Slitherine

Hello everyone, I have an idea that I first thought about years ago playing Panzer General.

We currently only have a single value for air attack with our air defence equipment, however, some equipment wasn't able to hit high altitude level bombers!

For instance the german 3.7cm Flak43 AA had an effective range of 15,000 feet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_FlaK_43) but the 88mm and 128mm AA had effective ranges of 25,000 feet and up to 48,000 feet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12.8_cm_FlaK_40).

So, I think it would be interesting to have a second anti-air attack value which would be a high-altitude air attack property so guns like the 88 and 128 will have a good number here, but the 20mm and american quad-50-cal gmmc and other smaller weapons will have a 0. Meaning they can't touch an air craft that flew above a certain threshold, maybe let's say 20,000 feet, unless they are defending a nearby unit that is being attacked by a fighter or tac bomber, which would be attacking at a low altitude and thus would be within range of the smaller calibre weapons.

What do you all think about this idea?

Also, will the flak towers the germans made be put into any future DLC? They would be very cool as they are still standing today. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flak_tower)

I'm afraid a fundamental change like this is out of the question - and, frankly, I don't think it'd be necessary.
A better way, in my opinion, would be a more generic approach.

Make unit traits that can give ANY unit an attack bonus against ANY unit class. While we're at it, why not make malus traits as well?

You could give (officialy, or at least in mods) "high altitude" flaks a bonus against strategic bombers and "low altitude" flaks a malus (of up to 100%).

This would have many other useful implications without breaking the system and/or changing it by introducing new numbers.
Just my $0.02.
_____
rezaf

There could be yet another way to address this, remember how in the original PG level bombers were divided into light medium and heavy with different suppression capabilities (another rule which i'd like to see in PC), AA guns could be divided in high alt and low alt with different bonuses or maluses.

slb79 wrote:There could be yet another way to address this, remember how in the original PG level bombers were divided into light medium and heavy with different suppression capabilities (another rule which i'd like to see in PC), AA guns could be divided in high alt and low alt with different bonuses or maluses.

Isn't this already covered by the attack values? Heavy bombers have higher attack values then light ones and so have a higher chance of suppression.

I'd tend to leave the system as it is for one simple gameplay reason (over realism). Implementing high altitude values will essentially "nerf" the lower caliber AA (by removing something they can do in the current ruleset, hitting level bombers - who are already hard to hit). At least on SP (I won't comment on MP, I don't play it), AA guns of any type are already under-employed (euphemism) - except for the 88 (largely because of its dual mode). Diminishing the role of the "weaker" ones even more will just make sure they'll never ever compete for a core slot again.

Tarrak:
True I was wrong to only metion suppression, but I would like to see real differencies between strategic bombers in their ability to destroy ammo fuel and neutralize cities. There is the level bombing efficiency stat but I think it has to do only with experience and overstrengthening and it does not reflect different payloads (anyway this is another topic I only mentioned it because it came to mind).

kjeld111:
Low alt AA could have a bonus against tac bombers so they could be more useful. I agree though changes like this need rebalancing and the current system is not bad.

Ok it looks like it's something for the too-hard basket for now.

However, has anyone considered the inclusion or validity of having big flak towers defending berlin and other other large german cities?

rezaf wrote:I'm afraid a fundamental change like this is out of the question - and, frankly, I don't think it'd be necessary.
A better way, in my opinion, would be a more generic approach.

Make unit traits that can give ANY unit an attack bonus against ANY unit class. While we're at it, why not make malus traits as well?

You could give (officialy, or at least in mods) "high altitude" flaks a bonus against strategic bombers and "low altitude" flaks a malus (of up to 100%).

This would have many other useful implications without breaking the system and/or changing it by introducing new numbers.
Just my $0.02.
_____
rezaf

I agree Rezaf. It would take the devs adding traits to the existing ADD Traits column in the equipment file or allowing the traits to be built/modified in the editor. Might be too much to wish for tho.

I dunno BriteLite, I seriously hope additional traits will be considered.
I don't think they're critical, and it'd be totally cool to only get them in DLC, expansions or even a sequel, but I think they're a really sound way to make stuff possible without messing with the basic combat statistics.
Maybe, if enough people support the idea, Rudankort will be inclined to work on them at some point.

Short-term, I can totally live without them.
_____
rezaf

Well, you identify a problem, which is: Air Defense doesn't hit Level Bombers.

So first of all it is a question, whether this is a problem at all. I think Level Bombers work pretty much as intended. They are a valuable tool, but have a more strategic effect by offering suppression and reducing prestige, than an active combat role. Their effectiveness against targets isn't very big, except for naval units. Therefore, they have better ground defense values and arent as easily shot down by fighters.

If the problem is that air defense doesn't hit level bombers, you can cure the problem by tuning the ground defense values of the bombers, and the air attack values of the air defense.

Adding high and low air attack values will influence fighters and tacticals as well, and all other units that can defend themselves against air units, like engineers.

So to battle a perceived balancing problem you want to complicate the game, implement something that might or might not offer a solution, and probably create more problems than it solves.

Therefore, my comment to this proposal is a resounding "No, thank you".

EDIT: Concerning Flak Tower, well, that is a good idea. For those who don't know what this is, take a look at this german article,
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_ ... _St._Pauli where you will see a picture of these monsters. They had walls 3,5 meters thick and a roof 5 meters think. Armament was 4 10.5 cm Flak, later 4 12.8 cm Twin-Flak. There was enough room planned for 18.000 civilians, but indeed a lot more sought shelter in there during the bombing raids.

From a gaming perspective it'd be interesting how to implement these, but I guess they's be best suited for a city type of scenario.

EDIT2: Another link: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiener_Flakt%C3%BCrme. Apparently, these towers were only built in Hamburg, Berlin and Vienna.

The Bunker in Tiergarten was meant to be demolished. However, the first two attempts with 24 and 25 tons of dynamite failed. In 1948, another try with 40 tons was successful.

The military effect of the towers, however, was rather negligible, although they had a range of 20km on a clear day.