Tactical Air War - tanks, landing troops.

[Blakhart]

Plz leave your votes and comments.

Edited June 14, 2016 by =LG=Blakhart

[Feathered_IV]

I voted yes to 1 and 3, but I'd say no to the second one.  It was a rarity in real war, plus we don't actually have any troops. 

[StG2_zulu354]

Voted.

 

Just one thing, I'd like to explain here:

 

Fornthevquestion with the capturable airfields:

 

Wouldn't be it a nice idea, if you brought an airfield down, that some ai planes would start and players have to escorts them? And then they drop paratroopers at the enemy airfield. Would be nice with the Ju-52. For Russians we need the Pe-2 unfortunately at the moment. The paratroops may spawn once a mission.

 

In addition you still should be able to capture airfields with landing a (empty) bomber.

 

PS: Some feedback after successfully landing/capturing an airfield would be nice, too.

[Blakhart]

 

 

Wouldn't be it a nice idea, if you brought an airfield down, that some ai planes would start and players have to escorts them? And then they drop paratroopers at the enemy airfield. Would be nice with the Ju-52. For Russians we need the Pe-2 unfortunately at the moment. The paratroops may spawn once a mission. In addition you still should be able to capture airfields with landing a (empty) bomber.

 

 

 

100% fuel present fully loaded plane with soldiers/cargo/ammo/equipment needed in air operation like capturing the area.

Do you know Market Garden operation ? 
You remember how many paratroopers & gliders they used ?

Another operations like those were done by Germans in 1940 on west & on Crete in 1941 IIRC.

Empty plane is easier for take off & to land.

 

About the AI.

Disregarding all those problems with lags/freezes caused by spawning AI...

Its too complicated to even think about such scenario at this stage of project, so -> impossible now.

 

Thx for votes guys!!!

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

1. Yes. No need to artificially balance it - the T-34 was a better tank, factually. Place some 88mm guns by the objectives as it were and let the player deal with the challenges.

 

2. No, for the reason Feathered IV outlined. A better approach would be to have tanks capture the airfields, but these stay inactive until you move aircraft to it. That could be done in a 1:1 basis (land one Pe-2, you get one Pe-2 there). That way aircraft coming back from sorties could reroute and land at the new airfield, which is realistic and more dynamic. Having leftover captured aircraft with no ammunition would be interesting as well, for recon purposes.

 

3. Yes. That way you'll have teams choosing which war they want to fight, the tactical and strategic one. A side that focuses only on one could lose by resources starvation despite doing well at the front.

[HR_Tumu]

About balance i no have good ideas. 

 

About capture airfields, i like idea of landing pe2,

 

Another option ( i dont know if its posible ) when IA Tank column its on last round before capture airfield.  Activate a Human spawn for limited human tanks , this open the door for made a human conquest. In other side the same. Activate human tank spawn for defence tanks.  The airfields need a work in order to provide for good antitank defences. Maybe airfields before conquer via tanks need some air suport.... And antitank pilots have a " tank scramble misions " towars base.

 

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

1.  Tanks.  Voted yes.  To keep things simple at first, human tanks in the campaign could be restricted to only defensive line attack.  Tank spawn points could be placed within a short driving range to enemy defensive lines.  (Traversing 10km at an average of 20km/hr = 30 minutes so no more than this.)  They could attempt to take out the AT/AAA guns at those locations, which isn't easy.  Any defensive line damage by tanks would be added to any damage to that target also done by aircraft.  Tanks could also play a recon role to pilots on comms in this situation.  If the defensive line is close to an enemy airfield you may see tankers go there instead, which can piss pilots off.  This can be looked at as just part of war, like vulching, and pilots will need to assess whether to spawn at a different base.  It can also be countered by placing AT or AI/human tanks at those airfields within 20km of a defensive line.  Although human tank vs human tank combat can be quite fun, I would leave that to a future change, as well as any stats tracking for tanks.  I believe the introduction of tanks on this limited target basis would be balanced.  I don't think introducing human tanks uses a lot of resources.  Introducing tanks may entice other players into the server. 

 

2.  Airfield takeover.  Voted no.  Yes, the Germans did this sort of attack early in the war in Norway however they stopped due to massive loses later on Crete.  Although it may have happened on the Eastern Front, I haven't read about it.  If it did happen there, it was an exception.  I have concerns if introduced here, it would become the norm.

 

3.  Strategic targets.  Voted yes.  Strategic targets need to be large, target rich environments far from the front.  Pilots need to be rewarded with a good number of GKs to make it worth their while for the time invested.  It should take many bomb strikes to take out a target entirely.  The targets themselves can always be introduced just for GK sake.  There is however the question of whether strategic target damage affects game dynamics.  This could always be done in a future campaign.  For example, if you take out 10% of an oil depot, what will the impact be to the forces at the front?  Will the number of supply columns be effected?  Will armor columns move less distance?  I don't have the answers to these but there are many options. 

 

Cheers!

[Blakhart]

 

 

3.  Strategic targets.  Voted yes.  Strategic targets need to be large, target rich environments far from the front.  Pilots need to be rewarded with a good number of GKs to make it worth their while for the time invested.  It should take many bomb strikes to take out a target entirely.  The targets themselves can always be introduced just for GK sake.  There is however the question of whether strategic target damage affects game dynamics.  This could always be done in a future campaign.  For example, if you take out 10% of an oil depot, what will the impact be to the forces at the front?  Will the number of supply columns be effected?  Will armor columns move less distance?  I don't have the answers to these but there are many options

 

We actually have an idea how to build the logic.

But first, we would like to ask about it and maybe use some interesting ideas .

 

Thx!!! 

[coconut]

1. Tanks Yes

2. Paratroopers No

3. Strategic level bombing Yes

 

The thing with paratroopers is that they can't be too far away from the main ground force, or they are just a sacrificial offering to the enemy. One might argue the ones doing the actual capturing is the ground forces following closely behind. I can see it being used to secure a bridge before the tank column gets there, or to sabotage enemy equipment, but capturing an enemy base??? Maybe occasionally, but it shouldn't be the norm.

 

About tanks: I've made a couple maps with tanks, and this is how I (tried to) balanced things out:

• Have a bunch of elite Stuka AIs circle the objective. Nothing Russian tanks can do about them, so they have to wait for their airforce to clear the area.
• Some of the AA guns are also very effective against the T34, I'm not sure if it was the flak37 or flak38.
• You can also have German AI tanks assist the German side. They can reveal the position of hiding enemy T34s, and they can distract them while human-controlled Pz3 flank their enemies.
• And finally, it's not hard to disable the turret of a T34. Sure, it can still move around, but it won't be much of a threat. Make sure the objective has some defenses, maybe respawning at regular intervals to make sure a lonely turret-less T34 can't capture anything by itself.

In reality, the success of the Germans on the ground must have been linked to their control of the airspace. I would say that is also somewhat true in the game, and it will be especially so if you enforce plane limitations. Russian pilots will die more often trapped in their planes, forcing them to get back in a Lagg. Meanwhile, Germans should do comparatively well in G2s, and I would expect them to die less often. Or do German canopies get stuck too?

[szuszu]

1. No but if You decide to use tanks set 1st person only  view

 

2.Yes

 

3.Yes

[I./JG1_Deschain]

1) voted yes

I dont know if what im suggesting is even possible, but thats what i would like to see on server. First, your server is being as realistic as game allow, so keeping only first person view for tanks would be a must. Second, how could it work ? Well i was thinking maybe both blue and red will have a one tank base, which will allow spawning limited number of player controlled tanks and these bases would also spawn AI controlled tanks. This bases should be close to front and objective for AI tanks should be destroying oponents tank base. So from start of a mission we would have two tank columns heading directly at each other (lets say 20km appart) everyone would know where they are and what their obs is and would be free to take stuka/sturmovik and go support his side ground force, there would also be option to control the tank directly and capture the oponents tank base with a tank (by destroying all the buildings and defense there). Lets say you manage to destroy all enemy tanks and advance to their base and partially destroy it, that would translate into lower tank forces in next mission, if you manage to destroy all enemy tanks and whole base (which could be done by both tanks or airplanes) the front will move to advantage of winning side in next mission, but the defender will have slight advantage there (more tanks, more air defense over base and so on), because next attack should be made harder to prevent steamrolling over few missions. If this would work you can later add some front airfield within range of tanks so there would be more close air support and more targets for tank drivers.

 

2)i would go with slightly different aproach, by destroying all the building and defenses airfield would be inactive, staying like that for few missions allowing both sides capturing it, disapearing after 2or3 missions if both sides leave it to its destiny (thats pretty much how it works) but what i would do differently would be this: If u land one transport plane, the airfield becomes yours (blue or red) with nothing on it, locking it to your side for next mission (making it unable to recapture by enemy in current mission), next planes you would land there would setup air defense, next would set up ground defense, 4th would bring some basics planes there (e7+stukas) and every other transport plane would continue to improve the airfield (bringing more defense and better planes). This could be done in both one mission or over the next few. 

 

3) yes

 

Make a big factory possible to destroy only via serious level bombing raid (lets say 3-4 fully loaded bombers) really far away so it would take some time to get there, that would take both sides time to intercept and it would also be very rewarding for the bomber pilots who would succesfuly finish that raid. destroying this factory fully would translate into some disadvantage for next couple of missions (fewer planes, tanks, less defense on airfield, whatever)

[Boomerang]

1) Yes Broadens the attention to battle field sorties, encourages diverse aircraft choice and use. (first person perspective only tho, as hatches can be opened if needed)

 

​2) Yes troops, (limited and if possible), 100% fuel??

 

3) Yes..

[I./JG1_Baron]

Voted Yes - No - Yes 

[Monostripezebra]

I´d like to see tanks in a meaningfull role, like having an area with lots of ground objects and trying to advance the frontline there.. so some not too excessive drive distances with ai objects to fight, that are also a focus for air attack.. and maybe an airfield to capture. I much more prefere tanks to capture an airfield then landing bombers there...

 

I´m not a fan of the "bombers land to capture" mechanic.. lots of low level crashing and sillyness... that is in the long run not really feasible to prevent in moments of unblanced sides. It´s neither a good gamemechanic nor anywhere near realistic.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Dr_Zeebra