Idiocy

Easterner · Post by **Easterner** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:22 am

Unless I'm missing something air units have endurance. i.e. after taking off and flying a week or so they run out of fuel and crash.

This is utter non-sense. I just saw an Me109 with a range of 1 vanish. At this scale the planes would be flying Multi-sorties and constantly landing and re-arming. Endurance should be unlimited for air/naval units at this scale. None were lost en-mass because eager staffs took care of such things.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:58 am

This is just a game mechanic. All of the units in the game are unrealsitics as are ranges. YOu never had hundreds of Tigers in one place or hundreds of 22 scout cars. All units had a variety of arms because each has a role. You're playing a game with tactical weapons and effects on a strategic scale which was always the core of the Panzer General design and somethign we have chosen to follow. If you don't lilke the approach then the game may not appeal. If you can just live with it then it all starts to make sense and feel cohesive.

Easterner · Post by **Easterner** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:04 am

PG planes didn't fall from sky. Air endurance is a gimmick to mimic operational limits. Better to reduce ordnance. It's bad game design, no air units of this size ever lost to fuel. More planes lost to ground over runs that don't happen here than to non-combat fuel loss.

I'm not here to sugarcoat this beta and tell you what geniuses you are. I'm here to tell you what works and what doesn't. This doesn't work! It adds logistic work to player they don't need on a non-existent real life situation. If you want to penalize air. remove them for 2 turns then return as reinforcements. Speaking of which the reinforcement system is awful, needs to get more PG2-ish with multi-builds and a pool to store them in until needed on the map. Build, place system now in use too long and requires too much clicking.

Other than these two issues I'm liking what you've done. Play is tough.

adherbal · Post by **adherbal** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:58 am

I'm not really fond of the air units system myself. It might get better if we have warning symbols for low fuel/ammo states, but having planes fall out of the sky does feel a little strange.

On the other hand it's something PG players will be used to, so making changes might not be good.

One alternative idea would be to have a flight zone around each of your airfields. Your aircraft can only operate within this zone (OR they get auto supply within this zone, while fuel drops fast when outside). This would also make airfields much more important targets in order to maintain air coverage during an offensive.

boredatwork · Post by **boredatwork** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:31 pm

adherbal wrote:One alternative idea would be to have a flight zone around each of your airfields. Your aircraft can only operate within this zone (OR they get auto supply within this zone, while fuel drops fast when outside). This would also make airfields much more important targets in order to maintain air coverage during an offensive.

I was going to suggest something similar - make the "fuel" number a fixed radius that a given aircraft could operate away from an airfield. They could still move beyond that radius (for redeployment purposes) but wouldn't be able to spot, attack, or escort outside of it. That way you could keep the similution that Me109s are very short ranged while B-24s can cover an entire map.

Easterner · Post by **Easterner** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:04 pm

That is an outstanding idea. If aircraft had unlimited Movement allowance from a base but limited range from them it would be more accurate reflection of air use at this scale of map and days per turn.

It always bugged me that it took 3 days for planes to fly across PG2 map but could then hangout 3-7 days after getting there.

comradep · Post by **comradep** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:51 pm

I''m not sure the system with an air unit range limited around airfields is going to work, the maps might still be too small at least in some cases.

PG2's scale was essentially at its highest operational, so there was no fuel requirement as planes could realistically fly from their airfields to a target area and back in a single day, yet you were still restricted by the movement limits of your air force.

I als agree that it was kind of odd that it took your air force a couple of turns to get to the other side of the map, after which they could pummel the enemy for 5 turns or so before needing to return.

Some sort of air range system to cure some of the PG series deficiencies would be nice, but it would have to be carefully finetuned to the size of the map.

I'd be in favour of reducing the ammunition of bombers, though, possibly paired with bombers not using ammunition when defending (because they're using their MG's, not their bombs).

Easterner · Post by **Easterner** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:01 pm

Haven't seen enough of maps to know with certainty but fighters would be problem on almost any map. Most Euro fighters flew 350 miles. i.e. Calais to London, hang for ten minutes then scoot back. So Norway and France maps would have issues.

boredatwork · Post by **boredatwork** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:30 pm

An alternative, simpler solution might be to simply have aircraft expend fuel as they currently do and when they run out instead of crashing they are simply unable to spot/attack/escort until returning to base to refuel. All fuel values would be approximately halved in compensation. That would I think would keep the representation that air units operating from closer airfields are able to provide more effective support due to reduced transit times without having the annoyance of realizing you forgot to move your Me109 back to base last turn and consequently will crash as the end of this turn.

As for scaling with maps - IIRC Pacific general on some island maps essentially scaled naval bombardment ranges by 3x - you could have a scenario scaling factor so if you had large maps or small scale maps you could adjust aircraft movement speeds and ranges accordingly.

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:06 am

How would this system show the strength a P-51 has over a 109 because of it's extreme range capabilities?

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:10 am

comradep wrote:I'd be in favour of reducing the ammunition of bombers, though, possibly paired with bombers not using ammunition when defending (because they're using their MG's, not their bombs).

That could be representative of bombers jettisoning their ordinance when jumped by fighters. That's historically accurate. Personally I would like to see units with multiple ammo types that you can choose between(shouldn't be able to drain a low ammo IS-2 with only infantry attacks) but that's probably going into areas too complex for a Panzer General type strategy game.

comradep · Post by **comradep** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:59 pm

That could be representative of bombers jettisoning their ordinance when jumped by fighters. That's historically accurate.

It can also in some cases leave them completely defenseless, a key PG series problem with bombers and not historically accurate.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:00 am

The air model is not ideal but its a compromise between making it easy to use and play and realistic. We could use a model that had air units based at an airport and never leaving it except on sorties, basically like we do in the Commander series but its very diffferent to PG.

Easterner · Post by **Easterner** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:31 am

Switch them to 0/0 like leg infantry and reduce ammo so they need rebase and rearm more. PG2 had no fuel limits on air.

Heavy bombers should have 2-3 ammo reflecting very long flight radius from far bases.

Medium bombers 3-4 ammo

Light bombers 4-6 (add Hs123 with 9 bomb and 1 vs hard 2 vs soft attack) Guderian's favorite close support but carried joke bombs, operated from cow pastures a few miles behind front.

Fighters 4-6

comradep · Post by **comradep** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:35 pm

PG2 had no fuel limits on air.

Like I said before, PG 2 was at most operational scale. You were not generally invading entire countries like in PG.

Easterner · Post by **Easterner** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:18 am

And this is more strategic in scale. As you go up details blur, down they get added. That is why fuel is unpopular on planes here. Your at original PG scale yet adding a tactical feature more in line with a Battle of Britain or Bombing the Reich game.

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:13 am

Easterner wrote:And this is more strategic in scale. As you go up details blur, down they get added. That is why fuel is unpopular on planes here. Your at original PG scale yet adding a tactical feature more in line with a Battle of Britain or Bombing the Reich game.

For the record, fuel for planes and "crashing" of planes when they run out of fuel is one of characteristic features of the original PG. This is not something we invented.

Here is what I think about all this.

First, on PzC scale especially it is important to limit plane range. If your map is 5x5 km in size, you can, in principle, hit any hex with your planes, you are only limited by ammo. So, what PG2 did might be logical. But when, for example, you play the entire Sea Lion, it makes perfect sense to show the fact that certain areas were out of reach for german planes. It does not matter if your unit models 1 or 1000 planes, technical limitation (fuel range) is the same for all of them, and if they exceed it, they won't be able to return home.

That is one reason why I think that PG2 model will not work in PzC. I also don't like the fact that with no fuel limitation fighters can perform certain duties, like scouting, bomber cover and supply disruption indefinitely, without ever returning to base. These tasks do not involve spending ammo.

Yes we can remove fuel and instead tie planes to a certain radius around airfield bases, as was suggested above. But I don't see what we are going to gain with this approach, and there are two problems with it:
- It will require special UI and special rules which players will have to master (like rebasing planes from one airfield to another). Now planes work exactly as ground units, and this is easier for casual players
- It will detract flexibility from the game. Now you can send the plane out of airfield range if you plan to capture more airfields during the next few turns. If you bind all planes to bases, the game becomes more rigid.

At the same time, I think that the current scheme is quite adequate. It models the fact that the range of plane is limited, and it also models the fact that the further an object is away from your air bases, the less strikes you can deliver on it per day. So, in average, it should have pretty much the same effect as a more accurate model, with bases, sorties, air missions etc. And, as I said above, the player will not have to learn new controls and rules to use his planes.

One thing which could be improved in our current implementation is crashing. It just looks a bit too severe by modern game standards, and at the same time it is easy to forget about it or miscalculate the range etc. So instead, I would suggest the following model: when a plane runs out of fuel, it gets:
- zero spotting range (same as in rain/snow)
- zero attack ratings
This way we make sure the plane will not be used for scouting or bomber cover outside its normal range, and it will also become very vulnerable to enemy attacks, so there will be strong reason to return it to base asap. This looks a bit too artificial to my taste, but gameplay-wise should work quite well.

An alternative idea: when a plane runs out of fuel, it begins to lose one strength point per turn, which would model "occasional" out-of-fuel crashes if you fly the unit outside its normal range.

PS. BTW, if any of the modders wants to have PG2 scheme in PzC, all he needs to do is assign MaxFuel=0 to his planes, and they won't have any fuel limitations.

Easterner · Post by **Easterner** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:39 am

I need a dead horse emoticon.

NO NO NO!!!!!!!

Someone is not listening or I'm not being clear. Fuel is inaccurate at this scale irregardless of original PG; a DOS game. Limit the ammo and planes will have to return to base to rearm. WHAT is so hard about that concept? It limits the air, I don't have to do staff work in a game where no other exists and planes don't crash and vanish. This problem is exacerbated by the tiny icons in general and the microscopic ones of a shared hex. Yes I just lost another fighter in KIEV, it got lost in the shuffle.

Further no one plays PG anymore, it launched a franchise, your re-doing it, so make it better. But PG2 is still played to this day and modders still bringing out new versions. So that speaks to PG vs. PG2 approach to design success. Personally I think PG 2 planes often have too much ammo.

But let us say you've chosen your hill to die on, Hill Fuel Limits 1, Get a staff weenie to assist us. If plane moved out of range it flashes RED so player can undo or sends an out of fuel message Do you wish to reconsider message. Further if plane is on last possible turn it should flash yellow so it can't be missed and safely returned.

Rudankort · Post by **Rudankort** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:36 pm

Easterner wrote: Someone is not listening or I'm not being clear. Fuel is inaccurate at this scale irregardless of original PG; a DOS game. Limit the ammo and planes will have to return to base to rearm. WHAT is so hard about that concept?

I'm not sure I understand your logic. In the first message of this thread you said yourself: "At this scale the planes would be flying Multi-sorties and constantly landing and re-arming." If we agree that fuel is not realistic on this scale, how can ammo be realistic? If we force the player to return the planes to the base, I think it is logical that all resources (both fuel and ammo) are replenished at this point. We can assume that (for the sake of simplicity) all sorties done by an air unit in the course of several turns are averaged in a single sortie which you see in the game. This is logical. But if you keep one resource (ammo) and discard the other one (fuel), it is not logical any more.

There is nothing hard about the PG2 concept, but I think I explained above why I don't like it. And I also posted some suggestions how to improve the situation and avoid occasional loss of planes. You didn't answer to these points specifically, but as I understand, you don't agree with me. You like PG2 system more, this is fine. Your vote is counted.

Now I'm willing to hear some more opinions.

comradep · Post by **comradep** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:36 pm

And this is more strategic in scale. As you go up details blur, down they get added. That is why fuel is unpopular on planes here. Your at original PG scale yet adding a tactical feature more in line with a Battle of Britain or Bombing the Reich game.

Sorry, but I don't buy what you're trying to sell here.

In PG2, the entire map was usually in the realistic range of a plane type. In PG, PacGen or this game, not so much. That's why there should be a limit on the fuel of the unit, or at least a limit to its mobility. We are playing at Battle of Britain or to a certain extent Bombing the Reich scale...

Also: I fail to see how you can lose an air unit if you're paying attention. How difficult is it to keep track of 4, maybe 8 air units, many with pretty generous fuel reserves? The only time in previous PG titles I lost air to crashing is when their movement was blocked (you can trap air units in their hex, which can be an efficient way of getting rid of a good enemy plane that is normally too tough to attack).

Idiocy

Idiocy

Air

Air

Re: Air