AIRFORCE IMPACT ON GROUND TARGETS/UNITS

In this thread you can discuss any thoughts you have about balance within the game. Does a particular unit need a specification changed? Is a stealth plane not stealthy enough? Do "Belli Bar" levels need to be changed? Let us know and discuss it all here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply

IMPROVE AIR POWER ON GROUND TARGETS/UNITS?

Yes, air power is more strong on ground units
6
55%
No, air power is less strong on ground units
5
45%
 
Total votes: 11

Message
Author
User avatar
konan
Lieutenant
Posts: 86
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: Venezia - l'italia del nord

AIRFORCE IMPACT ON GROUND TARGETS/UNITS

#1 Post by konan » Jan 13 2006

hello to all,
my topic is about to understand you position about one point:

-AIRFORCE IMPACT ON GROUND TARGETS

Till now in my games i found that when i start to use a massive "AIR FORCE" against enemy ground troops:

- enemy tanks react succesfully hitting my planes
- nemy tanks react succesfully hitting missiles i send to hit them.

the point of the discussion is that i find that ground units have a too high air defense points which is incompatible with effective reality.

Air force (fixed-wing) also if attack at low-level (tornado/SU-24/F-111) is a hard target to be hit from a 120mm tank or APC and same is a missle that fly at 1000Km/hour.

My point is to give more strong to fixed wing units, also with normal bombardment on ground target.

An F-16 that hit a T-72 couldn't be hit from him exept if there is an AA dedicated unit.

I propose to improve fixed wing air power and to drop down ground units it's air defense points and reaction.

Historical exemplas are a lot, last of them are NATO AIR WAR over SERBIA, US/COALITION war over IRAQ and all the AIR raids that litteraly damage heavily enemy GROUND VEHICLES.

NON VEHICLES units (infantry) instead have the advantage to be more hard to be killed by fixed wing ... there you must use helicopters or light planes.

Well post your opinion here and express your vote.

Thank's for attention .... GAME DEVELOPERS IMPRESSION IS ALSO WELCOME :wink:
konan

The_Blind_One
Colonel
Posts: 388
Joined: May 28 2005

Re: AIRFORCE IMPACT ON GROUND TARGETS/UNITS

#2 Post by The_Blind_One » Jan 13 2006

konan wrote:hello to all,
my topic is about to understand you position about one point:

-AIRFORCE IMPACT ON GROUND TARGETS

Till now in my games i found that when i start to use a massive "AIR FORCE" against enemy ground troops:

- enemy tanks react succesfully hitting my planes
- nemy tanks react succesfully hitting missiles i send to hit them.

the point of the discussion is that i find that ground units have a too high air defense points which is incompatible with effective reality.

Air force (fixed-wing) also if attack at low-level (tornado/SU-24/F-111) is a hard target to be hit from a 120mm tank or APC and same is a missle that fly at 1000Km/hour.

My point is to give more strong to fixed wing units, also with normal bombardment on ground target.

An F-16 that hit a T-72 couldn't be hit from him exept if there is an AA dedicated unit.

I propose to improve fixed wing air power and to drop down ground units it's air defense points and reaction.

Historical exemplas are a lot, last of them are NATO AIR WAR over SERBIA, US/COALITION war over IRAQ and all the AIR raids that litteraly damage heavily enemy GROUND VEHICLES.

NON VEHICLES units (infantry) instead have the advantage to be more hard to be killed by fixed wing ... there you must use helicopters or light planes.

Well post your opinion here and express your vote.

Thank's for attention .... GAME DEVELOPERS IMPRESSION IS ALSO WELCOME :wink:
Serbia used 70's radar crap, no way to compare

but I do agree that tanks should not have the ability to down a fixed wing aircraft...it frustrates the **** out of me cuz they always ALWAYS down one plane in the squad upon contact!!! That plane cost's a fortune! :evil:

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20786
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: AIRFORCE IMPACT ON GROUND TARGETS/UNITS

#3 Post by Balthagor » Jan 14 2006

The_Blind_One wrote:...but I do agree that tanks should not have the ability to down a fixed wing aircraft...
Here we have the issue that we make a game and must try and bend reality a bit. IRL a tank battalion of 52 units is not 52 tanks (or not just 52 tanks) it includes support units, maybe one or two smoke units and 2-3 AA units. It is for this reason that we give land battalions the type of attack values we do. We've had some discussions on this in the past and have no problem looking at some of this. I like the information konan gives, it makes some sense but do you still feel it's too strong based on the fact that we assume some AA elements in the battalion?

Also, there was another thread saying aircraft are too strong and this would only make them stronger...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

joecool250
Captain
Posts: 144
Joined: Nov 04 2005

#4 Post by joecool250 » Jan 14 2006

one problem i see is the low air defense. while most anti aircraft guns can hut helipters and other things, it also hits missles. i am sorry but a vast majority of AA guns can not shoot down a cruise missle, or a bomb. some of the most advanced can, like our PAC's, but not the simple guns, the non missle units. there should be a seperate missle defense.

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20786
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#5 Post by Balthagor » Jan 15 2006

We've had this discussion once before and so far no one has been able to prove to me that this is the case. Someone said that Stinger missiles could not take out cruise missiles but I found a reference that proved they did. Got any links?
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

joecool250
Captain
Posts: 144
Joined: Nov 04 2005

#6 Post by joecool250 » Jan 15 2006

well if patriots cant it scuds most of the time, then cruise missles cant be hit too easily. some ships have this capability but most land units dont have much capability. look at the velosity and size of cruise missiles, it would be almost impossible. especially for gun units, some missiles can hit them but not anti aircraft artillery.

User avatar
Seydlitz
Major
Posts: 195
Joined: Oct 09 2005
Location: UConn
Contact:

#7 Post by Seydlitz » Jan 16 2006

joecool250 wrote:well if patriots cant it scuds most of the time
Supposedly this is false. Some military investigative committee did some research, and came to the conclusion that no scuds were downed by patriot missiles in the first gulf war.

User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 11943
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

#8 Post by tkobo » Jan 16 2006

Feel free to post a link because ive read tons of studies and never once found one that claimed a definitive zero intercept.

This is the last collective view ive seen on the issue,it covers both sides of the debate.
http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html

Even the most negative claim here, doesnt claim a definitive zero intercept.

Also take note ,that in Israel any time a scud was hit by a patriot and the scud still did damage on the ground afterwards, they considered it a failed intercept.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM

User avatar
Seydlitz
Major
Posts: 195
Joined: Oct 09 2005
Location: UConn
Contact:

#9 Post by Seydlitz » Jan 16 2006

Did a quick search and didn't find anything either. I just remember hearing it somewhere, not the most reliable method it would seem :-) .
I retract my statement!

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20786
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#10 Post by Balthagor » Jan 16 2006

joecool250 wrote:...look at the velosity and size of cruise missiles...
Actually, I have looked at the speed... they are not that fast. Tomahawks for example are .5 to .75 of Mach 1, less than 1000km/h. Slower than most aircraft. As for their size, we intended to reflect that in the defense values of the missiles, something we are open to discussion on but that would make them shot down easier by EVERYTHING.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

kokos1212
Corporal
Posts: 6
Joined: Jan 16 2006
Location: Leicester

#11 Post by kokos1212 » Jan 17 2006

how about increasing a bit the missile's stealth value? Making them harder to spot by the enemy units should make it harder to shoot down.
I've only been playing the game for around two weeks now and I know that all units have a 'spotting value'. My guess is that this value reflects both spotting air and ground units.
Perhalps you could add a separate spotting range for ground and air targets, e.g a tank should have only slight spotting range for air targets...
but my guess is that should be too much work, right?

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20786
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

#12 Post by Balthagor » Jan 18 2006

You're correct that increasing their stealth would make it harder to shoot them down, hard part is knowing what the results should be. During development we did tests of trying values, trying in game, and seeing if we where satisfied with the results. For the moment we are, but if someone has hard data on the results we should be seeing we're more than willing to make adjustments. Problem is there is little data, most of it is theory, and conflicting theories at that :-?
kokos1212 wrote:Perhalps you could add a separate spotting range for ground and air targets, e.g a tank should have only slight spotting range for air targets...
but my guess is that should be too much work, right?
The idea of seperate spotting was looked at a long time ago but that would make the game massively more complex. You would need two fog of wars, one for land and one for air. We decided that made it too much simulation not enough game.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

kokos1212
Corporal
Posts: 6
Joined: Jan 16 2006
Location: Leicester

#13 Post by kokos1212 » Jan 18 2006

well it's still an excellent game overall, and quite realistic for a game!
I never thought about the two fog of wars thing that would be needed... guess that's why I am not the developer :-)

Post Reply

Return to “Balance”