Change to Overwhelming Late Game Airbase
May 28, 2019 15:38:43 GMT -6
skor81, akosjaccik, and 1 more like this
Post by mycophobia on May 28, 2019 15:38:43 GMT -6
There was several post in the main discussion board regarding the clutter of late game air bases in Mediterranean and how that have been game breaking for some players. I haven't encountered these issues at a game breaking level but I can see where they are coming from based on my own experience as well. Thus I will try to summarize the problem that many player are experiencing and try to present a couple solution that I think could help with the issue.
The issue is mainly two fold:
1. Air battle occurring in the background drags on the scenario, even long after the surface fleet have retreated to port or are otherwise no longer relevant. This drags on battles and make for a very tedious wait for nothing gained.
2.Excessive air presence in small confined areas rendered most surface fleet either useless, or battle becomes simply fending off waves of aircrafts/wait for player aircraft to carry the day that is essentially an automated process with little player input.
IMO, the underlying problem that cause these two issue are as follows:
1. Airbase irrelevant to the current battle still sends out strikes against other air base also irrelevant to the battle. Damage thus suffered also have no impact to the battle as a whole, but the fact that they happen drags on the scenario.
2. Airbase cannot be effective destroyed or effectively neutralized strategically, destroying them in tactical battle is also generally impractical.
3. Too many airbases can build in the Mediterranean area, which have far more possession and port than any other area, all focused in a much smaller area compared to most other sea regions.
Before dealing with possible remedy in the situation, I believe land based air raids should remain deadly in confined waters. However, player should be left with options to deal with them. These options should also touch the resource management, and more preferably the naval combat portion of the game, areas with player agency, rather than the air battle portion. Thus I believe it is important to allow player means to neutralize air bases through naval action, and failing that, a way for player to divert resource to combat air bases without leaving it to the bases stealing all the action in an actual naval engagement(Akin to how submarines are handled).
The problem with airbase I see it, is that unlike submarine, they are a passive strategic resource investment that prove decisive in the tactical phase of the game. At the same time, they cannot be neutralized either through player action in the tactical phase, or through player strategic investment in the strategic phase like submarines. As a result, they have a huge impact in the late game, but provide players with little meaningful interactions.
As a result, I believe there is a few changes that can be made to remedy the situation.
1. Limit the max amount of air base that can be build in one poession/sea region
This is probably the simplest fix and will likely remedy the situation many player are having with the Mediterranean. This can reduce the huge amount of aircraft and overlapping coverage that will happen in late game Mediterranean. With less bases, there will also be less air strikes directed at installation completely irrelevant to the current battle. The impact to other regions are likely limited since they usually don't see the ridiculous amount of bases as Mediterranean.
2. Allow disabling and permanent destruction of air bases.
Make airbase destructible through naval missions, these should be missions that begin at night and spawn you near enemy airbase in the region(much like land bombardment). They should have a good chance of happening in regions with ongoing invasions or just a lot of enemy base. Any airbase destroyed either in these missions or over course of other scenarios should be out of commission for a month or two, but more importantly have its size permanently decreased by about 2 levels, if the base is small enough it is permanently destroyed. All air groups stationed should be destroyed and reset to green exp, potentially with less planes.
This makes a lot of sense from a historical sense since airbases are often prime target for land bombardment if they can be reached(E.g Henderson Field). While I understand they are a lot easier to repair in real life, I think its important for player be giving a chance to neutralize enemy air force over many battles and gradually shift enemy aerial dominance. It is totally fine for battles in the Mediterranean without air superiority to be an uphill struggle, and the player maybe forced to decline many day engagements. But giving player a chance to change that with night time raids will at least give player agency and motivation to fight in these environments rather than avoiding combat due to overwhelming air power.
3. Changing how Air Base Suppression Work
When choosing to "supress airbase" before a battle, rather than having your base launch rather ineffective raids against enemy bases, and causing incessant background air battle, I feel its better for the "suppression" to be calculated prior to battle. Given the relative strength of air groups in the region and plane/pilot quality, if "supress airbase" is selected, a certain portion of planes in enemy airgroups in range of friendly base(or just the region in general) should automatically be set to "destroyed" at the start of the scenario. If one airforce is sufficiently strong, certain enemy base could even be knocked out of action at the start of the scenario, allowing player to take that into account in plotting their course.
This means it is meaningful to build up your airforce in the region to combat the enemy, and will help mediate the lack of player agency in later battles caused by unrelated background airstrikes. In fact I think this "pre-battle" loss should be applied regardless of airbase mission chosen before the battle, but being more powerful if "supress base" is chosen. In a sense, this is like how ASW is handled in current game. If airbasing is a strategic investment that can tip tactical battle, than it only makes sense to have strategic investment that can tip the scale back.
While it can also work to have air base battle happen in the tactical phase, the full automated nature of current air battles have very little player input and does not make for an engaging player experience. Having player make strategic decision to build bases, station fighters, etc to counter enemy air base at least allows player decision making to take a more active role without shifting the focus of the tactical phase away from naval engagements.
4. Attrition of Aircrafts
Aircraft loss should be simulated. This does not have to be something the player had to control. Rather,a nation can simply get x plane per turn given the nation's base resource/tech level, used to replenish its air groups. As a result, it will be possible to "wear out" an enemy's airforce over time.
To give naval asset even more impact, id also recommend that any "Shortage" events, unrest, blockade all negatively contribute to the air planes being available. As far as I know, the game currently damage/destroy a certain number of aircrafts at the start of the game based on reliability of the aircraft. I suggest this chance be further modified by ongoing blockade/raiders/shortages/unrest. In essence, it allows the player to counter air asset by using his naval asset and give raiding and shortage even more impact than they do now later on in the game. It is not difficult to imagine that if say, Regia Aeronautica dominated the Mediterranean and makes it very difficult for surface fleet to enter, Italy's fuel supply can be cut off by a raiding/blockading campaign in order to render the airforce impotent or at least less prevalent.
5. More Active Friendly Air Escorts
Airbase should also be more willing to send out escorts to friendly ships, a message should exist at battle selection if air escort was arranged with the airbase at the start of battle, though they maybe send later in any scenarios as well(though they may not necessarily be reliable). Therefore, it gives player incentive to fight in the protective bubble of their own land based air.
I know the team wish to recreate the historical unreliability of naval air arm coordination, but this can also be simulated with scenarios where air-escort are present being rare. So player have to endure VP loss in refusing battle until they get one where they have escort, or take the risk and going in without. This is not a perfect solution but can help make the player feel more inclined to bring their fleet out in areas with lots of enemy land based air.
I hope the team can take these ideas into consideration in remedying the situation with late game air bases.
The issue is mainly two fold:
1. Air battle occurring in the background drags on the scenario, even long after the surface fleet have retreated to port or are otherwise no longer relevant. This drags on battles and make for a very tedious wait for nothing gained.
2.Excessive air presence in small confined areas rendered most surface fleet either useless, or battle becomes simply fending off waves of aircrafts/wait for player aircraft to carry the day that is essentially an automated process with little player input.
IMO, the underlying problem that cause these two issue are as follows:
1. Airbase irrelevant to the current battle still sends out strikes against other air base also irrelevant to the battle. Damage thus suffered also have no impact to the battle as a whole, but the fact that they happen drags on the scenario.
2. Airbase cannot be effective destroyed or effectively neutralized strategically, destroying them in tactical battle is also generally impractical.
3. Too many airbases can build in the Mediterranean area, which have far more possession and port than any other area, all focused in a much smaller area compared to most other sea regions.
Before dealing with possible remedy in the situation, I believe land based air raids should remain deadly in confined waters. However, player should be left with options to deal with them. These options should also touch the resource management, and more preferably the naval combat portion of the game, areas with player agency, rather than the air battle portion. Thus I believe it is important to allow player means to neutralize air bases through naval action, and failing that, a way for player to divert resource to combat air bases without leaving it to the bases stealing all the action in an actual naval engagement(Akin to how submarines are handled).
The problem with airbase I see it, is that unlike submarine, they are a passive strategic resource investment that prove decisive in the tactical phase of the game. At the same time, they cannot be neutralized either through player action in the tactical phase, or through player strategic investment in the strategic phase like submarines. As a result, they have a huge impact in the late game, but provide players with little meaningful interactions.
As a result, I believe there is a few changes that can be made to remedy the situation.
1. Limit the max amount of air base that can be build in one poession/sea region
This is probably the simplest fix and will likely remedy the situation many player are having with the Mediterranean. This can reduce the huge amount of aircraft and overlapping coverage that will happen in late game Mediterranean. With less bases, there will also be less air strikes directed at installation completely irrelevant to the current battle. The impact to other regions are likely limited since they usually don't see the ridiculous amount of bases as Mediterranean.
2. Allow disabling and permanent destruction of air bases.
Make airbase destructible through naval missions, these should be missions that begin at night and spawn you near enemy airbase in the region(much like land bombardment). They should have a good chance of happening in regions with ongoing invasions or just a lot of enemy base. Any airbase destroyed either in these missions or over course of other scenarios should be out of commission for a month or two, but more importantly have its size permanently decreased by about 2 levels, if the base is small enough it is permanently destroyed. All air groups stationed should be destroyed and reset to green exp, potentially with less planes.
This makes a lot of sense from a historical sense since airbases are often prime target for land bombardment if they can be reached(E.g Henderson Field). While I understand they are a lot easier to repair in real life, I think its important for player be giving a chance to neutralize enemy air force over many battles and gradually shift enemy aerial dominance. It is totally fine for battles in the Mediterranean without air superiority to be an uphill struggle, and the player maybe forced to decline many day engagements. But giving player a chance to change that with night time raids will at least give player agency and motivation to fight in these environments rather than avoiding combat due to overwhelming air power.
3. Changing how Air Base Suppression Work
When choosing to "supress airbase" before a battle, rather than having your base launch rather ineffective raids against enemy bases, and causing incessant background air battle, I feel its better for the "suppression" to be calculated prior to battle. Given the relative strength of air groups in the region and plane/pilot quality, if "supress airbase" is selected, a certain portion of planes in enemy airgroups in range of friendly base(or just the region in general) should automatically be set to "destroyed" at the start of the scenario. If one airforce is sufficiently strong, certain enemy base could even be knocked out of action at the start of the scenario, allowing player to take that into account in plotting their course.
This means it is meaningful to build up your airforce in the region to combat the enemy, and will help mediate the lack of player agency in later battles caused by unrelated background airstrikes. In fact I think this "pre-battle" loss should be applied regardless of airbase mission chosen before the battle, but being more powerful if "supress base" is chosen. In a sense, this is like how ASW is handled in current game. If airbasing is a strategic investment that can tip tactical battle, than it only makes sense to have strategic investment that can tip the scale back.
While it can also work to have air base battle happen in the tactical phase, the full automated nature of current air battles have very little player input and does not make for an engaging player experience. Having player make strategic decision to build bases, station fighters, etc to counter enemy air base at least allows player decision making to take a more active role without shifting the focus of the tactical phase away from naval engagements.
4. Attrition of Aircrafts
Aircraft loss should be simulated. This does not have to be something the player had to control. Rather,a nation can simply get x plane per turn given the nation's base resource/tech level, used to replenish its air groups. As a result, it will be possible to "wear out" an enemy's airforce over time.
To give naval asset even more impact, id also recommend that any "Shortage" events, unrest, blockade all negatively contribute to the air planes being available. As far as I know, the game currently damage/destroy a certain number of aircrafts at the start of the game based on reliability of the aircraft. I suggest this chance be further modified by ongoing blockade/raiders/shortages/unrest. In essence, it allows the player to counter air asset by using his naval asset and give raiding and shortage even more impact than they do now later on in the game. It is not difficult to imagine that if say, Regia Aeronautica dominated the Mediterranean and makes it very difficult for surface fleet to enter, Italy's fuel supply can be cut off by a raiding/blockading campaign in order to render the airforce impotent or at least less prevalent.
5. More Active Friendly Air Escorts
Airbase should also be more willing to send out escorts to friendly ships, a message should exist at battle selection if air escort was arranged with the airbase at the start of battle, though they maybe send later in any scenarios as well(though they may not necessarily be reliable). Therefore, it gives player incentive to fight in the protective bubble of their own land based air.
I know the team wish to recreate the historical unreliability of naval air arm coordination, but this can also be simulated with scenarios where air-escort are present being rare. So player have to endure VP loss in refusing battle until they get one where they have escort, or take the risk and going in without. This is not a perfect solution but can help make the player feel more inclined to bring their fleet out in areas with lots of enemy land based air.
I hope the team can take these ideas into consideration in remedying the situation with late game air bases.