air war: zone or hex based?

[wosung]

Next question:

What about air war:

will it be

zone based?

hex based?
(where I have to move around the units)

range based?
(Where I point out the targets for strat/tactical bombing and the air2air combat is abstracted, like in War in the Pacific, The operational Art of war)

regards

[firepowerjohan]

Hex Based.

[SMK-at-work]

air needs to be both hex and area based IMO - things like general interdiction shuold be area based - no player wants to have to plot every hex that might be interdicted.

however airstrikes in support of particular attacks or defences can/should be hex-based.

[IainMcNeil]

Hmm that might be nice. We could reduce the movement of units within X hexes of enemy air power. Maybe we work out air superiority over each unit to make the calculation. Feeding it back to the player is probably the hardest part though....

[SMK-at-work]

Oddly enough I've got some ideas on how it might be done.

Aircraft have a range at which they can carry a full bomb load, and they have to carry less in order to fly further. Also the average density of aircraft is going to be less the further they are from base, and so there will be less chance of interdiction at range.

combining these 2 "real world" factors I believe a system along these lines would be useful:


1/ Interdiction is assessed each time a unit spends a movement point in a hex where there is a possibility of interdiction occuring

2/ interdiction is represented by a % chance of attack per hex moved or perhaps per movement point spent for every hex within range of a unit assigned to interdiction

3/ the effects of a unit assigned to interdiction are fixed out to some range from its base, then decrease with additional range

4/ the possibility and effects are affected by the ratio of each side's air superiority/patrol/intercept strength

5/ a player would know how much air superiority he had, roughly, and therefore some idea how much chance of enemy interdiction in a given area.

8/ interdiction chance and effect would be modified by terrain - natural defiles such as strategic movment along roads and railways should increase the chance and the effect, and the same in mountains and passes. Tactical movement over open terrain should mitigate the chance and effect. Dense transport nets should mitigate the effect, sparse transport nets should increase it. However these factors should also affect air superiority - if there's only 1 railroad then there's only 1 place to patrol - ditto for other constrictions such as cities and mountains - so perhaps they cancel out in terms of the chance of interdiction?

9/ Air superority affects the chance of interdiction, but not the effects

so there would be a fairly dynamic process of calculation the possibilities of interdiction for each hex for each enemy unit that could reach it. Then there's another process to calculate whether that chance actually occurs when a unit moves through that hex, anda 3rd process to determine what "damage" is done by the interdiction if it does occur.

Lasty there would be a process to assess losses to the airforces on each side. For example if interdiction failed because of the enemy air superiority then you might assign high losses to teh interdicting unit. If it succeeded because of escorts then you might assign higher losses to the defending fighters/air superiority units, and so forth.


I see the effects of interdiction being mainly on effectiveness/organisation and morale rather than strength per se - ie it disorders rather than kills.

[IainMcNeil]

It's kind of interesting. It probably could be bolted on later without too much trouble so we'll keep it on our wish list.

[uxbridge]

In designing board games way back we ran into many questions like this one: area or hex-based CAP (Combat Air Patrol), recon or interdiction systems. One solution we found for one of the games was a trade-off between the two.

Without knowing more about CEAW than can be read on the forum and in the diary, one stumbles a little in the dark here, but wouldn't a possible way to portay interdiction be that the player choose the air unit he wants to use, put it on interdiction and then simply attack a hex the same way he would a physical target. All interceptions from enemy CAP and other game functions used in a normal bombing takes place, after which the interdicting unit attacks the target hex. If it succeeds it leaves a "lingering effect" in the target hex, and a number of random surrounding hexes, that works mainly the way Stalin suggests.

This way, the solution may not upset the basic functions of the already programmed air-war parts of the game. Another advantage is that it will give the player a feeling that he does something game-wise instead of simply assigning a static air unit interdiction orders (the not-to-be-overlooked fun-factor).

[ungers_pride]

The way Strategic Command 1 handles air interdiction seems about right to me - it was area based. While specific user bombing was hex based.

[uxbridge]

I never played SC1, only SC2 which I enjoy much despite it's basic philosophy. In SC1, did you bomb hex-based in your own turn and interdicted automatically in your opponents? Or did you have to chose interdiction for it to happen?

[ungers_pride]

I never played SC1, only SC2 which I enjoy much despite it's basic philosophy. In SC1, did you bomb hex-based in your own turn and interdicted automatically in your opponents? Or did you have to chose interdiction for it to happen?

It was hex based when you bomb on your turn - ie you could select the target.

And interdiction happened automatically on your opponent's turn (provided your fighters were within the distance required to cause it to happen).

[uxbridge]

Well, it might suffice. The only thing I dislike about it is the loss of control on the interdicting players behalf. An opponent who knows how things is done, begins by moving some unimportant unit to attract interdictors, while the really important units goes last. If the interdicting player instead marks the area he's concerned about during his turn, as I suggested above, this couldn't be done.

[ungers_pride]

Well, it might suffice. The only thing I dislike about it is the loss of control on the interdicting players behalf. An opponent who knows how things is done, begins by moving some unimportant unit to attract interdictors, while the really important units goes last. If the interdicting player instead marks the area he's concerned about during his turn, as I suggested above, this couldn't be done.

The interdiction occurs only if your fighters are within range of the specific target (s) of the enemy fighters or bombers. Your opponent would need to know where your fighters were located to pull off anything gamey.

Even so, all you would need to do would be to move your fighters out of range of the targets to avoid interdiction.

Also, in SC1 no interdiction occurs when your fighter group falls below 5 strength (out of 10).

I would even suggest having a menu that would pop up when you right click on a fighter group and select an action:

* No interdiction

* Interdict enemy bombers

* Escort bombers

* Support ground combat

[uxbridge]

Yes, the last is very good. Why not increase the list slightly:

Automatic behavior (react to first enemy action)
Interdict enemy movements
Intercept bombers
General ground support
Protect area (when this is chosen the player can indicate mega-hex)
Intercept enemy naval movement
Stay grounded

It would be even more interesting if one could mark several actions at once. Like intercept naval movement or bombers (whichever occurs first).