is aircraft worth it?

[Suhiir]

I'd like to see the AI buy perhaps half as many MANPADs as it usually does. Course I'd also like to see the AI not buy an arty battery for every inf bn as well

As to friendly MANPADs...I upped the number of missiles from 2 to 4 on my teams, but left their ROF at 2...this doesn't effect their cost much and makes them twice as effective so I can keep the number of friendly ones down to a "realistic" number.

My thought is that if the opposition air threat was as severe as the AI's tends to be when it sends in the 6-10 airfraft runs it favors chances are extra missiles would be on-hand so its "reasonable" rather then "cheating".

Then again...it's easy to rationalize anything that gives you the player an advantage...isn't it?

[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.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

I'd like to see the AI buy perhaps half as many MANPADs as it usually does. Course I'd also like to see the AI not buy an arty battery for every inf bn as well

As to friendly MANPADs...I upped the number of missiles from 2 to 4 on my teams, but left their ROF at 2...this doesn't effect their cost much and makes them twice as effective so I can keep the number of friendly ones down to a "realistic" number.

My thought is that if the opposition air threat was as severe as the AI's tends to be when it sends in the 6-10 airfraft runs it favors chances are extra missiles would be on-hand so its "reasonable" rather then "cheating".

Then again...it's easy to rationalize anything that gives you the player an advantage...isn't it?

I think you have given the answer to your wish, why does the AI buy so many MANPADS? Probably because players tend to use air attacks & helos way more than they should. Sort of represents the fact that if they know air is in the area forces will be sent to counter. Also what are the chances generaly of just 2 planes in a support role I would have thought if the target warranted it they would be sent in force, probably makes any escorts job easier to if the skies are hostile.

[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

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Imp

I think you have given the answer to your wish, why does the AI buy so many MANPADS? Probably because players tend to use air attacks & helos way more than they should. Sort of represents the fact that if they know air is in the area forces will be sent to counter. Also what are the chances generaly of just 2 planes in a support role I would have thought if the target warranted it they would be sent in force, probably makes any escorts job easier to if the skies are hostile.

To an extent I'd agree with you.
If you were fighting Russians, China, or most western nations I'd say your totally correct.
But Somalia, Bosnia, etc. ?

As to the amount of air support a player uses I'll admit that since I often play the USMC I do have a lot of helo's and aircraft...but they do rely much more very heavily on air support that any other national army in the world. A one battalion MEU has 4+ attack helos and 6+ aircraft in direct support. And I've seen a similar ratio in a good many of the non-USMC scenarios in the game.

So yes I do see why the AI "needs" a large number of MANPADs...doesn't mean I have to like it tho !

Originally Posted by Mobhack

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).

Andy

As Andy says EW rating makes a HUGE difference, and stand-off weapons really do make aircraft much more survivable. But of course these also seem to be the two of the three things that most effect the cost of aircraft (their "vision" is the third BTW).

So, as in all things WinSPMBT...if you want "better" you have to pay for it.

[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.