A few issues

I would agree with point one and two. I think Aircraft are more powerful than they need to be already in the game.

Good luck

I think Zarathusa(did I get that right?) said hills and forests are the same so Canada and North Africa don't have the same terrain. Also, unit should get an anti-air boost on plains.

Imagine you are in your M3A1 half-track rolling along the desert plains of Africa, a trail of dust coming out from behind you. You are sitting on your 50. CAL and scanning the air and ground for enemies and all of a sudden you see a JU 87 D-5(not sure if it's the right place, but whatever) coming roaring in from in front of you, cannons blazing and rounds bursting in the ground ahead of you. You quickly let off a quick burst of your own rounds from your 50. CAL and you see the pilot slump against his controls and his plane quickly nose dives into the ground and burst into flames. You do a little fist pump to celebrate.

Aircraft can see easier on plains but so can everything else.

Good points to TankBuster and Bill, however to Tankbuster's first 2 statements

id like to comment.

TankBuster wrote:

Hills:

Now, hills are good for one thing and one thing only: artillery, AA and AT. You look at anything to do with hills during WW2. Infantry and tanks DO NOT do well against hills: so why do they for some odd reason take no de-buff? Surely, with the enemy forces having the high ground, those attacking it would be stuck in a killing ground.

Forests:

Infantry are at home in forests- cover exists, you can sneak around and most of all, tanks can't move all that well. I believe infantry/militia should gain a buff at this point.

On the issue of Forests, tanks will certainly have a hard time in thick forests, but in light ones they can run over smaller trees and of course launch flanking attacks in areas where the defender expected infantry not tanks and are unprepared.

A heavy tank and its big long gun can get stuck or blocked from moving in the trees and will have a serious issue fighting, in that instance a lighter tank might just have a chance to get close from the side or rear an take it out which would be much more risky in open terrain.

Uhh, in the hills in Italy it become an infantryman's war because so many tanks were being knocked out.

Italy is a mix of hills and mountains lol, that's worse than just hills.

Hills is hills.

There is big difference, you can run up a hill *and be tired* you can't really run up a mountain or youll fall backwards and roll back down, Mountains are much bigger lol. You can maneuver around a bunch of hills but when there are mountains mixed in your stuck. I don't think im making any progress here lol.

TankBuster wrote:

Hills:

Now, hills are good for one thing and one thing only: artillery, AA and AT. You look at anything to do with hills during WW2. Infantry and tanks DO NOT do well against hills: so why do they for some odd reason take no de-buff? Surely, with the enemy forces having the high ground, those attacking it would be stuck in a killing ground.

Forests:

Infantry are at home in forests- cover exists, you can sneak around and most of all, tanks can't move all that well. I believe infantry/militia should gain a buff at this point.

plains:

This is a strange one, because personally, I think out of all weapons of wars, its the air force which enjoy open plains more. Imagine it, you're a Stuka JU 87 pilot, and you're deployed over the large plains of Russia- you can clearly see everything! You can give good strafe runs and CAS would be much easier.

This is just a thought, having the different types of land seems stupid if only two give anyone any real problems: infact, only mountains give the player a real challenge. Cities can be flooded with infantry and such.

Actually, tanks do get "debuffed" in hills - they lose the 50% strength increase they get in plains. That's a significant penalty.

Also, you may be forgetting that in real life, hills offer tanks the chance to fight "hull down" so actually offer them some advantages.

Personally, I think I would like to see tanks get, say, a 25% advantage in hills, and a -25% penalty in forests, where they can be easily ambushed.

Akulla3D wrote:

I would agree with point one and two. I think Aircraft are more powerful than they need to be already in the game.

Good luck

TankBuster wrote:

Akulla3D wrote:

I would agree with point one and two. I think Aircraft are more powerful than they need to be already in the game.

Good luck

I've never use aircraft in a large operation, i'm still rather in the dark on their attack prowess.

All the same, aircraft to me play more or less the same role as artillery did in S1914. The difference is (a) that aircraft take damage when they attack, and (b) you can switch aircraft from one battlefront to another very quickly (as long as you have a network of airbases) which makes them incredibly useful. All the better of course, because most folks seem to neglect their air defences - if they didn't, aircraft would certainly be less effective.

Aircraft can easily dominate an enemy. In my first game(which I won) I was fighting Russia who had a much smaller army numbering around 75k. I had a very strong air force of lvl 5 tac bombers when we started fighting and lvl 6 at the end. In total, I lost 14k troops, 12k being aircraft while the enemy had lost around 73k because I blitzed him and destroyed most of his aircraft while they were on the ground. This because, out of all the units I fought, not a single one of them was an AA unit.

Cheers for tips guys, I'm gonna start looking more into aircraft

Im in my first game and its almost over, early on realizing I had a crappy airforce compared to my enemy I invested in a bunch of AA guns which im still making use of, they played a part in a major battle early on fighting off my enemies airforce. All my airfields get one and so do major cities in my core, I don't want someone to do a surprise air raid on me lol. I think I have about 15 of them across my territory and 5 of them are in my main army all are Level 2 but they seem to work pretty well against mid lvl aircraft.

Just a comment: (not much to do with this, but whatever) Why on EARTH does normal infantry have ANY AA value??? You can't shoot down a plane with a rifle!

You can with a mounted 50. CAL though.

Not really. Only infantry weapon I know that was able to shoot dwon planes was the MG34, but whatever. Anyhow, infantry has 1.5 value. Isn't that a bit too excessive? I'm sure normal combating infantry wouldn't shoot dwon too many planes. There was only 1 or 2 MGs per platoon.

Probably, but imagine one of the tac bombers, the Douglas A-20 Havoc, coming in for a strafe run. An MG lets off a hail of bullets which hits the pilot, killing him(although I think the Havoc had 2 pilots, not one).

Yes, but that would be pretty rare. That's not enough for a 1.5 value.

Consider that Infantry units may actually be equipped with a suite of AA-guns and AT-guns for support, far less than dedicated AA or AT brigades though which are intended for a more direct approach to an issue.