Idea for air game upgrade

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Howdy all,

For the powers that be, or Glenn as we all know him . I know it's dangerous, but I've been thinking again. What's life without risks anyway, right? :smoke:

The reason I started thinking about this is because of a couple games of Alamein I've been in or in now, where the front line is near Tobruk, yet suffering a lot of interdiction strikes in or near Alexandria. I'm just looking at a more realistic possibility without diverting too much attention away from the fact that PzC/MC are primarily ground games.

Anyway, interdiction is the same thing as ground attack to a point, yet it doesn't suffer air defense attacks, even against aa units. So this is what I came up with....

Another button that pulls up an air map, similar to the overview map, but with an overlay splitting the map into zones while still showing the units.

Air by squadrons like you already have, but with an air allocation for ground support, combat air patrol, interdiction or transfer to a different base. Air allocation in the same menu and once per turn like corp attachments. All units have the possibility of suffereing casualties and fatigue regardless of the mission.

Each squadron is assigned to one of the four missions or unassigned to rest and recover losses. Squadrons can only be allocated to zones within their aircraft range.

Depending on the number of squadrons/aircraft assigned to different zones plus enemy allocation to the same zones, some sort of percentage could be worked out to determine how many get intercepted or make it thru to attempt their mission within the zone.

I know it's basically a general outline, but I had to start somewhere. I also know this is PzC/MC, generally a ground game, but starting in WW2 on to present day, commanders have had to incorporate the air aspect more and more. Tac air is a part of the ground game. I in no way think strategic air has a place in these games, but I think tac air does warrant a closer look to see if it can be made better with a future patch at some point. I also figured if it was to be done and tested, North Africa would be the best place to try it as the number of aircraft involved would be less than the East or West Fronts.

Thanks for taking the time to read thru this novel. :bow:

[NACBAR2]

I like it, simple and it seems a good system

[Zemke]

I like the idea also, similar to the "strike box" system I proposed for D 85.

[Steel God]

I don't know that I buy the premise that interdiction is the same as ground attack.

That issue aside, what I remember of John was that he already had more "air" in the games then he felt comfortable with. I would not hold out much hope for new air rules.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Do we call you Steel God, Steel or Mr. God. :smoke: If my ears start burning, I'll know it's RedDevil cussing me for using Mr.

I prefer the KISS method, Keep It Simple-Stupid as much as possible and I understand the way John feels. But it doesn't hurt to try. Might actually come up with a possibilty some day.

The reason I see interdiction the same as ground attack is in order to interdict units on the ground, they have to come down to bomb and strafe the units, that's why I don't see a lot of difference. Ground attack being direct support of front line troops and interdiction more of a targets of opportunity along specific routes. Even so, interdiction should still suffer aa defense from those units with aa capabilities, even in tmode. Although they are not tactical, they should still be able to fire and not reduced either. Units in front lines have aa fire against ground support even tho some may be fully engaged with enemy ground forces. By that reasoning, you wouldn't have to come up with two separate tables for the aa fire.

Besides, I thought my idea this time was good enough to post and get some valuable feedback and opinions from guys like yourself. I've had lots of ideas but rarely post them at the risk of sounding too stupid, lord knows I don't need anybody's help for that, I do quite well on my own. Plus, I sometimes think about things long enough and see that they probably won't work without too much trouble involved, but I felt this one is worth the risk.

[Steel God]

You can call me Paul :)

There's nothing wrong with your idea (or anyone's ideas politely offered and politely defended, yours was both), and you're correct it doesn't hurt to throw it out there and see what sticks. I just figure Glenn needs a break from time to time so I thought I'd throw out a stock answer for him. No offense intended to you.

Now, on the interdiction versus ground attack roles....while interdiction certainly can include strafing targets of opportunity along an assigned route, it can also include specific attempts to drop bridges, collapse tunnels, break damns, smash rail yards, destroy rolling stock, damage paved road services at critical junctions, and also aerial mining. That's why I think it's not the same as ground attack.

regards.

[FM WarB]

It seems to me that if anti aircraft units had no effect on interdiction missions that both sides wasted alot of resources on such units. In these games, FlaK units are more oft used in antipersonel or anti armor roles, than in the AA role for which they were designed, and often used.

One example, which cannot be recreated in the game. The German FlaK defense of the Meuse river crossings in 1940.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Howdy Paul,

First, no offense taken, I value the opinions of experienced individuals such as yourself.

Second, I understand what you are saying, but to me, all that you stated seems to fall in between tactical and strategic, which is operational and that is the category where PzC/MC falls.

I guess that would be considered another abstraction to the game to keep them working as smooth as they do? The main thing I'm looking for is to not have interdiction look like a free ride without consequences and the thought process just kept going from there. I couldn't help myself :whis:.

[Steel God]

Well, honestly I agree with you (and FM WarB) that the game would/should model the effects of AA fire on interdiction missions. For example, if you had a bridge crossing in B44 that you were taking heavy loses from interdiction as you enter and exit T mode, you SHOULD be able to ring the bridge with AA units and get some benefit from it. I agree, it makes sense.

However, the interdiction effects in the game are set by a flat number in the PDT file, and effects every hex whether if 5 hexes or 500 hexes behind the front line. There's currently no way to get that flat number to recognize the presence of any units on the map when it does it's die roll to determine losses. To change that would require programing that gets into detailed air rules that I know JT was always loath to get into, for whatever reason.

At the end of the day the designer draws a line in the sand which defines what he wants to detail and what he wants to abstract. With PzC and MC series games I think we have to accept that the air rules will ALWAYS be an absraction.

[Tortue Agile]

However, the interdiction effects in the game are set by a flat number in the PDT file, and effects every hex whether if 5 hexes or 500 hexes behind the front line.

something that would be nice would be to have the player to set the interdiction % by sector everyday depending of his priority.

For Example in France 40 the German could decide to increase interdiction level behind the Belgian border or slow down the French advance, etc...