 |
|
anti-air - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: anti-air (/showthread.php?tid=44986) Pages:
1
2
|
anti-air - Caius - 04-17-2008 Hi guys. Does anyone here agree that there are not enough anti-air craft capabilities in Modern Campaigns? I’m playing a 161 turn scenario with a friend. Me as NATO. The last turn I was finally able to assign my fast movers to air missions. So far NATO has lost no air assets, but Warsaw Pact has lost four. My opponent is of the belief that there are not sufficient WP anti-air weapons. Just wandered if there were any thoughts from people here. Caius RE: anti-air - Steel God - 04-17-2008 Could be a matter of perception. A lot of the anti-air capabilities in MC games (and PzC) are abstracted into the parameter files. Ineffective air strikes could be interrepted as those where the attacker was driven off, presumably with some damage if not outright loss, and what is actually seen as part of the game represents only catastrophic, or complete, loss of aircraft and crew. You could always change the values in the PDT too, to represent a more lethal anti-air environment. RE: anti-air - HirooOnoda - 04-18-2008 Caius Wrote:Hi guys. Does anyone here agree that there are not enough anti-air craft capabilities in Modern Campaigns? I’m playing a 161 turn scenario with a friend. Me as NATO. The last turn I was finally able to assign my fast movers to air missions. So far NATO has lost no air assets, but Warsaw Pact has lost four. My opponent is of the belief that there are not sufficient WP anti-air weapons. Just wandered if there were any thoughts from people here. Believe me Caius, I've brought this up before and my concern was dismissed. As you know, the WP had plenty of SAM-6s, SAM-7 (the wheeled version of the SA-7), , etc., and they've just been abstracted away. Thus Helicopters have a very ahistoricaly safe enviroment to fly in. (Excuse me if I've got the unit designations wrong, I know Ivan had numerous wheeled versions of their SA's). But one does have to take into account the counter-density. Will adding 5-6 counters per Russian division enhance the game play that much? I understand their logic, I just disagree with it. RE: anti-air - Caius - 04-19-2008 Thanks for both your replys, Steel God and HirooOnoda. Caius RE: anti-air - Trac_511 - 04-20-2008 Hello. New member with first post here. Caius, I'm also involved in a 161 turn campaign (Danube Front 85) with several other players I hooked up with elsewhere. We are only in turn 4 but as Warsaw Pact side, we have shot down over half a dozen NATO planes (with no losses of our own so far). Of course, choppers do not count as air-losses otherwise my figures above would be quite different (I've lost several Hinds and Hips already). RE: anti-air - Caius - 04-20-2008 Hello Trac-511. My 161 turn game is from North German Plain 85. I have Danube 85, but not played it yet. I’m not too concerned about the possible lack of anti-air assets. I have played board war games and the Anti-air craft fire is also abstractedly handled. Thanks for your comments Trac-511. Caius RE: anti-air - Tbird3 - 04-20-2008 Did any of you folks ever play Tac Air by Avalon Hill? I believe it was about the same scale as the HPS series. Battalion and company level. Anyway, it had a very robust air model that was a significant component of the game. I always thought it would be very cool to be able to model something like that with a computer simulation. The game actually modeled both the ground attack and air to air parts of the air portion of the game. Currently, the HPS system is very generic and I don't know if there would be much benefit gained by adding more ADA assets. I sure wish they would look at actually beefing up the air piece. I think it would lift the series to an all time high. TBird3 RE: anti-air - HirooOnoda - 04-20-2008 TBird3, Agreed. My previous comments have been with Tac Air by AH in mind. The MC engine could use some more chrome and this is the way to go. RE: anti-air - Trac_511 - 04-20-2008 Oh, so you weren't necessarily talking about effectiveness, but about the variety? Yeah, I see what you mean by it being treated abstractly. It would be hard to imagine that the only AA assetts are ZSU-23-4s, Vulcans, and Gepards(?). It would be neat if there were other AA units to move around and control in this series. Oh man, I remember TacAir. I have it sitting behind me as I type. I remember getting it before I got my 486, but I never got to play it with anyone. Most of the counters haven't even been seperated yet. RE: anti-air - Volcano Man - 04-20-2008 You can always add your own SAM counters to the game if you want by just creating an extremely powerful / long ranged HAA and AA type units depending on the type. I did that in the Jihad_04 expansion for ME67 and I am not sure that it is a big enough change since you can just raise the SAM interception values if necessary. Of course, explicit SAM units cause losses but you also lost VPs when they are destroyed as well. |
){kind=link}