KorutZelva
Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sugar
The opposite is true: the Germans massed their air units in Poland and France, with devastating effects. They failed to do so in NA, now you want the Axis player to repeat that failing?
To quote Rommel: "Even the bravest soldier is hit by a bomb"; in face of the Allies` air superiority of course.
Beside the fact that conquering Malta would be nearly impossible, the attack values of bombers have already been reduced. And by the way, it`s not impossible to stop bombing, air superiority can also be achieved by fighters. I managed to destroy the entire DAK including superior bomber formations by attacking into their assembly in several PbEMs. Next time a player is confronted with such circumstances he will undoubtly demand to reduce attack values of fighters, instead of asking how he can improve his gameplay.
In comparison to Breakthrough SoE, the numbers and attack values of tanks are also reduced, and the necessity to develop Inf. 3 for the SU leads together to the impossibility to counterattack prior to 43; if something is disturbing the balance in PbEMs (and it is imho in favour of the Axis), then that are the reasons.
My suggestions: reduce the number of german tac. bombers by 1 from the start including their force pool cap., add. 4 (3 for Brits and Italy) tanks to the force pool cap. of each major, delete heavy tanks, and reduce russian Inf. to 2 again, with the same values of every other nation. Maybe it would also be necessary to increase the attack values of tanks by 1.
This way the tanks would gain a more decisive role, like it was in the beginning of the war.
Sugar, Sugar, Sugar... Where do I even begin?
Let's start with a famous example of the limits of bombing: Stalingrad being bombed to hell until the rubbles became a better defensive terrain for the defender.
If your argument is that the air is just fine by saying 'I blew up the DAK as it spawns (and before a real battle could occur)', how is it demonstrative in any way that the balance is just fine? You could make the opposite case, that you are forced to act as such because of the unbalance in the mechanics and that acting as such is your only way out of an air showdown in the med. If there is only one way out, that's a red flag.
Here's where we agree:
a-Game as of now is Axis favoured (and will be more so with the sub change)
b-The USSR is too weak (and can't think of counter-attacks in any capacity before 1943)
c-Land force could be more important in offensives
Bonus agreement: I don't think we should too overtly impede concentration of air force.
Here's where we don't
d-bomber pack too much punch
A big part of (a) is (b).
Let's look at the reason why the USSR can't really counter attack before 1943. There's the infantry tech gap, that's a important one. But technically the shock army, mech inf and tanks should have parity or close by 1942 and these one should be able to be used in such a manner but they can't currently. One of the reason is that you don't have enough of them yet but another, and that's a big one, is that it's not safe for them to venture anywhere because of the German Airforce (my reason (d)). They have to stay in entrenchment, covered by AA and fighters and bid for time.
So let's look at what makes bomber powerful, with a particular interest for the German wing.
-Tac reduce entrenchment at level 2, allowing them to overwhelm enemy in great numbers in most situation. (Especially opposing airforce!)
-Intercepting bombers w escort barely impede the bomber ability to cause damage to units.
-Super HQ mitigate damage to bombers and escort
Let's expand on the last one. German HQ start with higher rating (in general) and start with a command tech edge over the allies on top of it. They face weak enemy at the start where they can accumulate exp quickly. Given the HQ exp acquisition scheme that requires inflicting more damage than you receive to gain exp. Allied HQ can be shut up from the exp game for long stretch of time which impedes their ability to mount a air defence (and also USSR ability to counter).
Now what do we do?
You suggested taking a plane out of the force pool and upping the tank stats. This would marginally impact the air game but introduce a great change to the land game. We'd have to run the test, but that sounds like creating more problems than it fixes. Namely, USSR wouldn't be any better for it because they wouldn't have the number of tanks to make use of this to put up a stronger resistance. They would likely worst of even if we eliminate the tech 3 requirement. The german army would have an airforce still 95% as destructive but stronger and more numerous tanks. Yikes.
If we go nip at the super HQ syndrome it might mitigate the damage output of bomber without having to overhaul the whole stats scheme of units. Air superiority would have more an attrition component on the german side. The drawback is that we'd still get the huge NA airfield and maybe more so because you'd need more to do the same thing.
What if we turn them into flying artillery? Concentration of air would still happen but you wouldn't see 10 bomber in NA because the front there wouldn't warrant having that many. Sealion or Barbarossa though? Go crazy, targets and land units-a-plenty to overrun the suppressed unit. Another big thing: you wouldn't be able to use them to instawipe the opponent airforce and turn more the air battle into an attrition battle fought in the skies. The drawback is that overall damage potential of combatants would be reduced and would probably require to return the tank stats to Breakthrough-level like you suggested.
And with stronger tanks then maybe anti-tank tech suddenly becomes a relevant tech again... 
|
Printable Version
RE: Air power still seems overpowered - 
) 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread