Air Combat Bolshevik

Also, my 10 Lvl 3 Interceptors were all new at 100% strength. The enemy group, 3 Lvl2 interceptors and 3 Lvl 2 TBs was at about 95%

The combat is almost over...I have 3 fighters left at 93% the enemy has 1 TB left at 40%

I lose 7 X 7.0 strength fighters, enemy loses 3 X 5.5 strength fighters and 2.6 1.3/2.5 strength fighters.

So 49+ in my losses vs enemy loss of 16.5 + 3.38/6.5 = 19.88/23

Someone PLEASE explain this!!

pdub7277 wrote:

I am leading the winning coalition, I am winning the game, and morale is 91%.

The difference between level 2 and level 3 isn't a lot. Level 4 seems to be the bigger difference.

Air combat is messy. sounds like you are doing things correctly, but here is my observation

Groups of 5 interceptors are somewhat fragile. For a strong air wing you want 5 interceptors and 5 tactical bombers, rarely less.

As with every other combat, equal numbers is a bad plan, you want an advantage, SO if the enemy plane group is 5 assorted planes, you want two groups of 10 planes, for a 4 to 1 advantage. 1 to 1 fight always favors the defender, and a 2 to 1 fight almost always leave the winning attacker in a shambles, with any unit.

So overlap his patrols a little with two groups of twice as many planes, and watch the enemy planes drop from the sky.

pdub7277 wrote:

I even used the tactics recommended in another thread in the forum--moving my patrols so they reset the timer before they actually attack, and forcing the enemy patrol, specifically the bombers, to attack my fighters, at a lower hit point.

I found that is usually a waste of time. I want to kill the enemy planes before he realizes they are gone, so even if I take a hit I want him to die as soon as possible. That is my opinion.

Build AA, SPAA if you want them gone as soon as possible.

VorlonFCW wrote:

Groups of 5 interceptors are somewhat fragile. For a strong air wing you want 5 interceptors and 5 tactical bombers, rarely less.

Doing really well in this game usually requires maximum use of tactics that allow you to get free (or nearly free) hits on your opponents. If you simply throw your big stacks at your enemy's big stacks, you may win, but you're going to incur a lot of casualties in the process. You should always be thinking about how to inflict maximum losses on your opponent, while incurring minimal casualties among your own units.

VorlonFCW wrote:

As with every other combat, equal numbers is a bad plan, you want an advantage, SO if the enemy plane group is 5 assorted planes, you want two groups of 10 planes, for a 4 to 1 advantage.

Actually, this facetiousness makes me wonder if there's a number of units so high that it would make the SBDE go down to "0" and make that stack utterly impotent in the face of even a single Militia?

"Ugh! Our millions of soldiers pressed together in this tiny battlefield are making it impossible for that little guy over there to miss killing some of us with each shot from his gun while cowering behind the rock with his eyes squeezed shut."

VorlonFCW wrote:

1 to 1 fight always favors the defender, and a 2 to 1 fight almost always leave the winning attacker in a shambles, with any unit.

Just saying that having a defensive advantage (apart from the aforementioned bonuses) is just wrong and if it is true that there is a defensive advantage, that needs to be completely eliminated to better-reflect reality.

"Oh, I'm on a battlefield and I'm on the defense. That means my bullets are better at hitting targets than the attacker! How lucky am I?"

Diabolical wrote:

Just saying that having a defensive advantage (apart from the aforementioned bonuses) is just wrong and if it is true that there is a defensive advantage, that needs to be completely eliminated to better-reflect reality.

With most other unit types you can do similar: setting up armor in hull down positions, artillery under camo nets so they are less likely to be spotted until they open fire, etc.

Every war game I ever played, there was never an advantage to attacking until at least 3:1 odds were attained. Eventually over whelming force will negate defensive terrain and positional advantages. However, I believe modern technology (circa year 2000+) has diminished the defensive advantages found in previous eras.

Diabolical wrote:

Whatever the strengths and weaknesses that are listed in a unit's details should be the only factor in calculating the maximum and minimum potential damage values before the "X" factor is involved. .

Just saying that having a defensive advantage . . .is just wrong and if it is true that there is a defensive advantage, that needs to be completely eliminated to better-reflect reality.

Mine was a generic statement pointing out that almost all units have a higher defense value than offensive value. This was done to reflect reality as Peter points out in the example above.

Peter Mat wrote:

With most other unit types you can do similar: setting up armor in hull down positions, artillery under camo nets so they are less likely to be spotted until they open fire, etc.

Now, if you do want to see a clear and distinct defensive advantage for most units in a way that would make sense in this game, perhaps you should promote the addition of a "Fortify" button that any ground unit could use. This would have to be timed, such that, wherever a unit is sitting, it stops moving, waits for 24 hours (to simulate the preparations of making on-the-fly dug-in fortifications), and then gains a +5% defensive advantage so long as it doesn't initiate combat nor moves. Once it does move or initiate combat, the bonus no longer applies and it must wait an additional 24 hours without moving (or fighting offensively) to regain that advantage.

Perhaps that advantage could be increased by an additional 5% per day (up to 5 days, maybe) so that a non-moving unit could gain an upto 25% defensive advantage so long as it doesn't move. This defensive advantage wouldn't be the same as that given by a fortress which reduces the effectiveness of an opponent's fire. Instead, this advantage would be to raise a unit's defensive value.

So, instead of raising the cumulative advantage of a unit's defense against enemy fire (+75% for Fortress and +15% for Core Provinces to give a 90% advantage), this new defensive bonus would be to raise a unit's rating such that, for example, a level 2 Infantry, which has a defense value of 1.5 vs. mobile units, could have that value increased up to a maximum of: ( 1.5 + (1.5 x 0.25) = 1.5 + 0.375 = 1.875 ) against mobile units. This advantage would benefit that unit wherever it sits (so long as it doesn't move) regardless of the territory (control point or non; core province, allied province, neutral province, or enemy province) that it sits in.

The beauty of this proposal isn't that it raises the fortress value (which can already be quite high) of units. Rather, it is to raise the unit's actual defense rating regardless of whether it sits and hides in a fortress or sits in plain view in the middle of a field. Now that I've said that, I wonder if maybe the terrain could affect the percent increase gains for hunkering down so that forests and hills might increase a unit's defensive rating by 5% per day while a plains would only increase by 3% per day and a mountainous terrain might increase by 8% per day.

~O~

Another idea, stacked onto the above one, could be a siege bonus given to units that sit without moving in enemy territory. (without capturing an enemy provincial control point). So, if you invade a province but don't go all the way to it's control point, then stop and "Siege" it by guarding that path, then the defensive value of the enemy units within the enemy province would go down by 1% per day. Now, what would make this particularly interesting would be that, if you were to siege multiple paths to an enemy provincial control point (i.e., sit on several roads within an enemy province but still not capturing it's control point), then there would be a cumulative effect of the siege so that each besieged road adds to the overall drop in the enemy's defensive rating which would counter it's digging in value.

That would be particularly advantageous and truly represent the effectiveness of a siege because then a province with many roads could have units defending it that start to really feel the pinch of the siege. For example, suppose that a province has 9 roads radiating from it's control point. The defender [obviously] owns the control point but the invader has units sitting on 4 of those roads and they're using the "Siege" option either by hitting a "Siege" button or just by sitting still for days. Now, with a 1% reduction per road that is under siege, and for each siege having a maximum cumulative defensive rating drop of 5% (5 days or more of sitting), then the defensive rating of the defenders can drop by: ( 4 x 5% = 20% ) which means that the units defending a province would, in this case, lose 20% of their defensive rating so long as they remain in the province and own the control point.

Now, you might think that the rating would just go back up if the invader pushes forward to attack the defender. But, not necessarily. To complete the scenario of simulating a siege, the defender's defense rating would not go up so long as they remain in the province and control the province (own the control point) [except] unless a road that was besieged ceases to have ANY invader units on it (i.e., they retreat or die by artillery/bombardment, etc.). So, once a unit has been sitting on a road to siege it, that siege rating doesn't cool off just because you start moving or fight the defender. It only ceases when the defending units within the province either are destroyed or leave the province (which makes sense since the siege value changes affect only the defenders) or the invader is destroyed or retreats.

One last thing about this idea. Because a defender could have a massive presence while the sieging units might be tiny, it makes sense that the sieging effect would have to be proportionately calculated. So, maybe the 1% per day per road would be a fractional value times "1" based on the ratio of strength of defender vs. invader. For example, (not counting SBDE) if the defender has a stack of 12 level 3 Infantry with a cumulative defense value of (2.3 x 12 = 27.6 (without the defensive fortification bonus) ) against mobile units, then if you have 3 level 4 Medium Tanks sieging one road (of several under siege), then the ratio would be the total defense value against mobile divided by this stack's total offensive rating against Infantry. Thus the tank's siege bonus would be ( 1 / ( 2.3 x 12 ) / ( 7.0 x 3 ) = 1 / 27.6 / 21.0 = 1 / 1.314 = 0.76 = 76% of "1" ) ==> therefore the tank's siege penalty given to the Infantry is 0.76 per day up to 5 days for a total negative drop of 3.8. So, the Infantry would have their defensive value against all mobile units lowered by 3.8 points after 5 days of being besieged (just for that one road out of many under siege).

The takeaway from this siege idea isn't just the weakening of the defensive rating of units guarding a province. It is that by sieging a province, even though it's heavily guarded and has a level 5 fortress, for example, you might still be able to intimidate the defender into retreating back and thus you could invade and capture a province without fighting. This would actually do a great job of simulating battlefield reality.

~O~

Both of these ideas are worth considering. I know it's kind of a lot to take in and it make take some better visualizations to help people understand these ideas. But, maybe something can be refined out of these to give an advantage to units that are patiently waiting for an advantage.