is aircraft worth it?

[Imp]

Originally Posted by Wdll

I don't even remember when it was the last time the AI attacked my artillery. I play single player often. The AI will attack my air defences some times, but not the other type of artillery.

What size game do you play & how much arty do you have compared to the AI. I always have less & would say it tries to hit it every 4 or 5 games, not sure as not thought about but think pretty rare in meetings probably because it does not normally have so much. Recent assault battle I did pre bombarded with smoke screen & AI hit my arty a couple of turns later with everything it had.

[Wdll]

I don't have much artillery. 3-4 platoons plus some mortars, in max size map and 30K wallet.

[Imp]

You must just be lucky then or conversely I am not, it does seem to depend what mood the AI is in but moving has saved me several times.

[Wdll]

Unless you have your units very close to the fire hexes, there is no way your arti will fire that far out.

[Uncle_Joe]

Hi all,

A bit late on the discussion, but I've just recently dug back into SP-MBT recently in resolving battles generated by GDW's The Third World War.

Anyways, I completely agree that aircraft in the game are generally not too terrible effective. I also agree with the reasons presented - namely that actual 'close support' really ISNT that effective within the time your average battle models.

Would it be possible to 'officially' reduce the point cost of the aircraft to model their in-game effectiveness (or lack there of ). Are the points flexible to that sort of 'fudge factor'? I wouldnt want to see them super cheap or anything, but if almost everyone (including the coders) agrees that they arent that effective, it would seem logical to have the points match the perceived effectiveness.

Has this been proposed before or is there some other reason for not wanting to do this?

Anyways, thanks again for all the hard work. Regardless of all the other tactical games that come out, we always come back to SP-WW2 and SP-MBT. The modeling is simply superior to so many other games which boast more bells and whistles.

[Imp]

If you think they are not cost effective why not just not buy them, if anything they are to cheap as making more expensive would mean people are less likely to use them.
Also the game bases cost on the units capabilities taking no acout of the useful battlefield info the pilot instantly radios to you.

[hoplitis]

Originally Posted by Uncle_Joe

Hi all,
...
Would it be possible to 'officially' reduce the point cost of the aircraft to model their in-game effectiveness (or lack there of ). Are the points flexible to that sort of 'fudge factor'?
...

If you create scenarios to represent the battles you can do whatever you please with the cost but if you use "sigle battles" you must change the relavent OOBs.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Uncle_Joe

Hi all,

A bit late on the discussion, but I've just recently dug back into SP-MBT recently in resolving battles generated by GDW's The Third World War.

Anyways, I completely agree that aircraft in the game are generally not too terrible effective. I also agree with the reasons presented - namely that actual 'close support' really ISNT that effective within the time your average battle models.

Would it be possible to 'officially' reduce the point cost of the aircraft to model their in-game effectiveness (or lack there of ). Are the points flexible to that sort of 'fudge factor'? I wouldnt want to see them super cheap or anything, but if almost everyone (including the coders) agrees that they arent that effective, it would seem logical to have the points match the perceived effectiveness.

Has this been proposed before or is there some other reason for not wanting to do this?

Anyways, thanks again for all the hard work. Regardless of all the other tactical games that come out, we always come back to SP-WW2 and SP-MBT. The modeling is simply superior to so many other games which boast more bells and whistles.

Well, the points calculator already reduces the points cost of planes well below what their "book" values would be compared to an equivalent MBT or helicopter. And level bombers are even cheaper, but they are meant as one-pass scenario design tools.

The expensive stuff with planes (and flak as the counterpart + AAA radars for them), and the thing they really require to be survivable on the modern battlefield are EW and stand-off missiles.

When examining the available planes or attack helos, don't look at the weapons load that much - first thing to look at is which ones have the highest EW, and then if they have stand-off weaponry. Then examine the enemy equipment for the date, and see if you have a decent chance against the enemy SAM and radar AAA (your EW is at least equal or preferably much better).

Trying to fly say some old mig-19 or Hunter with perhaps 1 or 2 EW points over an enemy with access to EW 6 or so AA is simply giving him a turkey shoot.

But since your arty is in range in SP battles, it is still generally speaking more cost effective than fixed-wing air support. Arty can only be countered with counter-battery fires.

Andy

[Wolf_Warrior]

Well, i played a scenario, Russia vs. Yugoslavia 1989.
I was on the Yugoslav side, and bought 70% MIG-29 with GROM TV-guided rockets,
and 30% M-84A MBT's and i had about 8-11 tanks, and nothing else.
The Russians had many MANPAD's and Tunguska SAM's. And their army,
6 pages full of infantry, tanks and APC's (I set the amount of "Money" to 10 000 for both of us, and all other settings were same for Yugos and russia) and i beat the crap out of them
I lost only 5 men on the ground (2 Tanks) and 5 planes. They lost 90% of their army due to MIG-29 and GROM's...

AIR POWER RULES!!!!!

[Wdll]

Did you have the setting for AI tank heavy ON? It is better to have it off.