preliminary weaker attack followed by the real power air attack; since the defender would have used 50% more fighters in the first attack, he would have 50% fewer fighters for the much larger attack, and get clobbered.

Stacking penalties might work to some extent, but the required stacking penalties in the early game are different than those for the late game, where the land units are much more powerful and numerous.

Maybe the best solution would be to let the human defender decide how many planes he wants to send up, after he is told how many enemy fighters are coming. There could be s small random fluctuation in the actual number of planes taking into account surprise and poor AI.

Henri



SSFSX17 -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/30/2011 12:33:24 AM)

Quick question: are there any examples, in real history, of massive air stacks (i.e. a lot of aircraft on the same base being commanded by the same officer) being a bad idea?

And anyways, the oil resource does a good job of preventing air superiority from being used for overpowering results.

If this absolutely has to be balanced, I would suggest the following:
- Each airbase-capable location has a fixed number of "Takeoff And Landing" points per round. Cities would have very few, while dedicated airfields would have a lot more. Players would have to make a tradeoff between reserving a lot for interception, and using a lot for attack. When used for interception, there might be modifiers to the number of "Takeoff And Landing" points based on how many aircraft the enemy actually used.
- The air SFType categories are further divided into "High Altitude," "Medium Altitude," and "Low Altitude." This way, you can simulate, for example, strategic bombers being devastating against locations and being hard to hit by flak, but being vulnerable to fighters, or divebombers being extremely vulnerable to ground defenses. (I am willing to implement this in my mod if there is enough demand)
- Air units in general should be ineffective against infantry, cities, and fortifications - or at the very least, extremely inefficient at attacking such things. (Except for Strategic Bombers levelling cities to the ground, which is still ineffective at killing trained infantry) (I am willing to implement this in my mod if there is enough demand)



jjdenver -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/30/2011 4:49:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SSFSX17
Quick question: are there any examples, in real history, of massive air stacks (i.e. a lot of aircraft on the same base being commanded by the same officer) being a bad idea?


First I'll say that I agree w/ what GrumpyMel wrote. He's a master at taking advantage of the big stack tactics and he's probably the reason I stopped playing the first version of AT after seeing him use and abuse the rule. The ideas he proposes have some merit, and as a master of "big stack" he is the right guy to fix it. :)

As for SSFSX17's question - I doubt it. But I don't think what we are trying to do here is specifically limit the number of air units at a base - rather we are trying to think of ways within the framework of the game to reduce the gamey "big stack" syndrome. So while your question is pointed, I think it misses the mark of the topic we are trying to address.

SSFSX17's takeoff and landing points has some merit I think btw, but GrumpyMel's ideas as a whole seem more effective to me. - just my opinion.

Thx



GrumpyMel -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/30/2011 5:33:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: henri51

The problem is how to avoid both the 'monster-stack' abuse and the 'soak-off' attack tactic, where the attacker sends in a small sacrificial unit to use up the defending interceptors, then comes back with the real attack against zero air defense. The only way to comletely avoid this is for the AI to be more intelligent than is probably possible.

'Unintelligent' compromises could be for the defender to never send more than 50% interceptors against an enemy air attack, thus keeping some in reserve. But an intelligent attacker could exploit this to some extent by using a preliminary weaker attack followed by the real power air attack; since the defender would have used 50% more fighters in the first attack, he would have 50% fewer fighters for the much larger attack, and get clobbered.

Stacking penalties might work to some extent, but the required stacking penalties in the early game are different than those for the late game, where the land units are much more powerful and numerous.

Maybe the best solution would be to let the human defender decide how many planes he wants to send up, after he is told how many enemy fighters are coming. There could be s small random fluctuation in the actual number of planes taking into account surprise and poor AI.

Henri


Henri51,

I've never experienced the "soak-off" attack being an issue. In AT Classic, at least, defending interceptors could fly as many sorties in defense as they wished...as long as thier readiness was still good they would keep flying intercept against attackers. So the attacker flying a small stack against the defender pretty much accomplished nothing except waste his airforce. Has this changed in ATG? I haven't really noticed, but I haven't played that many air heavy games of ATG yet. Are interceptors limited by the number of sorties they fly in ATG, or is the issue that they burn up fuel each time they go up?

Note that in the ETO scenerio, I did impliment changes somewhat similar to the SFT and terrain penalty against ground target changes that SSFSX17 reccomended...and I think they are very good changes but they don't do much about the mega-stack issue.

Historicaly, bases did have to deal with issues like runway and hangar capacity...not to mention complications from local condition (i.e. one base being sopped in with fog while a base a few miles away was clear to fly). Though I think the real issue is that the fluidity and uncertainity of air warfare is hard to model in AT's engine and so you end up with some quirky/gamey issues like the "mega-stack"....that some of us would like to see reduced so results resembled a little closer to history.

In real life you'd never fly your entire air capacity on a single strike, because you'd have nothing to put up if the enemy came at you WHILE your planes were on that mission.... and they'd all come back from thier victorious mega-strike to find thier runways cratered and no place to land..... or just as bad get bumped on or shortly after landing with no fuel in thier tanks or ammo in thier magizines to fight off the attacker.
Not to mention the political issues of trying to explain to an army commander (often of an Allied nation) why you just couldn't spare any CAP or ground support to keep his troops from being slaughtered because all your planes were too busy bombing Dusseldorf for the entire month.... maybe Goering could have gotten away with that...but at least on the Allied side it would have been a tough sell.

Real tough problem to address in the AT engine...and I don't envy Vic dealing with it....but I'm sure he'll come up with something that helps improve the situation.



Vic -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/30/2011 10:31:11 AM)

maybe a pbem game between me and grumpymel might be a good idea... i really need to be shown here i guess. i'll be away for the weekend but can play a turn a day... any suggestions on scenario setup that will best show me the big stack issue in full effect?

best,
Vic



jjdenver -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (4/30/2011 2:48:50 PM)

Mel - pls show Vic. Thanks :)



freeboy -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (5/1/2011 1:47:25 AM)

ok, atg playing solo in the scenario that loadedwith game for the east.. sorry cannot remember the name..
I find the use of huge air wings by the ai.. and availableto the human, somewhat of a negative.. I think that putting a restriction or stacking penelty would be appropriate here.. just my two cents worth..



GrumpyMel -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (5/2/2011 3:37:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

maybe a pbem game between me and grumpymel might be a good idea... i really need to be shown here i guess. i'll be away for the weekend but can play a turn a day... any suggestions on scenario setup that will best show me the big stack issue in full effect?

best,
Vic



Vic, I'd be honored/happy to try to demonstrate the issue. Almost any scenerio should do (WAW, GPW, ETO, WW3,...)

Obviously it's easier if the scenerio starts with some existing air forces for both sides, and has decent sized map & landmasses.

About the only thing that might cause difficulties is a random map with a weird setup (too constrained a front, airbases set too far apart to fly against the same target, etc)



jjdenver -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (5/2/2011 6:06:11 PM)

My 2 cents would be to pick a wide single front game like WW2 East Front. That should show off the issue most clearly and quickly. It can be shown in other scenarios I'd guess as well but east front games with multiple airbases like tweber's GPW show it most clearly I think.



Vic -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (5/2/2011 6:36:27 PM)

We can try Russia 1941 the new version?

i can play russia and see if i can build up an airforce while you are at an advantage.

best,
Vic




GrumpyMel -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (5/3/2011 2:27:07 AM)

Sure thing Vic, tell me what options you want me to start the game with and PM me where I should send the turn and I'll get it rolling.



Krafty -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (5/3/2011 5:31:27 AM)

For what its worth, in War in The East, which is a considerably deeper simulation of the Eastern Front, one of the first things as the germans im spending my Admin Points on is consolidating the luftwaffe to army group center, to put everything i have together, to flatten the VVS thats refitting and coming out of national reserve near moscow.I dont think the mega stack in the air is a problem. If all his air is in one spot, good, bomb with impunity outside his range. Fighters with nothing to intercept are useless. Also, I dont think the soviet side needs the VVS to get a victory.

But really, youre always out classed in the air, the idea is to strike the path of least resistence. 100s of fighters stacked at a single base is a no fly zone...but those 100 fighters arent covering other areas of the line...those other areas is where id be hammering away with my Il-2s and DB3s.




Vic -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (5/3/2011 9:05:00 AM)

@kraftwerk,

that was my design philiosphy as well... if you have air supriority but focus on one front area you give the weaker side the chance to make ground casualties in your unprotected sectors.

@grumpy,

but it never hurts to fine tune... lets see how our game goes... any options are ok... i basicly just want to see if i can build up the russian airforce to equal level to luftwaffe for early 1942.
email me at vic@xs4all.nl

best,
Vic



jjdenver -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (5/3/2011 2:01:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kraftwerk
For what its worth, in War in The East, which is a considerably deeper simulation of the Eastern Front, one of the first things as the germans im spending my Admin Points on is consolidating the luftwaffe to army group center, to put everything i have together, to flatten the VVS thats refitting and coming out of national reserve near moscow.I dont think the mega stack in the air is a problem. If all his air is in one spot, good, bomb with impunity outside his range. Fighters with nothing to intercept are useless. Also, I dont think the soviet side needs the VVS to get a victory.

But really, youre always out classed in the air, the idea is to strike the path of least resistence. 100s of fighters stacked at a single base is a no fly zone...but those 100 fighters arent covering other areas of the line...those other areas is where id be hammering away with my Il-2s and DB3s.


Kraftwerk- nice thoughts from an academic point of view but play GrumpyMel or another player who is good with mega stacks and I absolutely guarantee you'll change your mind. He won't leave most of the front uncovered. He might make 2 mega stacks, or he might exploit which area you have intercepters turned on by scouting with 1 fighter and then moving his mega stack there to engage your interceptors and blow them all away. It's not so easy to combat a megastack player. Really. The mechanics are broken [as previously discussed on this and other earlier threads] so using a dance and weave strategy won't be enough.



Vic -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (5/3/2011 3:47:47 PM)

when game starts i will put up my experiences in the aar section.

best,
Vic



GrumpyMel -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (5/3/2011 10:35:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kraftwerk

For what its worth, in War in The East, which is a considerably deeper simulation of the Eastern Front, one of the first things as the germans im spending my Admin Points on is consolidating the luftwaffe to army group center, to put everything i have together, to flatten the VVS thats refitting and coming out of national reserve near moscow.I dont think the mega stack in the air is a problem. If all his air is in one spot, good, bomb with impunity outside his range. Fighters with nothing to intercept are useless. Also, I dont think the soviet side needs the VVS to get a victory.

But really, youre always out classed in the air, the idea is to strike the path of least resistence. 100s of fighters stacked at a single base is a no fly zone...but those 100 fighters arent covering other areas of the line...those other areas is where id be hammering away with my Il-2s and DB3s.




Kraftwerk,

The problem with that theory is that those bombers need to fly out of somewhere. If they aren't sitting in a base protected with a mega-stack of fighters then they simply cease to exist in a few turns because the base gets raided by your opponents fighters.

So what ends up happening is that you get both sides sitting around with a mega-stack of fighters so that they can preserve thier air force and nipping around the edge of each others protected zones for targets. Which feels pretty gamey & ahistoric to many players.

The guy who tries to spread out looses his airforce over the course of a few turns as his opponent slaughters each of his fighter stacks peicemeal with a mega-stack and then it really doesn't matter because he doesn't have any fighters left to protect any part of his front anyway.

The only strategy based solution I've found to the above is a partial one, involving the use of concentrated flak to help protect bases etc. However in vanilla AT at least, that isn't a very cost effective strategy.

I don't mind sharing this up front, as there really is no magic behind the dynamics of how this works. I certainly don't claim to be anything special as a player....and I'm sure Vic will probably wipe the floor with me in general [;)] but hopefully I'll be able to demonstrate how this particular dynamic works.






GrumpyMel -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (5/4/2011 5:48:07 AM)

Game started.



Vic -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (5/4/2011 9:22:27 AM)

Yes it will be interesting to see how this turns out. of course i will try to play with a spread out airforce.

best,
Vic



jjdenver -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (5/20/2011 10:37:01 PM)

Mel, Vic - is this AAR coming?



Vic -> RE: Air system - change from AT to ATG? (5/21/2011 9:03:40 AM)

hi i have to little time to write an AAR (already doing one with Lunaticus), but i will post my experience when the game has progressed a bit.  We are already at round 8 and i can say i am not that impressed by the mega stack tactic yet so far.

however i am strongly thinking of adding at least a penalty for aircraft that operate from an overstacked airfield. more news soon.

best,
Vic




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375