Re: fighters fighting without ammo

[bboett at bboett dot dyndns dot org (Bruno Boettcher)]

On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 08:54:16AM -0800, Skeezics Boondoggle wrote:
> > > i play the modern game regularly. using fighters is becoming a
> > > pia. If a fighter with ammo 2 attacks a cell with about 15
> > > occupants, it fires 15 times even though the ammo is exhausted after
> > > the first two shots.
what bothers me more is the fact that all the 15 units respond to the
attack :D 
clearly this is a long discussed and recurrent thread on the mass combat
vs one to one combat....

me too i often would like to see the usual military mass combat
approximation going into account should have some papers on those
formulas somewhere, will try to dig them up again if it interests anyone...
cause i see way more often than i want to see it how 1-2 armors are able
to defeat 10-15 armors just by pure luck.... but overwhelmed that way
they should be simply shoot down.....

> Well, consider that bombers have the same behavior too - bomb a city full
> of units and it does hit/miss calculations for everything in the hex.  In 
yep, but normally when a bomber comes everyone gets in hide and prays
besides the flak :D thus non-aeral defenders should shut up when the bomber
fires into a place.....

> that case, it might make more sense, since bombs could damage more than 
> one unit, but for consistency you'd probably want the "three bombs, three 
> hits max" behavior to apply there as well.
hmm as sayd, recurrent wish :D i second this one :D having the
difference of surface weapons and point weapons would be nice...
cause seeing some bombers hitting a place full of infantry leaving
nearly all untouched isn't very satisfactory when comparing to the
damages recorded in WW2... :O

> In fact, what is the "ammo" supposed to represent for fighters?  Certainly 
> not bullets. :-)  Three passes or strafing runs?  Three 100-round bursts?  
> Three volleys of rockets?  It could be argued that a fighter attacking a 
heh... fighters nowadays a multi-system weapon platforms :D
in this case i suppose they are only areal defense mechanisms, thus i
vote for the bursts :)

> Perhaps the calculations for both bomber and fighter attacks could reflect
> a proportional damage assessment based on how many defenders are present?  
generally what about a max attacks/round? once again i am wondering
about the armor combats, where does all this ammo comes from? usually
when you shoot the x rounds against an attacker/defender that was it...
once a one to one combat was made shouldn't the unit have a malus
against other attacks? you can't really defend against multiple
attackers (or at least make the number of attackers a unit may dodge experience
    dependend)

> Choose one target with the "a" command and you inflict full damage on that
> one target; click on a full hex otherwise and you potentially inflict
> minor damage on multiple units.  (But the HP granularity probably wouldn't
    yup second that one

> The AIs don't use air power very effectively, which I must admit is one
that's the least you might say :D

> easy way to defeat them.  In some games I've mounted such intense air and
> naval bombardment campaigns that the AIs have resigned with 4 or 5 cities
yup

> enemy bombers, and paratroopers have taken at least one outlying town to
> sow confusion in the poor AI's little brain. :-)  Very few games (with 3-5
heh the AI is quite poor against multipoint attacks....
thus all attacks that come from at least 2 way completely throw the AI
off-balance

> I'm looking forward to some of the AI improvements, but y'know, most times
> I like to just take a break and "go conquer the world" so it's kind of
> relaxing to just swarm over the map and blast everything to bits.  :-)
same here :D
if only the making up of the standing orders where easier, and this
trasnport task was introduced it would be even better!
> 
> But improving the AI's ability to use a more balanced approach to air, sea
> and land power would probably improve its chances quite a bit.  It tends
> to go nuts and build lots of one thing, then build lots of the next thing,
> rarely seems to put up air patrols, never has destroyer screens to defend
> coastal cities, and too often sends out waves of transports completely
> undefended, where they're almost always picked up (first by fighters, then
> by destroyers, as bombers are brought in to blow them away) way before
> they reach landfall.  And losing full transports is expensive, obviously.
true, BTW i am wondering too about the naval combats.... how comes that
in standard game bombers are way more effective against troop transports
than subs and destroyers?

> I guess if the AIs start to get smarter I'll have to work a little harder.
heh if the ai gets somewhat stronger we will need skill levels to be
setted at some time ;)

-- 
ciao bboett
==============================================================
bboett@adlp.org
http://inforezo.u-strasbg.fr/~bboett
===============================================================