Improving AA defence in cities

PSP/DS/PC/MAC : WWII turn based grand strategy game

Moderators: firepowerjohan, Happycat, rkr1958, Slitherine Core

Post Reply
Ryben
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Spain

Improving AA defence in cities

Post by Ryben » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:22 pm

I´ve realised that there are no technologies that allow to increase the anti-air defence values in the cities. It´s always 1 or 2, making really easy to bomb any city on map.

I think that researching the Radar should increase one or two point AA flak defence values.

firepowerjohan
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 7:58 pm
Contact:

Post by firepowerjohan » Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:25 pm

It does, check the radar tech levels all of them ;)
Johan Persson - Firepower Entertainment
Lead Developer of CEAW, CNAW and World Empires Live (http://www.worldempireslive.com)

Ryben
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Spain

Post by Ryben » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:38 am

True but:

The Radar tech shows an increase in "air attack" with the plane icon for cities.

The cities have a Flak gun icon labeled "air defense".

i guess is the same...or maybe not...

firepowerjohan
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 7:58 pm
Contact:

Post by firepowerjohan » Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:19 pm

The text should say "Air Combat" which means in combat vs air.
Johan Persson - Firepower Entertainment
Lead Developer of CEAW, CNAW and World Empires Live (http://www.worldempireslive.com)

Ryben
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 281
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Spain

Post by Ryben » Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:24 pm

Perfectly clear, thanks.

Related to this....could be possible that, in the Production screen, the number of PP lost due bombardment appear?. Something like "Germany gain 120 production points (-5 PP per bombardment)"

Now i know that i lost some point but would like to know exactly how many i´ve lost...

Happycat
Strategic Command 3 Moderator
Strategic Command 3 Moderator
Posts: 764
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:57 am
Location: Riverview NB Canada

Post by Happycat » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:12 am

Don't units stationed in cities add to the AA defense values too?
Chance favours the prepared mind.

firepowerjohan
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 7:58 pm
Contact:

Post by firepowerjohan » Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:18 pm

Happycat wrote:Don't units stationed in cities add to the AA defense values too?
Actually no and this is a great feature in my opinion. We separate unit battles and strategic battles. If you attack the unit you will fight ONLY against the units air combat value, but if you attack the resource you attack ONLY the resource air combat value.

So it means if you attack London (with a defending Armour units inside) with a Strategic Bomber it will go for the Resourece not the armour, it would not make sense that the armour would add any value to the city defence they already have crew to man the AA guns. It also means the armour is not damaged but the city.

However, a tactical bomber or fighter would in same scenario attack thre Armour unit and there the City defence would not add to any defence for it (I mean the armour already has city defence bonus).

Strategic bombers is the only unit that will prefer attacking resource before unit.
Last edited by firepowerjohan on Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Johan Persson - Firepower Entertainment
Lead Developer of CEAW, CNAW and World Empires Live (http://www.worldempireslive.com)

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4730
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:39 pm

I think placing a fighter in the city or resource hex will make the strat bomber attack the fighter instead of strat bombing. So this sneaky strategy can be used to prevent the other side from attacking your best resource hexes. I think strat bombers in such cases should ignore the fighters and bombard the factories or mines instead. This way you don't gain anything by placing fighters in cities or resources. You place them adjacent to these cities so they get a chance to intercept.

vypuero
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 628
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA - USA

Post by vypuero » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:12 pm

It does - the fighter in a city is a special case - or did you mean the opposite? I think it is fine the way it is.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4730
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:48 pm

I have no objections to it. I just mentioned it to show the exception of units in a hex regarding strat bombing. This means the Allies need long range fighters to be able to attack the fighter in the hex or attack another hex first to lure the fighter into intercepting.

One thing I would like to see is that it should be possible to click on one's fighters and set that they will not intercept even if they have a chance to do so. This can be particularly useful after an attack that went wrong and you're down to 5-6 steps. Then you don't want your fighter to intercept until after you repaired it. Now even the weak fighters may intercept and they become even weaker and then the enemy can attack the airbase to destroy it.

I think the default should be that interceptions are on and you must actively mark the unit (should be possible even after the unit has flown a mission) and turn off the interception ability. Then you can turn it on again next turn after it's repaired.

If this is too cumbersome then I think there should be change so that fighters with current steps of 7 and less won't be able to intercept unless it's directly attacked in it's airbase. I think people rarely want to use their 7 step or lower fighters for attack missions. It's safer to repair them. I think the nuisance of not having your fighter intercept because it's weak is less than the nuisance of seeing a 4 step fighter intercepting and getting 3 step losses just to be finished off by a tac bomber or another fighter attacking its airbase.

We can, of course, set a different value than 7 as the threshold for flying interception or not. It can be set at 6 or even 5.

Post Reply

Return to “MILITARY HISTORY™ Commander - Europe at War : General Discussion”