An Idea for Airfield Strikes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan



Message

Harrybanana -> An Idea for Airfield Strikes (11/22/2021 3:22:25 AM)

I think most people agree that airfield strikes are ineffective and nobody does them. But now that Ground Support may play an important role in combat I think now would be a good time to rethink airfield strikes as well. Historically airfield strikes had two purposes. One was to destroy enemy aircraft on the ground. The best examples are the German air strikes on Russian airfields at the beginning of Barbarossa and the Japanese attacks at the time of Pearl Harbor. But against a prepared enemy (ie one who didn't park his aircraft wing tip to wing tip) these attacks were mostly ineffective. For most of the War the primary purpose of airfield strikes was not to destroy enemy aircraft, but rather to damage the enemy airfield and its infrastructure such as runways, hangars, fuel dumps, etc. The hope was that enough damage could be done to limit the number of sorties that could effectively be flown from the airfield.

So what I propose is that each unit performing an airfield strike has a number of chances equal to its tactical strength to reduce the enemy air units OPs by 1. Each chance would have a 20% chance of success. So, for example, a unit with a Tactical Strength of 4 would get 4 chances at 20% each to reduce the enemy air unit's OPs. Doing the math, this means there would be a 41% chance of doing nothing, a 41% chance of reducing the enemy air unit's OPs by 1 and an 18% chance of reducing the enemy air unit's OPs by 2 (ie to 0). This effect would last until the end of your opponents next turn.

For people who think this might be too powerful, keep in mind that as the attacker in my example I have only a 59% chance of reducing the enemy air unit's OPs by 1 or more, but there is a 100% chance that my bomber's OPs will be reduced by 1, since I used one of its OPs for this attack. Albeit I will also be reducing my opponents OPs for his turn. Also, in my experience most players position their air units outside bombing range of my air units (or at least certainly my fighters and ground attack air units). Also it will give strategic bombers another purpose.

Anyway, I am interested in what other people think of this idea. Though in the end it is only Alvaro's opinion that matters. Also, of course, I have no idea how difficult this would be to implement. Maybe something to consider for Warplan 2.



Nirosi -> RE: An Idea for Airfield Strikes (11/22/2021 3:52:21 AM)

I would have to think more about it, but instinctively, I think it has merit. But I am divided for those reasons:

Even if the chances are limited, 18% in this example seems high and I would say as a player, that I would find the game less fun to see relatively high chances of units been unusable or paralyzed. We like to move our chits. On the other hand, often they will be far enough I agree. But in any case, the chances should be modified lower by the anti-air of the unit on the ground (representing base defenses).

Also, in some situation where air units might have no choice to be close, with minimal air superiority one could seriously impede, maybe even paralyze, the enemy air units by going first. So it comes back to the idea of fun again, as having non effective unit is one thing, but having 100% non-usable ones is another.

On the other hand the argument that the striking air unit does lose an OP for sure (100% chance) is not appropriate here, because the striking air unit would lose one or two OPs and have its OP back to react during the enemy turn. So, depending on the order of your play, by bombing an enemy bomber set on support, you would actually remove up to 4 OP to the enemy! That would be way too much in my opinion.

Would it not be much simpler to just increase the effectiveness damage done to a more visible effect? I believe it does represent the same thing (disorganizing airbases, pilots etc.), as it probably represent, among other thing, also the numbers of aircraft actually flying or capable of flying. Seems more realistic too than grounding the air unit completely (or 50%) for two turns practically speaking. I would prefer to have a very unprepared air that I can still chose to use at least during my turn even if 50% less effective. And it could still "ground" enemy bombers that same turn (so no support from them) if it manages to reduce effectiveness to 49%.



ncc1701e -> RE: An Idea for Airfield Strikes (11/22/2021 9:59:29 AM)

I am happy you are bringing Airfield Strikes on the table. More to come later... [:)]



Nirosi -> RE: An Idea for Airfield Strikes (11/22/2021 12:26:39 PM)

quote:

More to come later...
More tease?[:)]



ncc1701e -> RE: An Idea for Airfield Strikes (11/22/2021 6:35:19 PM)

Just more tests. And honestly, I have found a way to reduce an airfield to nothing in just two strikes.
Scary. In fact, airfield strike is too powerful.



Nirosi -> RE: An Idea for Airfield Strikes (11/22/2021 6:47:10 PM)

quote:

I have found a way to reduce an airfield to nothing in just two strikes.
[X(]



Harrybanana -> RE: An Idea for Airfield Strikes (11/23/2021 3:35:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Just more tests. And honestly, I have found a way to reduce an airfield to nothing in just two strikes.
Scary. In fact, airfield strike is too powerful.


Is this using the most recent official version? If so, I hope you will be sharing your method.



ncc1701e -> RE: An Idea for Airfield Strikes (11/23/2021 10:19:04 AM)

Yes, it works with the official version. I will take few screenshots and post something later in the War Room.



ncc1701e -> RE: An Idea for Airfield Strikes (11/23/2021 7:14:43 PM)

I just tried in a PBEM, it seems to work.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5105836

[image]local://upfiles/46661/466EA25646E341E9B8021BAF8FCC6CFF.jpg[/image]



ncc1701e -> RE: An Idea for Airfield Strikes (11/23/2021 10:01:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

So what I propose is that each unit performing an airfield strike has a number of chances equal to its tactical strength to reduce the enemy air units OPs by 1. Each chance would have a 20% chance of success. So, for example, a unit with a Tactical Strength of 4 would get 4 chances at 20% each to reduce the enemy air unit's OPs. Doing the math, this means there would be a 41% chance of doing nothing, a 41% chance of reducing the enemy air unit's OPs by 1 and an 18% chance of reducing the enemy air unit's OPs by 2 (ie to 0). This effect would last until the end of your opponents next turn.


I like the idea of ​​paralyzing the enemy if he refuses to flight (mission only vs full support mode). However, losing one or two OP points is huge. According to the game scale an Air Unit is 300–400 combat aircraft. You can't ground 400 aircraft (this is abstracted that they are on several airfields).

Perhaps a big effectiveness hit is more welcome. As such, paraphrasing yourself...

quote:

I would propose that each unit performing an airfield strike has a number of chances equal to its tactical strength to reduce the enemy air units by 10% effectiveness.

Each chance would have a 20% chance of success. So, for example, a unit with a Tactical Strength of 4 would get 4 chances at 20% each to reduce the enemy air unit's effectiveness.

Doing the math, this means there would be a 41% chance of doing nothing, a 41% chance of reducing the enemy air unit's effectiveness by 10% and an 18% chance of reducing the enemy air unit's effectiveness by 20%.


20%, this is already big because Air Combat and Tactical points are dropping very fast in relationship with effectiveness. 30%, this is approximately the effectiveness losses if the actual fight was done.

Also, the effects are lasting more than one turn because you will have to retrieve your effectiveness while fighting for air superiority.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: An Idea for Airfield Strikes (11/24/2021 2:09:35 PM)

The most important aspect about air power in WW2 are the pilots not the planes. Planes were a cheap.

Note Germany produced ~40,000 a/c in 1944
Their total air force was no larger than 5,000 during the war.



stjeand -> RE: An Idea for Airfield Strikes (11/24/2021 2:12:15 PM)

One issue I see with this is...

There is no surprise anymore as there was in WWII...

The Germans can not attack a single Russian airfield to start the war like they should be able too because the Russians just move all their air behind their lines.
Same with France.

Not sure how you would address that.

NOW in Poland the Germans could completely surprise their air which they did in reality...to the point I don't believe the Poles were able to fly much of anything.




Harrybanana -> RE: An Idea for Airfield Strikes (11/24/2021 3:46:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

The most important aspect about air power in WW2 are the pilots not the planes. Planes were a cheap.

Note Germany produced ~40,000 a/c in 1944
Their total air force was no larger than 5,000 during the war.


It depends on the time period and Nation you are talking about Alvaro. Until the Battle of Britain (Summer to Fall 1940) the Allies and Axis had at least as many pilots as front line aircraft. Had the Germans not lost so many pilots in this Battle they probably would have not had any pilot shortage for at least another couple years or more. Also both the UK and the US had very large air training programs; Once these were established I am not aware of either of them having significant pilot or aircrew shortages, even with all the losses they sustained with the strategic bombing campaign. Of course, in the game there seldom is a Battle of Britain or a strategic bombing campaign.

You also have to consider that aircraft were being constantly improved with new models. So that even though a Nation might have more aircraft than pilots, many of those aircraft were older models that were no longer in active service.

There is also the issue of plane delivery. It is little consolation to a pilot whose plane has been destroyed on the ground that there is another plane waiting for him in Berlin.

In any event, my proposal has nothing to do with either destroying planes or killing pilots. As I said the primary purpose of most airfield attacks was to destroy the infrastructure thus reducing the number of sorties that could be flown from the airfield.

Finally if, as you say, aircraft are cheap, why are air units so expensive to build, replace and upgrade? Training pilots and aircrew was not cheap, but training and equipping all of the personnel for a 300 strength air unit was still a lot cheaper than training and equipping a 45,000 strong infantry corps. But in the game air units cost significantly more.



ncc1701e -> RE: An Idea for Airfield Strikes (11/24/2021 4:28:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stjeand

The Germans can not attack a single Russian airfield to start the war like they should be able too because the Russians just move all their air behind their lines.
Same with France.


In fact, they disband them for tanks. But, it may change a little in a near future. [:)]
And, it was not the same for France. Airfield strikes against French airfields did not work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stjeand

NOW in Poland the Germans could completely surprise their air which they did in reality...to the point I don't believe the Poles were able to fly much of anything.


Not in the current deployment of Europe 1939 scenario, the two air superiority groups are out of range of Warsaw. As such, they can't escort bombers coming for Airfield Strike. Impossible to do much damage using bombers only.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625