"Gamey" use of air units

[Happycat]

I have been away from CEAW_GS for quite a while, having been busy on other WW1 and WW2 game projects. It's nice to be back, but I have found one thing about the game play in CEAW_GS that concerns me.

When the Allied player sees that the fall of France (and later, also, of Norway) is imminent, he will move RAF units to port cities. When the country surrenders, the cities of course do not switch to Axis control until the Axis player is able to move ground units to those locations.

I had forgotten about how widespread the use of this tactic was in CEAW, and I actually don't believe it belongs in a serious war game. For very little effort, and quite unrealistically, the British player forces the German to waste time and oil. This unbalances the game in my opinion, and is annoying as well.

While I realize that everyone will have their own perspective on this (and I respect that), to me this is not good game design. It encourages an unrealistic use of air units, with a result that impacts the Axis player in a very unfair way. There is really no defense to the tactic that I can think of, and that makes it, in my opinion, gamey. It annoys the hell out of me to have to send a panzer corps trundling across France to take a port that in all reality should have been part of the surrender "package".

Norway, in some ways, is even worse. I'm ok with the German being forced to send land units to Narvik, Trondheim, etc if the British send ground units there as well. But when the Allied player can force the Axis player to do this by the simple expedient of deploying air units to those cities just prior to surrender is both unrealistic and unfair.

When I am defeated by superior tactics or strategy, despite my best efforts, I am ok with that. But when I fall victim to something which the game does not even provide me an opportunity to defend against, it just doesn't feel right.

[metolius]

Interesting, and what is your recommendation?

[Plaid]

I don't think that there is anything "gamey" when it happens, since air units have no fighting capacity vs ground units.
You don't instantly start to control territory when you enter capital, you control territory when your soldiers enter this territory.
So just send corps and smoke out that air unit, whats problem? You don't need full all-out attack to deal with them.

[Happycat]

Interesting, and what is your recommendation?

My recommendation is simple: air units should not be allowed to fly in the turn before an anticipated surrender. Since I am not a programmer, I leave it to those who are to figure out how to fix this.

[gerones]

One thing that could be done to prevent this would be to also send to force pool air units inside France or any other country like Norway, etc when they surrender. This way both UK land and air units would go to force pool once France has surrendered.

[Happycat]

I don't think that there is anything "gamey" when it happens, since air units have no fighting capacity vs ground units.
You don't instantly start to control territory when you enter capital, you control territory when your soldiers enter this territory.
So just send corps and smoke out that air unit, whats problem? You don't need full all-out attack to deal with them.

Since you ask, I'll tell you what the problem is: while it is true that you don't instantly start to control the entire nation just because you have captured the capital, there are two other factors at play here.

First, when countries such as France and Norway surrendered in 1940, there were no significant instances AFTER the surrender where resistance was met as the Germans fanned out into the country and occupied other cities. It was all very orderly and "correct". (Resistance came later, as we know from reading the history of the Maquis in France and people such as Max Manus in Norway).

Secondly, I wonder about your use of the word "instantly". The turns in CEAW represent 20 days of real time, and since it takes at least two turns to move a unit down to Bordeaux to reclaim it from the RAF (who should never be there in the first place imo), I think the Germans are being unduly delayed in completing their takeover of France.

[rkr1958]

One thing that could be done to prevent this would be to also send to force pool air units inside France or any other country like Norway, etc when they surrender. This way both UK land and air units would go to force pool once France has surrendered.

The problem with doing this in Norway is that the allied player may wish to fight it out there. This is what the British wanted to do historically. And they were saved the label of invaded by the fact that the Germans beat them to it. The UK & French intervention there as a disaster due to very poor planning. No air support for the navy, no snow shoes for the ground troops, etc. In fact, the Brits did pack snowshoes but "forgot" to pack the straps to fasten them on.

[Happycat]

One thing that could be done to prevent this would be to also send to force pool air units inside France or any other country like Norway, etc when they surrender. This way both UK land and air units would go to force pool once France has surrendered.

The problem with doing this in Norway is that the allied player may wish to fight it out there. This is what the British wanted to do historically. And they were saved the label of invaded by the fact that the Germans beat them to it. The UK & French intervention there as a disaster due to very poor planning. No air support for the navy, no snow shoes for the ground troops, etc. In fact, the Brits did pack snowshoes but "forgot" to pack the straps to fasten them on.

I agree; the British may well want to fight hard for Norway, and perhaps they should. It might be a good strategy. But then let them send some real fighting units, not a strategic bomber or a fighter

I had forgotten about the British oversight with snowshoe straps, but that is indeed what happened. Too funny!

[rkr1958]

One thing that could be done to prevent this would be to also send to force pool air units inside France or any other country like Norway, etc when they surrender. This way both UK land and air units would go to force pool once France has surrendered.

The problem with doing this in Norway is that the allied player may wish to fight it out there. This is what the British wanted to do historically. And they were saved the label of invaded by the fact that the Germans beat them to it. The UK & French intervention there as a disaster due to very poor planning. No air support for the navy, no snow shoes for the ground troops, etc. In fact, the Brits did pack snowshoes but "forgot" to pack the straps to fasten them on.

I agree; the British may well want to fight hard for Norway, and perhaps they should. It might be a good strategy. But then let them send some real fighting units, not a strategic bomber or a fighter

I had forgotten about the British oversight with snowshoe straps, but that is indeed what happened. Too funny!

I've posted this before but I'll post against because I find it so fascinating. The following is my take away from an interview that I saw with PM Chamberlain's private secretary in an episode of the 1974 BBC series, "World at War". This interview gave me insight into the frame of mind of the British and French governments about the war in early 1940. The last thing Britain, France and Belgium wanted was a repeat of the trench warfare of WW-I. Their hope was that they would be able to keep the war in distance places like Norway.

One of the major reasons that Britain (i.e., Churchill) wanted to intervene in Norway was to have a route open to provide support to Finland against the Soviet Union. If I remember correctly they had ships on the way loaded with supplies bound for Finland when Norway surrendered. This surrender likely prevented Britain being at war with Germany AND Russia at the same time. The Norwegian operation, which was an unmitigated disaster for the UK, was planned and push by Churchill. Ironically, this disaster caused the fall of the Chamberlain government and resulted in Churchill becoming Prime Minister.

I do highly recommend this series as it is packed full with interviews with many significant participants of WW-II. In fact, there's another episode that includes an interview with General O'Connor where he talks about how Tripoli was in their grasp but how he had to divert precious tanks and men to the defense of Greece. He also talked about how he wound up behind German lines and was captured.

[gerones]

One thing that could be done to prevent this would be to also send to force pool air units inside France or any other country like Norway, etc when they surrender. This way both UK land and air units would go to force pool once France has surrendered.

The problem with doing this in Norway is that the allied player may wish to fight it out there. This is what the British wanted to do historically. And they were saved the label of invaded by the fact that the Germans beat them to it. The UK & French intervention there as a disaster due to very poor planning. No air support for the navy, no snow shoes for the ground troops, etc. In fact, the Brits did pack snowshoes but "forgot" to pack the straps to fasten them on.

I agree; the British may well want to fight hard for Norway, and perhaps they should. It might be a good strategy. But then let them send some real fighting units, not a strategic bomber or a fighter

I had forgotten about the British oversight with snowshoe straps, but that is indeed what happened. Too funny!

Then, we can make Norway a special surrender country (like Italy) so it would be needed that Trondheim and Bergen are german controlled for forcing a norwegian surrender. This way the british would have enough time to send LAND troops to Norway if they want to.

I agree that the possibility of moving air units to coastal cities in France just before french surrender to delay the german conquest of those cities should be removed from the game.

[Blathergut]

This concern has been mentioned previously. I would think the easiest "fix" would be to have air units evacuated just like the land units currently.

[aussem]

I think having Air units that pop up 'behind enemy lines' (like in a recent game where the Allied player would land Air units in Axis conquered Spain and France) might be a bit “gamey”.......particularly when one of them landed in France which was surrounded by several German Fighter, TAC and Strategic Air as well as Ground forces and yet it could only be attacked once by the Air forces, at quite good defensive odds (if it was a ground unit it could at least be attacked twice).......and yes it was also attacked by the ground unit as well, but again at quite reasonable odds (i.e. it only lost two strength factors)........this situation makes these units more powerful than Paras ?  I just think they should be far more susceptible to attack ?  How can they draw supply, good enough to conduct operations ?  I can see how they might be able to 'rebase' (still a bit gamey in MHO), but do virtually nothing offensively, and certainly be attacked at poor defensive odds (more than once) ?

I think we should report this and have the game modified accordingly.  I just think the ‘effect’ of this sort of a-historical tactic should be tempered by some changes to the game mechanics ?

[aussem]

I think having Air units that pop up 'behind enemy lines' (like in a recent game where the Allied player would land Air units in Axis conquered Spain and France) might be a bit “gamey”.......particularly when one of them landed in France which was surrounded by several German Fighter, TAC and Strategic Air as well as Ground forces and yet it could only be attacked once by the Air forces, at quite good defensive odds (if it was a ground unit it could at least be attacked twice).......and yes it was also attacked by the ground unit as well, but again at quite reasonable odds (i.e. it only lost two strength factors)........this situation makes these units more powerful than Paras ?  I just think they should be far more susceptible to attack ?  How can they draw supply, good enough to conduct operations ?  I can see how they might be able to 'rebase' (still a bit gamey in MHO), but do virtually nothing offensively, and certainly be attacked at poor defensive odds (more than once) ?

I think we should report this and have the game modified accordingly.  I just think the ‘effect’ of this sort of a-historical tactic should be tempered by some changes to the game mechanics ?

[zechi]

I think having Air units that pop up 'behind enemy lines' (like in a recent game where the Allied player would land Air units in Axis conquered Spain and France) might be a bit “gamey”.......particularly when one of them landed in France which was surrounded by several German Fighter, TAC and Strategic Air as well as Ground forces and yet it could only be attacked once by the Air forces, at quite good defensive odds (if it was a ground unit it could at least be attacked twice).......and yes it was also attacked by the ground unit as well, but again at quite reasonable odds (i.e. it only lost two strength factors)........this situation makes these units more powerful than Paras ?  I just think they should be far more susceptible to attack ?  How can they draw supply, good enough to conduct operations ?  I can see how they might be able to 'rebase' (still a bit gamey in MHO), but do virtually nothing offensively, and certainly be attacked at poor defensive odds (more than once) ?

I think we should report this and have the game modified accordingly.  I just think the ‘effect’ of this sort of a-historical tactic should be tempered by some changes to the game mechanics ?

To put an air unit behind enemy lines is very risky as it can then easily be attacked by ground units with very good odds. I do not understand why you did not attack the Allied air units with ground units in the scenario you described.

[Schnurri]

Agree with Aussem - landing air forces in hostile territory is really unrealistic and gamey. Sometimes you just don't have a unit near enough to attack it - and, if you do, it often doesn't cause that much damage. You can't really program against this so I'd suggest making the air units so susceptible to ground units that they can be taken out by the weakest units.

[Plaid]

Agree with Aussem - landing air forces in hostile territory is really unrealistic and gamey. Sometimes you just don't have a unit near enough to attack it - and, if you do, it often doesn't cause that much damage. You can't really program against this so I'd suggest making the air units so susceptible to ground units that they can be taken out by the weakest units.

But enemy can't place his air units into hexes, which you control. So its a reason not to allow partisan controlled terrain in your lands.

[rkr1958]

Agree with Aussem - landing air forces in hostile territory is really unrealistic and gamey. Sometimes you just don't have a unit near enough to attack it - and, if you do, it often doesn't cause that much damage. You can't really program against this so I'd suggest making the air units so susceptible to ground units that they can be taken out by the weakest units.

Air units have been weakened to ground attacks. Often times they can be destroyed by two ground attacks and an unit at 7-steps or less can often be taken out by one ground attack from a mech or armor.

[PionUrpo]

I doubt there's many mechs or armor roaming far behind frontlines to take out bombers. The most likely first responders are minor ally corps used as garrison forces.

Would it be possible to deny air unit movement to friendly 0 supply hex? That would stop airforces popping up in somewhere like Pripet long after it has been surrounded.

[Schnurri]

I'm in a game now where the allied player landed a TAC in some partisan cleared territory in Yugoslavia. I've got minor Allies in all cities and several roaming guys to kill partisans. It has been mud now for several turns so I can't even move them next to the air unit for what would certainly be a fruitless attack. I have tried keeping territory clear of partisans as Plaid says but in winter and mud it is pretty difficult. And don't tell me to station a MECH or ARM there when I going for Omsk. It is a silly gamey ploy - not a huge deal but annoying and completely unrealistic.

[schwerpunkt]

I think the main problem is the fact that air units inherently get supply level 2 (to allow them to operate on islands). If they had to live with whatever the actual supply available was, then you would rarely see an air use rebase deep into enemy territory (unless city supply was available) due to the efficiency and step losses that they would suffer at SL0.

Perhaps the answer is for all islands to be given SL2 (most have minor ports that could facilitate limited supply at least) rather than for air units to have it inherently? The only thing is that I cant remember is whether a plane can occupy an enemy hex at SL2?