An airpower opinion. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Panzer Corps



Message

stormbringer3 -> An airpower opinion. (7/30/2011 5:07:46 PM)

It seems to me that the use of strategic air vs. tactical air against ground units is a little out of balance. Many advise using strategic air, but it doesn't seem that a JU-88 was used as much against ground units in WWII as we do in this game. Perhaps a little tweaking is in order to make tactical air a more viable choice?
Thanks for any opinions.



Longasc -> RE: An airpower opinion. (7/30/2011 5:21:37 PM)

Indeed. That the level bombers do a lot better than the tactical bombers is quite consensus by now.

The question is rather how to tweak it.



Razz1 -> RE: An airpower opinion. (7/30/2011 7:00:47 PM)

The problem is: Any adjustment to Tac air makes them too powerful early in the war.

So they are God for 4 scenarios or more.



SeaMonkey -> RE: An airpower opinion. (7/30/2011 7:26:23 PM)

I'm not going to differ with SB3's assessment in a comparison of one to another, but I will say airpower feels about right in a perspective vs ground units. Mostly speaking about the combat results, I'd be very careful before making any changes to airpower's relationship to ground units, it's quite easy to get things out of whack in that department.



Grand Admiral Thrawn -> RE: An airpower opinion. (7/31/2011 3:10:28 PM)

And now sth completely different.

In gamerules.pzdat there is a line LowAltitudeAttackPenalty and it is set to -6. What does it do and what would happen if this was to be changed to -10 or 0 or 10?



rezaf -> RE: An airpower opinion. (7/31/2011 10:21:32 PM)

The almost useless tactical bombers in PC caused me quite some grief in my early PC campaigning.
In PG, Tacs were the swiss army knife of my forces - wherever I got stuck, I'd fly in my Ju's to save the day.
In PC, that's just not possible.
I disagree with Razz in that any tweak would make them god - maybe it'd make them a worthwile choice to begin with.
They could be more expensive to compensate if they end up being powerful.

Btw., another thing that weakens tacs in the campaign is that there are no new models in the late game.
Under pressure from all sides, historical germany put new CAS bombers on very low priority in favor of fighters, but surely a germany (successful enough and) preparing to invade the USA would have made different choices...



Dragoon. -> RE: An airpower opinion. (7/31/2011 10:48:06 PM)

I'm pleased with the air power but then again I'm a fighter bomber guy so... Beside that for cities and difficult terrain I use strategic bombers for long term suppression anyway as I did in previous PG games. Main job of my fighter bombers is to attack hard targets and artillery, and when it comes to that they do their job fine once they accumulated some experience. It's true the novice tac bomber pilot doesn't cut it but this is I assume less a problem of the hardware.



terje439 -> RE: An airpower opinion. (8/1/2011 12:16:03 AM)

Tactical bombers work ok. True they are no longer the life savers they were in PG, but they do ok work in softening the targets early on. However...
Playing the campaign and deciding not to take London and Moscow (to see how the game progressed), I found that even a 14 strength Stuka (D version) could at best take 1, ONE, strength from an IS2 on a river...


Terje



KerenskyLI -> RE: An airpower opinion. (8/1/2011 1:26:44 AM)

Early War Tactical Bombers perform adequately because... 

Stuka B and R have 6 and 7 hard attack.  With the exception of the Char B and Matilda II at 13, most Early War allied tanks are 7s(british) or 10s(some French)

Difference between attack and defense rating is at maximum 7.


Late War Tactical Bombers generally falter, because the air defense rating of late war ground units soars while hard attack of tactical bombers do not.

FW-190F and G have 9 hard attack.  Stuka G is exceptional with 14.  IS-2 has 22, KV1C has 20, KV2 has 18, M26 has 19 air defense.

Difference between attack and defense rating is at minimum 9, not considering the Stuka G which is the only exception.



James Ward -> RE: An airpower opinion. (8/1/2011 2:19:15 AM)

I like the TAC, other than the Stuka, because they can attack fighters. They help gain air superiority and then are useful against infantry, artillery and some armour.



Rood -> RE: An airpower opinion. (8/1/2011 8:40:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grand Admiral Thrawn

And now sth completely different.

In gamerules.pzdat there is a line LowAltitudeAttackPenalty and it is set to -6. What does it do and what would happen if this was to be changed to -10 or 0 or 10?


Currently when you attack a ground/naval unit with a Tactical Bomber you will get a -6 penalty to your ground defense.
So if the ground defense is 15 a penalty of 6 is substracted and you and up with 9 ground defense (not including any other modifiers).

If the enemy unit you attack has no air defense then the penalty does nothing.
It does nothing for your attack values.



Grand Admiral Thrawn -> RE: An airpower opinion. (8/1/2011 10:18:08 AM)

Thanks!



stormbringer3 -> RE: An airpower opinion. (8/1/2011 3:32:07 PM)

After reading KerenskyLI's post, would anyone be willing to explain the exact mechanics that will determine what amount of hits you might inflict on a hard target when you compare air hard attack vs. air defense?
Thanks.



xriz -> RE: An airpower opinion. (8/5/2011 3:58:32 AM)

I think if they bumped up the hard attack for some of the Tactical Bomber's like the Stuka it would make them more useful against tanks, which is historically were they made their biggest impact.



GlobalExplorer -> RE: An airpower opinion. (8/25/2011 10:13:48 AM)

Air power is (partially) broken imo.

Especially fighters. For example D520 Fighter vs PzIII -6 damage.

In PG this was more stable, there was never more than 0/-1 damage

I say partially broken because other things may have been improved too. For instance Stukas doing less damage, may actually be something that makes the game more interesting. But this should not be compensated with lightly armed fighters (D520) that do more damage than dive bombers.



GlobalExplorer -> RE: An airpower opinion. (8/25/2011 10:16:57 AM)

Soryy it was an MS406 but as I said it did 6 damage to PzIII.



Razz1 -> RE: An airpower opinion. (8/26/2011 6:27:05 AM)

It depends upon how many times the unit was attacked and what attacked it. Plus there is random damage.

Looks like you got some good dice.



mentatt76 -> RE: An airpower opinion. (9/17/2011 11:28:46 PM)

What happens when a unit is attacked multiple times?



AceDuceTrey -> RE: An airpower opinion. (9/18/2011 11:22:29 PM)

All these comments are interesting, but:
My research shows Tactica Bombers falling into 3 catagories:
1- (the lightest) Swing/multipurpose FIGHTERS that could perform multiple "strafing" gun and light bomb/rocket runs. This group also included airframes purposely modified for ground attack such as Me110E, FW190F/G, Hurricane II, A-36, etc.)
2- Attack/Light Bombers designed specifically to attack "point/small area" targets with aerodynamic characteristics that allowed them to perform dives and very low altitude maneuvers as well as low level bombing. Key here is these aircraft typically "salvoed" their entire bomb payload at thier target. These were the principal "close air support" aircraft. All aircraft carrier based bombers fell into this catagory.
3- (Early Light and) Medium Bombers designed to carry heavier loads over longer distances. These aircraft were all 2 or 3 engine airframes and had to sacrifice maneuverability due to their size and weight restricting them to level "string" bombing which completely removed any potential to score multiple hits on a given point or small area target, i.e., they were "area" bombers. The exception to this catagory were the maritime patrol bombers modified to carry torpedoes and depth charges for very low altitude level attacks.
Another factor all should keep in mind is armored vehicles had far less (~1/3) "top side" armor than frountal armor.

P.S. True Strategic Bombers usually had 4 or more engines and were designed to carry the maximum pay loads at high altitudes and air speeds



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.863281