Another balance issue with bombers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe



Message

vonik -> Another balance issue with bombers (6/22/2017 10:18:10 AM)

So in a PBEM I was retreating in order my Soviets remnants into the Ural mountains .
Then I noticed that my opponent was using his bombers as front line units - big mistake I thought .
I move a supplied correct moral level 3 heavy tank next to a German lvl 3 bomber in a mountain .

Just imagine a heavy tank brigade rolling on en ennemy Airport - a slaughter , 2 strikes and the bombers burn .
Yet, WTF ? The odds are saying 0:0 !
I try 1 strike, the heavy tanks take 1 loss , the bombers laugh and take 0.
Next turn the very same bombers strike my tanks which take 5 losses, another strike and the brigade evaporates .

As both units were in a mountain I guess that the bombers got an unholy terrain bonus while the tanks got none (unfortunately I was so flabbergasted that I forgot to take a SS) .
In any case this is both unrealistic and very unbalancing .
If planes can block ennemy ground units and take no losses then there is really something rotten in the kingdom of Denmark .
Please fix that - a fighter/bomber unit should never be able to block a ground unit and stay on place .
On the contrary it should take huge losses regardless of terrain, experience and supply situation .



Leadwieght -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/22/2017 10:52:50 AM)

Very odd. I wonder if low morale contributed to the weird result. You said "correct morale", but I'm not sure what that means. I would imagine Soviet morale was fairly low across the board in that situation.

But still...I agree that seems extremely odd.



Hubert Cater -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/22/2017 2:47:59 PM)

Hi Vonik,

If you can send us a screenshot next time it will help to paint a better picture as I'd need to see the numbers to understand the situation better.

For example, I tried setting up a set of test cases and even with a 0 supply Level-3 Tank, at 50% morale, with no HQ support/attachment, attacking a Level-3 Tactical Bomber in a mountain hex I received odds of 0:2.

If the same Tank was at supply 7, attached to an HQ with a morale of 70% then the odds jumped to 0:5.

The only way I was able to get odds of 0:0 was when the same Tank was back at 0 supply as in the first example, and the Tactical Bomber had a supply of 8 and was fully entrenched at 3 in the mountains.

All of my test cases included 100% National Morale for the attacking side, and if your National Morale was lower than that, which it likely is if you've been pushed back that far, then this is likely a factor as well.

Hubert



Sugar -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/22/2017 6:25:00 PM)

One question in this context: in Breakthrough experience had a significant impact on units losses. Is this still the case, or has it been modified in this game?



BillRunacre -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/23/2017 3:05:07 PM)

Yes, experience will still have that effect just as it did in WWI Breakthrough.



vonik -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/23/2017 3:36:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Hi Vonik,

If you can send us a screenshot next time it will help to paint a better picture as I'd need to see the numbers to understand the situation better.



Normally I would not mention it if I had no SS but the situation was so pathological that I had to signal it .
I found it also clearly "gamey" to use bombers movement to block tank units in mountains and survive easily .

Yes my national moral was not 100 % (it happened at Kuybishev so the Russians were not singing Victory) .
No, the supply was correct as it should be 2 hexes from the capital .
No, I don't remember the entrenchment of the bombers (what does it mean "entrench a bomber" anyway ?)

The comment was more meant from the tactical point of view - regardless what the numbers say, if a brigade of JS 3 heavy tanks rolls on an Airport then there are only burning plane wrecks left 15 minutes later .
And if the numbers say Something else, then it is very wrong . Even 0:2 is incredibly low .
Perhaps tanks should have a huge Attack multiplier against Aircraft - odds should always be at least 0: 4 regardless of moral, experience and supply for example.



Hubert Cater -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/23/2017 7:14:34 PM)

Hi Vonik,

Thanks for the feedback and it sounds like you likely were in a situation of very low national morale that in turn would have had a significant impact on the combat results.

Our attempt at using National Morale as a factor in combat, and in your case low NM would signify a very low willingness to fight and at this point it likely wouldn't matter which units you were using, but again it would be great to see the numbers to get a better overall idea.

That being said, while I can appreciate the frustration, from our end it comes down to the idea that we either have a model that takes into account the willingness to fight when National Morale is extremely low or we don't.

For example, regular NM and decent supply would indeed make quick work of an air unit parked on the frontline, i.e. a two strike Level-3 tank at 0:5 pretty much ensures an air unit's destruction, and even at 0 supply and low unit morale, on average the air unit would face 40% destruction up to as high as 60% if there were favorable dice rolls.

So while it can be viewed as a brigade of JS 3 Heavy Tanks storming an airport, at this point of the war with extremely low NM, it could also be viewed as a very green unit blitzed on Vodka with no desire to fight and half the column ending up in the ditch on their way to the airport so to speak.

For entrenchment, and without having to use different terms for each unit type, in game terms I would argue it simply represents the idea of some permanence in the current position. In my example above, it would mean that the air unit has committed to that position and possibly built a bit of a defensive perimeter less likely to be surprised and not as exposed as if it had just set up camp etc.




crispy131313 -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/23/2017 7:20:46 PM)

SC3: Blitzed on Vokda

Sounds like a great name for an Eastern Front DLC.



Hubert Cater -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/23/2017 7:39:40 PM)

Ok, I have to admit, that one actually made me laugh out loud... well done [:)]



vonik -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/25/2017 8:55:32 AM)

Perhaps I wasn't clear - I have Nothing against National morale impacting the combat results even if this is a debatable issue . In reality "national moral" is a very ill defined concept .
Even in 1945 when the German "national moral" was arguably low, there were still units fighting with energy and efficiency because what matters is a unit's moral and not some generalisation to the whole country .
In this particular case I found that it would be both realistic and desirable to eliminate a "gamey" tactics by simply massively increasing the tank vs Aircraft Attack values .

What was frustrating was not that the Soviets were being steadily pushed to the East (this was normal at this stage of the war) but that the opponent was using the long rage air movement to just block my best combat units without any penalty .

And no, this particular JS brigade was not "green" - it has been there since the Moscow battle in 42 and even totally vodkized, would make a very short process with a bomber wing caught unaware on an AF :)



Bmorgan077 -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/25/2017 10:17:25 AM)

I get by this by thinking a little abstract, with the no stacking rules I just assume units' fronts overlap some. IE the units on both sides of the bomber are supporting and covering its' front while the airfield is back from the front. While a bomber sitting on the airfield has no defense, it's support units and other nearby frontline units do.



sapper32 -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/25/2017 10:28:27 AM)

Should air units even be allowed to end a turn in a mountain hex that seems like science fiction to me not WWII



Bertram -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/25/2017 1:07:19 PM)

Hexes are about 40 km (?) across. Seems it would be well within possibility to find terrain for an airstrip somewhere in there... Air fields/units are not just planes either, they have quite a bit of troops for maintenance and security with them. When overrunning an airfield in RL, you are (mostly) not fighting the planes, but the troops supporting them. Dug in means pillboxes, AAA, and gun emplacements. That said, against a tank division they would not last long....



vonik -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/25/2017 2:30:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bmorgan077

I get by this by thinking a little abstract, with the no stacking rules I just assume units' fronts overlap some. IE the units on both sides of the bomber are supporting and covering its' front while the airfield is back from the front. While a bomber sitting on the airfield has no defense, it's support units and other nearby frontline units do.


This makes no sense . Air unit are never used as frontline units for a good reasons .
Besides in the pathological case I am mentionnig, Axis was using air units alone (no ground units "flanking" them) .
They were just flying around and landing to block the movement of Russian units .



crispy131313 -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/25/2017 2:53:18 PM)

It sounds like the Soviet player was just making a desperate move and his bombers were not blown to bits by luck/morale etc who knows. It is very hard to decipher anything without a screen shot. I assume that the Bomber unit fled right after and your opponent did not find some bug where as Bombers are the best defensive unit in the game.

I do not want to come off as dismissive but I think there was probably a lot of factors at play and 99 times out of 100 Tanks are going to blow Air units out of the water and this really isn't a balance issue which needs new rules.



TheBattlefield -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/25/2017 3:02:54 PM)

In the current scaling of the game, a bomber unit should be at least an air division. Such a unit is not defenseless per se and will be able to defend itself even against tanks after some preparatory time. It is, of course, possible to debate the success of such a defense. An improvement in the defensive characteristics in case of neighboring infantry or tank destroyer units would, of course, be desirable and could make a more detrimental result for the attacker more comprehensible.

On a completely different sheet is the possibility of a limitless and immediate transfer of air units in really any angle of the map. Since there is already a prepared slot for airfields, the necessity of a previous transformation of the target hex should be considered. A menu command in the environment of a friendly resource as well as an additional command for engineers units on a "free" hex would be conceivable. An airstrip created in this way could act as a kind of fortification and thus be conquered by the enemy and subsequently be used or destroyed.



Hubert Cater -> RE: Another balance issue with bombers (6/25/2017 3:17:01 PM)

Hi Vonik,

Fair enough and as mentioned before, all I can do, without a screenshot or saved turn, is speculate as to what was happening for the situation on your end.

I just suggest this since at the end of the day, for the game engine and for the combat calculations it all just comes down to numbers and the game doesn't discriminate when it comes to running the numbers. It crunches all the numbers and throws out the results and from what we can tell the results tend to be applicable to the situation at hand as it takes into account all the relevant factors such as experience, supply, morale, strength and so on.

However, what would primarily concern me would be if there is indeed a fault in the formulas and in this case I wouldn't hesitate to correct them. As mentioned above I ran a few different test scenarios and they all seemed to indicate things are running as expected, air units are generally damaged/destroyed fairly easily under normal circumstances, so without having a turn in hand, I would be hesitant to apply a fix to something that I'm not in the complete picture of.

If it comes down to a disagreement on whether factors, or just how much factors should apply, such as National Morale, morale, supply and strength should be applied, that too is fair enough, but again while I'm open to suggestions, at the end of the day those suggestions need to be balanced out against continued playability, and the ease of playing this game. All that means from me is that I tend to lean against adding too many special rules/complications as there are already enough rules for everyone to remember. And as I also mentioned above, I tend to lean towards the various defining combat factors having a role in game etc.

But all of that being said, please do continue to raise any concerns and definitely send us a screenshot or a saved game in the future as that will help us to understand the whole picture much better and more importantly enable us to do much more than to just speculate.

One other option would even be to open the Editor and attempt to recreate your situation in a playable format, that indicate similar results and I'd be very happy to take a look,
Hubert



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125