Horza said:
The problem with just reducing the attack values as a nerf is that it dodges the issue.
Realize that statements like this confuse some of us debating this
Because at the start of this thread, your response was:
Horza said:
In summary - not going to change as it better models reality, and prevents use of airpower as an uber unit.
I'm really not trying to use your words against you - I *am* trying to pin the
conversation down to as much concrete as possible...and in the other threads
I have seen the reason for this "area" scheme is that planes in HOI1 were
"uber units"...and then when scaling them appropriately is raised, then the
issue is changed to something else other than uberness. Pretty hard to
debate moving targets...
Horza said:
Well, I do think that the targetting system probably could do with some work
Those of us displeased with the targeting system would call that the under
statement of the year :wacko: The targeting system, from what I've seen,
is SO bad that if I were playing multi-player, I could use/exploit it against my
enemies, be they live or AI...and that's not a GoodThing.
Horza said:
Well, yes there are some definite anomalies with the province/area system. Seems like the condition (if you can reach one province in an area, you can bomb the whole area) is a bug. Whether it's fixable without introducing an exploit is the issue.
Nods, hard to say if it should be called a bug, a flaw, or what - but it's ugly.
Now, suppose Paradox fixes it? And at that point, you have to specify an
Area and not a Provence for your target...but you can see how far each
sector is from the place you want to hit, so you position your planes such
that within the area you are forced to choose, you can only be sent to the
place you intended to target in the first place....so the net result is the
player can provence-target still, and his micromanagement has been
increased...so what's the point in it all then?
Horza said:
but getting a good example of a failure is hard.
It must depend on what one considers to be a "failure"! Because those of us
on the "this is broken" side of things see what we call failures, all over the
place. I've given some, other posters have given others. How about the
Battle of Britian style examples? As part of SeaLion, I want to reduce the
effectiveness of the troops on the south coast of England...as you note in
your last response, FLAK is an issue -- so I set my TAC planes up to bomb
down the AA, and my CAS planes to interdiction to try and reduce the
effectiveness of the British troops there. The TAC planes I want to hit
Plymouth see that Plymouth has 6 flak, so it's a harder target, while good
old Birmingham only has 2 -- so they target that instead -- I guess they
figure it'd be easier. Yet, they fly over Plymouth to get there, and take the
flak hits from the guns they *could* be reducing...just plain braindead. And
my CAS that I want to wear down the org of the beach defenders in Plymouth
instead see that there's a nice juicy garrison unit sitting in Bristol instead,
and bomb that. Even when the AA in Birmingham is reduced to fractional,
(below 1.0) the TAC's still dutifully target it (while eating flak to get there);
and even when the garrison unit in Bristol has its org reduced to 10, the
CAS still pound away at it with all they have, ignoring other (harder but
more valuable) targets. Examples of it being broken are EASY to find.
And the same things happen if you try to target Dover or Portsmouth; they'd
hit the lighter-AA target of Norwich instead, again flying OVER the high-AA
sectors on the way, and getting doubly-chewed. And, ditto NAV-bombers
based in Cherbourg, trying to bomb the sea zone N/NW of Plymouth; it's the
same 3 zones to fly under and around Plymouth as it is to fly over it and get
flak'ed -- and the computer would dutifully fly OVER it and get flaked instead
of going around it. "Hello, navigator?? Here's your sign!!!!"
Horza said:
For instance in your case the air-AI made a reasonable choice of target. No, really! After all the damage done has the choice of being divided by 2, 12, or 17. On the big stacks it's going to be so spread out as to achieve nothing.
Hmmm...now where did that "planes are too uber" argument go? Stacks of
12-17 units (or quite a bit more!) aren't exactly unusual in the European
theatre...so how can we say on the one hand that specific-targeting of
planes makes them too uber, and on the other say that they are going to
achieve nothing against a ground formation that is its most common target?
The area-supporters just can't have it both ways
Horza said:
Take an alternative Strategic view: you have a German Army Group in the Memel region, and you want to commit Air Army against them. What is the most effective way to reduce the enemy efficiency? He has AA protection - this ought to be reduced. He's well supplied, that can be changed. Once he's poorly supplied attack with gound forces force him back. Hit him with air as he tries to retreat, stop him from recovering, and you can keep rolling him back.
I agree - yes...I don't want or expect my planes to eliminate those units; I
expect them to soften them up so my ground forces can be more effective
against them. See above why targeting the AA doesn't always work...and
targeting the sectors infra won't work either, if the damned planes won't hit
that sector and instead decide some other sector in that area is easier. What
I want to do instead is to target the org of the units I want to attack, for
a few days or even weeks if need be, "soften them up", and then send in the
ground forces -- pretty normal thing. Either approach (targeting their ESE/
supply levels by hitting their infra, or targeting their org by interdicting them)
should be valid; but neither will work if you can't hit the damned sector you
need to hit...and if all a player needs to do to get the computer to attack
a flak-bait target is to create a situation that will draw the enemy's planes to
somewhere wasteful, the implementation is beyond redemption.
In the case of my Memel attack, he had 2 infs in Memel, and then 12 divisions
in Jelgava, and Jelgava was the place I wanted my ground troops to be able
to counterattack...there is NO good reason for the planes to attack Memel
instead, and to call that a "better model of reality" is just inexplicable to me.
Horza said:
There was considerable firepower/bombload available - the problem for airpower right up to Gulf War I was finding a target for it, and actually hitting that target. Catch a panzer division in retreat and 400 Sturmoviks ought to carve it up. Bomb a well-dug in infantry division with the same force for weeks and you should achieve nothing. The issue is not the power part of air power - it's finding something to hit with it.
Again, it's not like we're trying to tell our planes "hit the foxhole to the NE
side of that house at the end of the street" -- a single provence can be
hundreds/thousands of square km; and we're just trying to target that.
Targeting one provence is still "hitting targets of opportunity" within that
provence.
And the notion that "only attacking moving targets" is worthwhile or at all
effective is just silly; if that were the case, "interdiction" would be the ONLY
valid military strategy, and the concept of "preparation strikes" to "soften up
the enemy" wouldn't even exist - we'd only see battles where land troops
broke the enemy (which was intact till the battle) and then planes were only
useful for biting at the heels of retreating enemy forces...I *should* be able
to use my planes to soften up the enemy, or to use my BB's and carrier planes
to soften them up as well, BEFORE I "send in the marines" -- in HOI2, I have
to attack first with my ground forces, and HOPE that my planes come to the
aid of the right sector...it's just fubar.
