Heavy Steel preview

[Mojko]

Variants and updates.

Strategic bombers will also get a switch ability to deliver ground supply on the hex below, in exchange for their bombload. And some stat tweaks to make them more attractive as core units.

It's great to hear that one of my suggestions got finally implemented

[Andy2012]

Correct. You can only switch when parked on an airfield however, not in mid air. And the supply output is pretty low (probably 2-4 depending on the bomber size). Still, aside from specific scenarios about pockets surrounded by enemy forces it allows you to take a bit more risks pushing into enemy territory, when keeping one or two supply bombers nearby in case anything gets cut off. The trade-off is of course that they can't do any damage in that mode, but hopefully it adds another use for this unit class.

There will also be a non-purchasable Ju-52 in supply mode available for specific scenarios. I think this mechanic will be interesting on maps like Stalingrad, trying to keep the pocket alive while under constant attack from Soviet flak and fighters.

I think this is an overall good idea. However, I think the mechanic you are sketching here might not work or be impractical. Having some Stratbombers hovering around in case I get cut off is a waste of air command points. If I get cut off, I remedy this with ground units or just load the quicksave or a save a few turns back if I cant get out of it. I doubt anybody will have a flying supply base "just in case".
Additionally, having them hover over a supply point sounds a bit unrealistic. Usually, you drop your cargo and fly back. If possible, they can add a hefty 30-40 supply per drop once and then need to fly back to reload supplies and refuel. The supply is then consumed by the ground units, which means it decreases to the original at a rate of 4-5 per turn. (Numbers are just dummies here.) I am not quite sure which variety plays better, but this sounds more appropriate to me. (Gameplay is more important.)
Multiplayer is of course a totally different affair. But in Singleplayer, I think an armada of aux supply planes doing these supply runs back and forth can work nicely and add a lot of drama. But not really as part of your core force.
What does everybody else think?

[Horst]

Personally, I would generally never bother with a supply-load SB-variant either and rather bomb the crap out of my enemy. The idea to restock scripted shrinking supply spots in encircled pockets is still great though for a scenario.
SBs normally don’t carry naval mines besides bombs either, so arguing they have to decide which load they carry isn’t watertight in OOB. In that case, I would rather add a costly supply-drop option next to the naval mines that both cost RPs and can be used anytime when needed. Advantage with a purchase-option is that SBs could immediately help out cut-off units when needed near the front line and don’t need to fly back and return when it’s already much too late for trapped units. Playing only supply guardian angel without attack possibility by hovering 20 turns and more idle around sounds indeed like a huge waste of air command points. Adding only another supply-trait next to naval mines trait is also much less work than creating new variants.

Maybe better is to leave the many SBs (28+) untouched and rather only stick to each nation’s default transport plane (5+) that gets such new supply-option.
The advantage of transport planes is that no one needs to bother about them after they unload their cargo similar like dropping paratroopers. Make transport planes purchasable and give them a single-use trait like nuclear bombers. That will be much less work and closer to history. In that case, you only buy them if you think you need them without any air command waste. Theoretically, you don’t even have to create a new variant-unit for them if you code them to disable the supply-option as paratrooper transport.
The disadvantage of these transport planes is though that you could possibly spam them to block or distract enemy aircrafts if someone has enough crash for them. Make them too expensive and no one will bother about them either anymore. These planes would most likely still hover idle around, so that’s not the most elegant solution either. Making them non-purchasable and only available by script spawn is maybe better or just add the mentioned supply-drop purchase-option (but not variant) to SBs.

All in all, it’s always work for that little benefit which is better invested in more important things. Lowering supply points and increasing them if transport or whatever plane type is over the hex can already be done easily by triggers without any extra coding.
Adding one extra turn breather (fuel-1) for cut-off ground units, what I’ve modified myself, is IMO a fine enough answer to reduce the general cut-off frustration. I've already played through so many original missions with the fuel-1 setting that nothing old can really break.

[Andy2012]

@Horst: I agree. I think you can prevent spamming supply planes by just making them available in few missions.
@adherbal: But I also agree that Stratbombers need some love. Every airforce or faction in the game needs some dedicated shipbusters, thats where they should fill in. Give some of them torpedoes. Also, stratbombers could be useful to take on specific supply hubs. These would not be your average village or town with 10 or 5 or 15 supply, but a huge supply dump with, say, 50 or 100 points supplying your whole core force. An attack by a (big) stratbomber would cut these in half, not just the 1-2 or whatever it does now. (specific mission trigger)
Altogether, I think stratbombers and supply drops and supply planes should be aux units for specific missions. They can add depth and drama to certain missions in single player, but would otherwise never be used. I mean, the few air points and credits you usually get are way better invested in fighters and tacbombers.

[bcnkor]

Variants and updates.

Strategic bombers will also get a switch ability to deliver ground supply on the hex below, in exchange for their bombload. And some stat tweaks to make them more attractive as core units.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

adherbal:
That is fine,and add several more Real things, for example:

1-A factory unit, to be able to bomb, for new missions of bombing the first target of the bombers in the WWII.

2-Regarding the ju87g, there are very good airplanes with cannons, but there would also be an Air/Air and Air/land missile switch, very important and used to destroy tanks and bombers in the WWII. And another interesting Switc depth charges with torpedo as used by several big Seaplanes (PBY Catalina).

3-A new unit elicopter, Americans and Germans already had them and used it in the WWII, nor is it
It would be wrong to add the transport order to the elite forces and food.

4-Another interesting thing would be to add in the trains, transport of tanks, was vital the movement of tanks quickly in the WWII.

5-Add other factions like Italy and its Regia Marina (for Mediterranean control scenarios), nationalist and Republican Spain, many forget Spain in many games and also fight a lot.

6-Go a little faster because a lot of time passes from one DLC to another.

7-Bebro and VPaulus, regarding the HBalck and its banned: The offering several MODs with a new fresh view to your game.
I have managed a very large group in the networks, more than a million people, so you can see that I speak with experience, do not advertise it, but I give you my personal opinion: This is a game, and you have to have good Climate with all, it is good to know how to forgive, the Christian religion already says, to know how to forgive your enemies, and lift the blockade. We are people all have failures and we must know how to forgive them, we would not have to be rules.

Thanks for everything.

[Andy2012]

@bcnkor: You forgot to ask for UI changes and additions. Its really important to repeat that, again and again. In every single thread and in every post.

@artistocrats: Dont go faster, the pace is fine. I prefer polished DLCs and I will gladly pay a buck more.

[adherbal]

4-Another interesting thing would be to add in the trains, transport of tanks, was vital the movement of tanks quickly in the WWII.

Railroad transportation is in the game already?

3-A new unit elicopter, Americans and Germans already had them and used it in the WWII, nor is it

Maybe some day as a "fun" unit, but their tactical impact in WW2 was pretty meaningless.

Additionally, having them hover over a supply point sounds a bit unrealistic. Usually, you drop your cargo and fly back. If possible, they can add a hefty 30-40 supply per drop once and then need to fly back to reload supplies and refuel.

The "drop a batch of supplies" concept doesn't really fit the existing mechanics of the game. Supply sources are always permanent, we don't have code or UI for "temporary" supply sources which are gradually depleted. The number always represents the supply production or output, not the amount of supplies remaining.

In addition, all aircraft can attack several times before having to go back for refueling. So it makes sense that the supply drop system follows the same system: stay over the target to provide supply until fuel runs out. In reality an army would need a constant stream of aircraft to deliver enough supplies in a combat situation. The system we currently have in mind probably represents that the best: you have to dedicate one or more aircraft to the job, and leave them in a risky situation over the battlefield for a long time.

I guess the point raised about the mine dropping is valid, but it uses the same code as the land-based minelayers (engineers). A switch ability may have been more consistant for aircraft, but I think that would also mean it is rarely ever used.

Either way, these new mechanics will be beta tested in the next DLC so we'll find out if it works or requires further tweaking.

Every airforce or faction in the game needs some dedicated shipbusters, thats where they should fill in.

I don't think that is realistic? Strategic bombers rarely scored hits on ships AFAIK. Unless they use torpedoes or low-level attacks perhaps, but then they are not really acting as high-altitude strategic bombers any more.

The plan is to give them an assault value of 1-2 so they are effective at reducing enemy entrenchment. The way I see it they should be balanced as aerial artillery: low damage output, but weaking enemy efficiency & entrenchment + being much more resistant to AA fire than tac bombers so they can be used over strong enemy positions with less risk.

[Andy2012]

The "drop a batch of supplies" concept doesn't really fit the existing mechanics of the game. Supply sources are always permanent, we don't have code or UI for "temporary" supply sources which are gradually depleted. The number always represents the supply production or output, not the amount of supplies remaining.

In addition, all aircraft can attack several times before having to go back for refueling. So it makes sense that the supply drop system follows the same system: stay over the target to provide supply until fuel runs out. In reality an army would need a constant stream of aircraft to deliver enough supplies in a combat situation. The system we currently have in mind probably represents that the best: you have to dedicate one or more aircraft to the job, and leave them in a risky situation over the battlefield for a long time.

I don't think that is realistic? Strategic bombers rarely scored hits on ships AFAIK. Unless they use torpedoes or low-level attacks perhaps, but then they are not really acting as high-altitude strategic bombers any more.

The plan is to give them an assault value of 1-2 so they are effective at reducing enemy entrenchment. The way I see it they should be balanced as aerial artillery: low damage output, but weaking enemy efficiency & entrenchment + being much more resistant to AA fire than tac bombers so they can be used over strong enemy positions with less risk.

Fair point about the code and the UI. Unless you can implement it easily, leave it out.
Stratbombers as ship busters - not everyone of them, I was unclear. I was thinking about setting up the Ju88 as a torpedo bomber for the Luftwaffe (which it was) to close that gap. I was not thinking about a B17 with torpedoes.

[Horst]

I think a supply-drop button on SBs would work best. (Naval) mines have already cooldown, so the same mechanic can be used for that too to prevent spamming. Extra supply planes, like transport ones, look nicer for that job but are also lesser accessible during normal gameplay.
Well, if generating temporary supply points is such a fuzz to implement, then the supply drop could still be used to basically refuel only units below then in a radius similar like the nuclear bomb radius. Its effect could fake a full supply connection for these affected units and reset their supply-depended effectiveness state.

[bcnkor]

4-Another interesting thing would be to add in the trains, transport of tanks, was vital the movement of tanks quickly in the WWII.

Railroad transportation is in the game already?

3-A new unit elicopter, Americans and Germans already had them and used it in the WWII, nor is it

Maybe some day as a "fun" unit, but their tactical impact in WW2 was pretty meaningless.

-----------------------------------------

adherba:
1-Railroad transportation is in the game already?
Yes, I have not realized that now it works, thank you...

2-Helicopters: Used at the end of WWII and in modern wars.
Example:
Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Achgelis_Fa_223

Only seven machines had been constructed at Laupheim before an air raid halted in July 1944.
Only weeks later, Focke received new orders, this time to return to the Focke-Achgelis company and to move the entire operation to Tempelhof Airport in Berlin where flight testing was to be resumed, and a production line established to produce 400 helicopters per month.

[GiveWarAchance]

@adherbal: But I also agree that Stratbombers need some love. Every airforce or faction in the game needs some dedicated shipbusters, thats where they should fill in. Give some of them torpedoes. Also, stratbombers could be useful to take on specific supply hubs. These would not be your average village or town with 10 or 5 or 15 supply, but a huge supply dump with, say, 50 or 100 points supplying your whole core force. An attack by a (big) stratbomber would cut these in half, not just the 1-2 or whatever it does now. (specific mission trigger)
Altogether, I think stratbombers and supply drops and supply planes should be aux units for specific missions. They can add depth and drama to certain missions in single player, but would otherwise never be used. I mean, the few air points and credits you usually get are way better invested in fighters and tacbombers.

I agree with you but I only remember strat bombers being used to destroy submarines. The heavy bombers at Midway that bombed the Japanese completely missed while it was the dive bombers and torpedo bombers that did the sinking in WW2. But I still hope the game will have strategic bombers able to bomb ships effectively cause maybe historically there was no real effort to bomb ships with strat bombers cause they were used on land targets but they could have been effective against ships cause of long range and large bomb load that can plaster a large area of the sea making it hard to dodge the bombs like ships often did against torpedos and single bomb attacks. I think they needed proper tactics (doctrine?) to have strat bombers approach in a line and drop sticks together so dodging was near impossible for the fleet below.

[adherbal]

SBS commandos in amphibious mode.

[calmhatchery]

awesome!!! Only problem is wait wait wait !! but it is worth to wait for another upgrade

[Andy2012]

@adherbal: Looks nice. But those are just for crossing rivers and small lakes, not oceans, right?

[bru888]

@adherbal: Looks nice. But those are just for crossing rivers and small lakes, not oceans, right?

Andy, I don't know if you intended it, but I had a nice chuckle over this! Yes, heavy steel or not, I don't think those kayaks are going to be sea-worthy!

[Andy2012]

Andy, I don't know if you intended it, but I had a nice chuckle over this! Yes, heavy steel or not, I don't think those kayaks are going to be sea-worthy!

Always happy to cheer people up.
No, I was just wondering how this fits into the game system. I mean, in a micro mission where each unit displays more like a small squad or platoon, these kajaks might work. Next to an aircraft carrier or a landing craft like a higgins boat, it would just look absurd and break the immersion.

[bru888]

Always happy to cheer people up.
No, I was just wondering how this fits into the game system. I mean, in a micro mission where each unit displays more like a small squad or platoon, these kajaks might work. Next to an aircraft carrier or a landing craft like a higgins boat, it would just look absurd and break the immersion.

You have a point. These kayaks seem to be in deep water. Wouldn't they be restricted to shallow water and lakes, perhaps? I would add rivers but those are not terrain types.

Then, juxtaposing a warship with them does look a bit odd (both views maximized, I believe):

comparison.jpg (72.8 KiB) Viewed 3553 times

Of course, this could be just some sort of hoax, you know. A bit of developer whimsy.

[Horst]

Can't wait to sink some battleships with my commando boys!

[bru888]

Can't wait to sink some battleships with my commando boys!

Yeah, well, if you notice, the warship has already rammed, capsized, and sunk one of the kayaks. Inadvertently, that is; I just noticed I did so while merging the images. This may be an unlucky omen for your plans.

[GiveWarAchance]

At least they are not in canoes. Can you imagine attacking a battleship by paddling up in a canoe. The wake (rough water from ship moving?) alone would prevent you from getting close.