|
|
Post by tbr on Jun 13, 2019 16:38:01 GMT -6
One big problem with land installations, especially airbases, is that they are persistent strategically, no matter what happens to them in any of the battles. But if a "destruction" of a land installation would result in a "strategic" damage like we see for damaged ships this would change. Damaged coastal batteries would get a "4" for outright destruction in a tactical battle (i.e. only be repaired after 4 turns) and relatively lower turn numbers for lesser damage. For airbases damage should work as a reduction of their capacity (i.e. not keep them from being generated in tactical battles), so that a 120 airbase with a "2" would get a two level penalty to capacity for any battle it is generated in. This would be realized as a flat "destroyed" penalty on any squadrond at the start of the battle before any additional "normal" air readiness calculation, e.g. a squadron on this base with 20 planes in this case would spawn with one third of its planes (rounded up to 7) "destroyed". Damage to airbases could accumulate up to their full level over multiple battles (i.e. a "6" for a 120 airbase that has been fully destroyed in a battle it has started with "2" or higher damage level) and any damage to an airbase significant enopugh for at least a "1" should retard repair for that turn.
Adding in bombardment missions that target coastal batteries and/or airbases (perhaps even multiple co-located installations in one battle) would then result in us being able to experience "campaigns" like Guadacanal with progressive reduction of enemy defence installations. We would also have a naturally progressing reduction of the "thunderdome" effect when land airbases damage each other and their effective strength is reduced over the progress of multiple battles.
|
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Jun 13, 2019 19:18:48 GMT -6
I concur wholeheartedly with this idea. Installations need to take strategic damage that affect them on the next turn and it all needs to be tracked. Way excellent idea, tbr! |
|
|
|
Post by mobeer on Jun 14, 2019 12:13:36 GMT -6
With 1 turn per month even a totally wrecked airfield would be repaired before the next turn (month)
|
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jun 14, 2019 12:42:31 GMT -6
Frederick have said before that the reason why Airbase cant be strategically damaged is that they are often very easy to repair. Coastal battery are also rarely completely levelled to the point that require significant rebuild.
While reasonable from a realism perspective I think it needs to be balanced against the airbase issue of this game. Many have suggested incorporation of aircraft attrition to the game, and I think any airbase bombardment, if not damaging/destroying the airbase, needs to at least wipe out or seriously damage its airwings which will take longer to repair than the run-way itself. Its also not hard to imagine damaging to maintence/fuel supply infrastructure of their airbase can impact its ability to operate large air wings, even if basic air operation can resume very quickly with minimal repair.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 14, 2019 14:17:07 GMT -6
Frederick have said before that the reason why Airbase cant be strategically damaged is that they are often very easy to repair. Coastal battery are also rarely completely levelled to the point that require significant rebuild. While reasonable from a realism perspective I think it needs to be balanced against the airbase issue of this game. Many have suggested incorporation of aircraft attrition to the game, and I think any airbase bombardment, if not damaging/destroying the airbase, needs to at least wipe out or seriously damage its airwings which will take longer to repair than the run-way itself. Its also not hard to imagine damaging to maintence/fuel supply infrastructure of their airbase can impact its ability to operate large air wings, even if basic air operation can resume very quickly with minimal repair. One of patches set up unoperational aicrafts at naval air stations. |
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Jun 14, 2019 15:13:54 GMT -6
Frederick have said before that the reason why Airbase cant be strategically damaged is that they are often very easy to repair. Coastal battery are also rarely completely levelled to the point that require significant rebuild. While reasonable from a realism perspective I think it needs to be balanced against the airbase issue of this game. Many have suggested incorporation of aircraft attrition to the game, and I think any airbase bombardment, if not damaging/destroying the airbase, needs to at least wipe out or seriously damage its airwings which will take longer to repair than the run-way itself. Its also not hard to imagine damaging to maintence/fuel supply infrastructure of their airbase can impact its ability to operate large air wings, even if basic air operation can resume very quickly with minimal repair. One of patches set up unoperational aicrafts at naval air stations. I am aware, and agree its a welcoming change. I haven't had a chance to see how much it'd impact it'd have but I don't see that it fully resolve issues around aircraft. Based on my understanding unoperational aircraft in airbase is being influenced by presence of enemy airbase and maybe a base factor. It makes investing in air base an effective counter to what is otherwise untouchable pre-patch. Still I believe there needs to be system that allows the destruction or at least depletion of enemy air through other means. Right now you need to be able to build your own airbase to counter enemy air base, this is not always possible. I feel at the very least, successful night time shelling campaign of enemy air base should serve as an effective method to take out enemy airforce over time. |
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jun 14, 2019 18:03:53 GMT -6
Frederick have said before that the reason why Airbase cant be strategically damaged is that they are often very easy to repair. Coastal battery are also rarely completely levelled to the point that require significant rebuild. While reasonable from a realism perspective I think it needs to be balanced against the airbase issue of this game. Many have suggested incorporation of aircraft attrition to the game, and I think any airbase bombardment, if not damaging/destroying the airbase, needs to at least wipe out or seriously damage its airwings which will take longer to repair than the run-way itself. Its also not hard to imagine damaging to maintence/fuel supply infrastructure of their airbase can impact its ability to operate large air wings, even if basic air operation can resume very quickly with minimal repair. This might be true about the facilities themselves, but if one looks at the Guadacanal campaign one can see the effect of bombardment like I describe. The base looses aircraft, maintenance personnell, fuel, spares and support szstems like bulldozers, aircraft tugs etc, all resulting in an effectively lower "strength" of its air complement. The idea here is to simulate these effects by "damaging" the base gradually. |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Jun 15, 2019 8:08:54 GMT -6
with large coastal batteries the turrets could be blown to pieces or the firecontrol section destroyed this would cost and take time to repair
another example is turreted coastal guns a direct hit would take out the turret and the turret would need to either be replaced or repaired
|
|
