Air units

Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core

Schnurri
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:39 pm

Air units

Post by Schnurri » Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:47 am

We've (Borger) fixed a number of problems and problems with the game. One of my pet peeves is when a player (usually allies) moves air units across Europe using partisan controlled areas for movement. Is there any simple way to prevent this? Grossly ahistorical and unrealistic. Ideally air bases would need to be constructed but this seems undoable. Any ideas?

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Re: Air units

Post by supermax » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:36 am

Schnurri wrote:We've (Borger) fixed a number of problems and problems with the game. One of my pet peeves is when a player (usually allies) moves air units across Europe using partisan controlled areas for movement. Is there any simple way to prevent this? Grossly ahistorical and unrealistic. Ideally air bases would need to be constructed but this seems undoable. Any ideas?
Guess you didnt like my little trick in Norway :)

TotalerKrieg
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:35 pm

Post by TotalerKrieg » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:54 am

Yeah, this maneuver is one that has always annoyed me too. At least the GS team has made it possible to do some damage now attacking an air base with ground units. I had my defense of Fortress Europe undone by a massive relocation of the RAF and USAF into France in GS 1.07. I has some ground units in reserve and attempted to hit the fighters with corps...to no avail. My Luftwaffe had to beat a hasty retreat. So sad. ;)
I would support a rule that would require an airbase to have a supply source. That would help prevent this strategy but I think the problem with this is that island airbases with no port would no longer be usable. So something more complicated is probably necessary if we have more support.

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Post by supermax » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:02 am

Sure.

You guys go along and keep adding rules to block the creative players :)

If you can land planes behind ennemy lines, its because that ennemy has left hexes under your ownership. Negligence if you tell me, nothing else.

But there is something totally non-logical in this game, and that is airplanes being able to go without supply.

TotalerKrieg
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:35 pm

Post by TotalerKrieg » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:10 am

Sure.

You guys go along and keep adding rules to block the creative players Smile
Well, we have to do what we can to give ourselves a chance... ;)
If you can land planes behind ennemy lines, its because that ennemy has left hexes under your ownership. Negligence if you tell me, nothing else.
There is some truth to that. Partisans did clear out some hexes obviously in my game but I was under heavy pressure at the beaches and on the Eastern front and something had to give. I gave my opponent kudos for the maneuver, I would have done the same thing if forced into the same box. However, you gotta admit, it's a pretty cheesy strategy that is wildly ahistorical.

supermax
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 7:05 pm

Post by supermax » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:40 am

TotalerKrieg wrote:
Sure.

You guys go along and keep adding rules to block the creative players Smile
Well, we have to do what we can to give ourselves a chance... ;)
If you can land planes behind ennemy lines, its because that ennemy has left hexes under your ownership. Negligence if you tell me, nothing else.
There is some truth to that. Partisans did clear out some hexes obviously in my game but I was under heavy pressure at the beaches and on the Eastern front and something had to give. I gave my opponent kudos for the maneuver, I would have done the same thing if forced into the same box. However, you gotta admit, it's a pretty cheesy strategy that is wildly ahistorical.
Yep i agree on the ahistorical thing. but doing Sealion is not historical. Taking Moscow isnt either. Hell build a CV is a gross overstatement on german shipbuilding capability!

bottom line is that you cant block some players to find news ways of upsetting the balance.

Before every turn of every game i ask myself this one question: What could i do to make the unexpected happen and unsettle my opponent?

and... How can you create a game, rule or program against that????

TotalerKrieg
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:35 pm

Post by TotalerKrieg » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:19 am


Yep i agree on the ahistorical thing. but doing Sealion is not historical. Taking Moscow isnt either. Hell build a CV is a gross overstatement on german shipbuilding capability!

bottom line is that you cant block some players to find news ways of upsetting the balance.

Before every turn of every game i ask myself this one question: What could i do to make the unexpected happen and unsettle my opponent?

and... How can you create a game, rule or program against that????
Yes, sealion, taking Moscow and building an Axis carrier are examples of what is possible in the game and didn't happen historically. I personally don't have any problem with any of those examples. Yes, Germany didn't have the transport capability but I am fine allowing for a different scenario where Germany did build landing craft and everything else they needed. The Axis could have taken Moscow IMO but instead diverted forces south. As for the Axis building a carrier, that is part of the game and allows for some fun scenarios. Is it impossible that Germany could have built some carriers? I don't think so, after all they built some big ships (Bismarck, Tirpitz) and certainly could build fighters.

This is different from actual units on the game board having capabilities which do not track with they actually had throughout the war. No fighter or bomber wing landed deep in enemy territory to fly on to new destinations or to immediately launch attacks against enemy airbases. Nor do I think any air force would ever do such a thing which is why I don't like the strategy.

As to writing a program to limit your creativity, well, I wouldn't want to. Innovate away, just don't expect me to like cheesy maneuvers like the one discussed on this thread. :)

ncali
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:12 pm

Post by ncali » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:18 am

I think it'd be nice to do something about this as well. The partisan-liberated areas should be out of supply. Would it be possible to prohibit air units from relocating to out of supply hexes that are non-coastal?

PionUrpo
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:29 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Air units

Post by PionUrpo » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:52 pm

So, what exactly happened in Norway: :?:
Suomi, Finland, Perkele!

amcdonel
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:48 pm

Re:

Post by amcdonel » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:20 pm

TotalerKrieg wrote:

Yep i agree on the ahistorical thing. but doing Sealion is not historical. Taking Moscow isnt either. Hell build a CV is a gross overstatement on german shipbuilding capability!

bottom line is that you cant block some players to find news ways of upsetting the balance.

Before every turn of every game i ask myself this one question: What could i do to make the unexpected happen and unsettle my opponent?

and... How can you create a game, rule or program against that????
Yes, sealion, taking Moscow and building an Axis carrier are examples of what is possible in the game and didn't happen historically. I personally don't have any problem with any of those examples. Yes, Germany didn't have the transport capability but I am fine allowing for a different scenario where Germany did build landing craft and everything else they needed. The Axis could have taken Moscow IMO but instead diverted forces south. As for the Axis building a carrier, that is part of the game and allows for some fun scenarios. Is it impossible that Germany could have built some carriers? I don't think so, after all they built some big ships (Bismarck, Tirpitz) and certainly could build fighters.

This is different from actual units on the game board having capabilities which do not track with they actually had throughout the war. No fighter or bomber wing landed deep in enemy territory to fly on to new destinations or to immediately launch attacks against enemy airbases. Nor do I think any air force would ever do such a thing which is why I don't like the strategy.

As to writing a program to limit your creativity, well, I wouldn't want to. Innovate away, just don't expect me to like cheesy maneuvers like the one discussed on this thread. :)
Goodness - if we wanted purely historical we can watch the History channel!!

The Germans could and did build CVs, see the "Graf Zeppelin class aircraft carrier" class. Thus, they could have put a priority on them and built & launched them. As for Moscow - I had understood that it did not fail because of a late start because of Yugoslavia and then a bad decision by a want-to-be general, Hr Hitler, diverting focus to the South before deciding that he really did want Moscow too late.

The purpose of the game is for creative play within historical constraints -- not historical outcomes. Sealion, Moscow capture and CVs could have been done.

Allied air force units in he middle of occupied territory is silly -- not creative. As an ex-aviation maintenance office and pilot (helicopters) - I can tell you that the logistics is what makes the basing of air units behind enemy lines pretty much impossible -- not the runway. Not enough fuel/gas, bullets, repair parts, mechanics, etc. Air resupply would be limited - refer to operation Market Garden on how long units out of direct support can last and what they had to fight with.

Using air units for this and for defending beach front hexes against invasion are two of the more silly moves available that ought to be banned. (Note: I have indeed - used these myself of rare occasion :-) Still cheesy...

Kragdob
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Air units

Post by Kragdob » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:12 pm

Since game can tell if a hex is city/resource (new rail rules) maybe 'airfield' can become resource or new property can be added to hex class? (since RC9 invalidate all games anyway).

This would allow to tell that air units can move to out of supply hexes only if they are airfield/resource.
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

Schnurri
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: Air units

Post by Schnurri » Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:51 pm

I didn't have a problem with Max basing his air units in Norway - once they become Allied he should be able to base them there. What I don't like is where air units move from Britain down to the Mideast using Partisan hexes, or just base there and hit things like oil fields. The air units should have to trace supply to a supply source. I also think we should make air units even more vulnerable to ground attack to prohibit their use as blocks for sea borne landings.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4727
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Air units

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:39 am

One thing we could do is to say that if the hex in on the main continent or America then you can't base an air unit there. That would allow for islands to still have air units. It means the isolated pockets will have supply level 0. Should I try to look into this?

Schnurri
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: Air units

Post by Schnurri » Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:55 am

I'm for it.

ncali
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:12 pm

Re: Air units

Post by ncali » Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:57 am

Sounds good to me too!

Morris
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2289
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

Re: Air units

Post by Morris » Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:57 am

Stauffenberg wrote:One thing we could do is to say that if the hex in on the main continent or America then you can't base an air unit there. That would allow for islands to still have air units. It means the isolated pockets will have supply level 0. Should I try to look into this?
I think the original meaning of Doug is : no airunit transfer by the partisan control area (without supply ) . ie : I had used the partisan's territory to transfer my RA from England to NA via partisan control area in southern France , I had also used partisan's territory to transfer RA from England to eastern Polland , etc . I really benifit from that , but I do against this ! It is gamey . This is really not make sense . One air unit is 260 planes , how could they fly behind the enemy's line landing & taking off ? who can do the land support ? how do they get the fuel , radar , & also the security ? I suppose the air unit should only fly to the area with supply .

TotalerKrieg
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:35 pm

Re: Air units

Post by TotalerKrieg » Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:52 am

Stauffenberg wrote:One thing we could do is to say that if the hex in on the main continent or America then you can't base an air unit there. That would allow for islands to still have air units. It means the isolated pockets will have supply level 0. Should I try to look into this?
As any reader of the thread might imagine, I am also for this change. I wouldn't mind if it is possible to land air force units in partisan-controlled territory if a city or a port has been captured by partisans to provide supply.
amcdonel wrote:
Using air units for this and for defending beach front hexes against invasion are two of the more silly moves available that ought to be banned. (Note: I have indeed - used these myself of rare occasion :-) Still cheesy...
Don't get me wrong, I have used this strategy too and wouldn't be surprised if I use it again (unless it is prevented through programming). After all, it can be very useful in a gamey, cheesy way... :D

JimR
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 3:22 am

Re: Air units

Post by JimR » Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:55 am

Stauffenberg's suggestion that we require supply for air units that are based away from coastal hexes sounds right.

Kragdob
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Air units

Post by Kragdob » Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:16 pm

JimR wrote:Stauffenberg's suggestion that we require supply for air units that are based away from coastal hexes sounds right.
This still leaves a lot of holes.

If it cannot be done otherwise can it be:
=> only OOS hexes surrouned by water or impassable terrain (Greenland, UK airfields )OR
=> only OOS hexes next to friendly city/fortress (Malta, Gibraltar)
Last edited by Kragdob on Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

Morris
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2289
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

Re: Air units

Post by Morris » Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:17 pm

JimR wrote:Stauffenberg's suggestion that we require supply for air units that are based away from coastal hexes sounds right.
I agree with this suggestion

Post Reply

Return to “Commander Europe at War : GS Open Beta”