Tactical vs. Strategic bombers (how to portray them in game)

[Mark50]

I have a question: how is the decision taken to put a real world bomber into either the tactical or the strategic category in this game?

In game terms, this decision has serious consequences, but I`m not sure I see the logic. For example, why is the Dornier Do 17z a strategic bomber and the Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 a tactical bomber?

Obviously, PzC has followed many of the decisions of the original developers of PG, but aside from that, what was the logic behind these decisions? Ideally, I`d like an answer from the PzC developers since new content is still being added to the game and such decisions continue to be made, but failing that I`m open to any opinions about how should real life bombers be portrayed in PzC game terms.

Btw, this thread is not meant to criticize, but to come some sort of understanding of the principles already used in the main game or at least the ones that could be used in a mod. For example, if a Japanese Mitsubishi G3M would be added to the game should it be a tactical or a strategic bomber?

[KeldorKatarn]

I'm not a PzC developer but at least regarding the German bombers I'd say the reason is that Germany didn't really have ANY classic strategic bombers. So treating them all with the same requirements would probably result in Germany not having any strat bombers at all... It needs to be balanced for gameplay somehow..

[Mark50]

Thank you for your reply!
Personally I don`t see the balance in terms of 1 for 1. I.e. if faction A has a strategic bomber then faction B has to have one too even though it`s stretching things. You could have a faction deficient in a category and compensated in another. Besides, if you take my example above and you change things (put the Do 17z in the tactical category since it`s really a light bomber and the Sm.79 in the strategic category), Germany still has the He 111 as a strategic bomber from the start of the game and Italy still has the Ba.65 as a tactical bomber. So the question is still why it was done that way (apart from the fact that PG had it like that iirc).

Btw, just to be clear, I`m not trying to start a discussion about so called "historical accuracy". I`m just interested in finding a general rule about what to put in what category to have some sort of discernible consistency and serve the gameplay in the larger sense.

The best rule I can come up to would be to put all "precision" bombers into the tactical category (basically planes that release small quantities of bombs - also planes using cannons and rockets - which they target at individual targets) and everything else in the strategic. Incidentally, this seems to be the rule that applies to Germany in this game.
The other approach would be to put all bombers into the tactical category, with the exception of those very large planes that released huge quantities of bombs from high altitude and would generally be used to reduce large targets (building areas etc.). And maybe make a few exceptions in those cases where there`s nothing there otherwise. This seems to be the rule applied to everyone else apart from the Germans in this game.

[KeldorKatarn]

The thing is, not even in reality there was any such thing as a clear definition of bomber type. The Germans had "destroyers", a class the other nations didn't have. The americans had fighter bombers, again a class designation nobody else used.
For game development you have to make sure it just works for the gameplay. You often can't make clear rules here. And having one faction without a certain class is not an option for panzer corps. That limitation would be way too big. Especially for the Germans since initially the Germans were the only playable faction.

[Ralle]

The Fw 190 had fighter bomber versions. But they were called destroyers. as you already mentioned.
In general it`s hard sometimes to put a unit in a clear category.

[KeldorKatarn]

As I said, next to impossible sometimes. I mean look at the German StuGs.. the allies didn't really have anything like that. Then look at the US tank destroyers. They had an entire doctrine around those things.. some of them had turrets. In Germany those would have been classified as tanks. Nobody else used vehicles like that. And their doctrine didnt work anyway so they used them as tanks or even close support weapons like the German StuGs.
The Ameircans I think called averything a "heavy bomber" that had 4 engines. Very arbitrary requirement if you ask me.
The simple fact is that in WW2 tons of weapons were used for the first time and no clear cut doctrines for their use were available. Everything was made up as the armies went. So it#s next to impossible to come up with classes for weapons that match the equipment of all sides involved.
I think PzC and the original PG did a good job of making sure all sides have a varied selection of all unit classes and most of it made at least some sense.
Some stuff can certainly be argued. Is an American turreted tank destroyer a TD or a tank? Is a Me110 a fighter? A bomber? You could argue both cases. After all Me110 and other destroyers were supposed to attack other bombers mainly, not ground targets. And if you classify bomber destroyers as tactical bombers... then what about the Me262? That thing wasn't supposed to attack fighters. It probably would even have been crap at that. It was a bomber destroyer, not a dogfight plane.
Clear cut categorization is just not possible I think. And if you go into different timeframes it's even worse. Today you have also different kinds of planes. What exactly is a F16? A figher? A tactical bomber? Both? It is in many air forces used for AA interdiction, so obviously attacking ground targets. But does that make it a bomber? What about light tanks from back then or the cold war era. Are they scouts? Tanks?

I think there simply is no way to write down a list of criteria. You can only give guidelines and then go from there and tweak until you have something that is fun to play with. After all you not only need to make sure every nation has every class. You also need enough variety across the timeframe for a good upgrading experience. It's not really fun to get all bomber types in 1939 and then not get anything new to upgrade to. That's just shitty gameplay even if it were more historically accurate.

[Mark50]

The thing is, not even in reality there was any such thing as a clear definition of bomber type.

The game does have "a clear definition of bomber type" (to which it attaches certain specific results) and that`s really the only reason I`ve started this discussion. Strict "historical accuracy" and real life designations are besides my point.

For game development you have to make sure it just works for the gameplay.

Yes, that is my point. I don`t see how the Do 17 is working in the strategic class to give but one example.

You often can't make clear rules here.

The entire game is made on clear rules, from its very code to its gameplay. As I`ve said above, exceptions can be made where they must be made. Exceptions btw, do not cancel rules; they go together.

And having one faction without a certain class is not an option for panzer corps.

Unfortunately, it`s an option for most of the factions (that did use tanks and aircraft in real life, but have none in game), but I`m digressing.

That limitation would be way too big. Especially for the Germans since initially the Germans were the only playable faction.

Again, one could justify an exception if it had to be made. That doesn`t mean you can`t have a general logic.

Edit: Re. the post above. Obviously, PzC is lacking many mechanics that would help reflect better what certain weapons did. The whole point (mine I mean) was not to ask for new mechanics or debate how real life can be accurately reflected in game in general, but to conceive some general rules - strictly - about the placement of certain aircraft into either the strategic or tactical category. This wouldn`t make up for all the shortcomings of translating real life into game terms, but would at least give a sense of fair-play and utility in these two particular categories.

[Ralle]

I see it like this:
A "strategic" bomber in game is a plane which drops bombs from great height.
A "tactical" bomber is a plane which drops bombs in low-level-flight, or a dive-bomber, or attacking with different weapons like rockets or guns.

[Mark50]

I see it like this:
A "strategic" bomber in game is a plane which drops bombs from great height.
A "tactical" bomber is a plane which drops bombs in low-level-flight, or a dive-bomber, or attacking with different weapons like rockets or guns.

Yes, that`s kind of how I would define it. Thanks!

[KeldorKatarn]

Except that doesn't match the planes ingame either. but whatever.

[wargovichr]

It appears plane types in the game were designated according to the main use of the type while understanding that certain types like the twin engine JU-88 and four engine He-177 were equipped for and were used at times as dive bombers. So that would make them tactical bombers though their MAIN use was as level bombers. There were even "fighter" variants of the JU-88.
Likewise certain Allied fighters were also used as tactical (ground attack) fighter bombers though used mainly as air superiority type fighters.
There's always room for more variants under each category.

[Ralle]

Except that doesn't match the planes ingame either. but whatever.

It doesn`t match 100%, that`s true. But I think it comes very close to what the devs had in mind.

[KeldorKatarn]

It doesn't match it one bit. A lot of nations didn't have any dive bombers. Even Germany at one point discussed whether diving into the target makes any difference over flying level. And there's tons of level high flying tactical bombers in PzC. I can't really see the issue with just accepting that ther IS NO rule for it, and it was just game balancing that put the units where they are. But whatever

[edahl1980]

It appears plane types in the game were designated according to the main use of the type while understanding that certain types like the twin engine JU-88 and four engine He-177 were equipped for and were used at times as dive bombers. So that would make them tactical bombers though their MAIN use was as level bombers. There were even "fighter" variants of the JU-88.
Likewise certain Allied fighters were also used as tactical (ground attack) fighter bombers though used mainly as air superiority type fighters.
There's always room for more variants under each category.

He-177 had 2 engines?

[bebro]

IIRC it had both versions with 2 and 4 engines? However...

I'd differ into light/medium/heavy bombers. But if that's best for the game is another question, we could also start to differ all other units into simlar subcategories, and could end up complicating everything for little gain.

[wargovichr]

He-177 had 2 engines?

No, "quad-engined," two Daimler Benz 606 12 cylinder engines arranged side by side in each nacelle driving a single screw through a shared gearbox, with dive brakes mounted forward of Fowler wing flaps.
The improved streamlining and maneuverability gained was required for dive bombing attacks.
Yes, this crate was a 60° dive bomber.

[Ralle]

It doesn't match it one bit. A lot of nations didn't have any dive bombers. Even Germany at one point discussed whether diving into the target makes any difference over flying level. And there's tons of level high flying tactical bombers in PzC. I can't really see the issue with just accepting that ther IS NO rule for it, and it was just game balancing that put the units where they are. But whatever

The fact that effectivity of dive bombers was discussed in germany doesn`t proof my post wrong. And yes, there are high flying tactical bombers in the game. Also there are relatively low flying strategic bombers. In fact a lot, if not most German bombers in reality were more or less all tactical. As already mentioned even the bigger ones had dive bomber capabilities, which would make them a tactical bomber in game.
I didn`t mean my post to be a static rule, but more a general guidline, which I believe the Devs also had in mind. And sure what plane belongs to which category is a balance decision.
Also this really isn`t a topic to argue about I think.

[Mark50]

It doesn't match it one bit. A lot of nations didn't have any dive bombers. Even Germany at one point discussed whether diving into the target makes any difference over flying level. And there's tons of level high flying tactical bombers in PzC. I can't really see the issue with just accepting that ther IS NO rule for it, and it was just game balancing that put the units where they are. But whatever

The better question would be why is it so important to you that we don`t continue to search for a general logic behind the categorization of planes in game. The purpose of the tread was to distinguish the logic behind the game designer`s decisions or, failing that, to come up with a general logic for modding purposes. By your own admission you don`t believe there is (I agree that there might not be) or should be any rule (I`d still want to look for one) other than whatever feels right case by case to the person designing the equipment file. But that means this isn`t really the thread for you so instead of continuing to make these posts that end in "but whatever" perhaps you could take the bold decision to move on from this discussion? Your position has duly been noted, but I`d like to get back to the purpose of the topic now.

I didn`t mean my post to be a static rule, but more a general guidline, which I believe the Devs also had in mind. And sure what plane belongs to which category is a balance decision.
Also this really isn`t a topic to argue about I think.

I definitely did not intend it to be. In retrospect, the term "guideline" is probably the best way to define what I was trying to find. Thanks!