No fear of airplanes

[Builder_Chris]

The ideas that I’ve read on this thread about “how to make fighters more of a threat/realistic” are pretty cool and do seem to be more…in line…with “history”’ but unless I’m misunderstanding all of the cool stats that dinosaur has put together for us, with out “redesigning” the game (some might call it…tweaking the game) the only way to make the aircraft in the game (as the game is designed) more of a “threat” is to have the fighters used as “escorts” for the bombers, right?  :?

Granted, I’ve only played this game twice so far,  :oops: (so pardon my limited experience) but those stats seem to be in line with what I experienced with the aircraft so far.  :|

I was expecting for the fighters to be much more of a threat in the game (as they arguably were in the real pacific)  :roll: and found in short order that you need a lot of them to make them any kind of “real threat” on their own merit (as was arguably the real case)  :roll: .

Barring any “redesign/tweak” to the rules, if dinosaurs rule of thumb (as I understand it) is to have one bomber for every “target” you plan to hit and to have 3 or 4 fighters per bomber to help the bombers “do there job” than players would need to make forces something like this….

1 or 2 bombers, that would need 1 airstrip on the board to launch the bomber(s) from (if they planned to attack anything further away than sea zones C, E, F, G or  the islands of Bougainville or Choiseul for the Japanese or sea  zones D, H, I, K or the islands of Guadalcanal or Malaita for the US) and they would need anywhere between 3 and 8 fighters for escorts and for those fighters to match the range of the bomber(s) they would need 2 to 4 “forward” airstrips or aircraft carriers or some kind of combination of forward airstrips and aircraft carriers, right?

I don’t know about other players experiences, but 1or 2 bombers and 3 to 8 fighters is not an air force that is any kind of “real” threat on its own merit in this game.  :-o Unless these aircraft have a large fleet that they are “escorting” or that is “attacking with them”, a force this size just is not a threat.  :roll: I have yet to have enough aircraft from a force this size survive the attack air phase to be any real threat on the attack sea or attack land phases.

Following dinosaurs rule of thumb, that would mean that a player wanting to make their airpower any kind of real threat (on its own merit), would need to send in about 6 bombers.  Those six bombers would need three airstrips to launch them from (if they planned to attack anything further away than sea zones C, E, F, G or  the islands of Bougainville or Choiseul for the Japanese or sea  zones D, H, I, K or the islands of Guadalcanal or Malaita for the US) and those six bombers would need about 18 to 24 fighters to escort them, and those 18 to 24 fighters would need 9 to 12 aircraft carriers to launch them from to match the bombers range.  I don’t know about the rest of you, but in my limited experience,  :oops: that would be one HUGE force in this game and that size of air force  MIGHT be a real threat (on its own merit).  But as far as I can tell it’s a force size that is near to impossible to build before the US would roll over the Japanese. (I’ve only played the Japanese so I can’t say if the US could make that kind of air force in and hold off a Japanese force that is island hopping).

The reinforcement points alone that would have to be spent just to build such a force are enough to make any player question the threat and usefulness of airpower in this game.

3 airstrips = 18 points
9 aircraft carriers = 63 points
18 fighters = 54 points
135 points divided by 22 (the “average” points that can be collected per turn 10 + 4 per island) 135/22=6.14 turns.

WOW, 6 turns just to build up a force that size?  The Japanese are way dead by than!

Those “rule of thumb” and “point costs” lead me to believe that aircraft (as the game is designed) are only useful on “defense” and since fighters get 2 dice on air attack (probably the only phase aircraft will survive/be used in anyway) bombers are pretty much unless since they only get 1 die on the air attack phase and cost 2 points more than fighters.  And if fighters are only good for defense that makes AA guns and loads of ships the better buy for air defense because they can attack air units on the attack air phase and suffer no losses in that phase, assuring their survival for use in attack sea or land units.

Like I said, I’ve only played this game two times so far but something seems…flawed?…with the mechanics of the air units?

I know I will play it a lot more before deciding about “tweaking” any of the rules or making my “final decision” about this subject, but so far, I think something does need to be…tweaked?

[timerover51]

I guess my problem with reducing the effect of air power is that it is totally non-historical.  Air power was THE dominant factor in the Solomons campaign.  Japanese ship-based antiaircraft fire was abyssmal in effectiveness, to be generous.  If you are trying to reduce that, why call the game Guadalcanal.  Read a good history of the campaign, and then argue that air power was not the decisive factor.  I guess I would not worry about victory points and simply see if you could do better or worse than history, like the old Panzerblitz scenario victory conditions.

[dinosaur]

Builder Chris,

It appears I was not adequately clear in my earllier post about the “rule of thumb.”  To determine the number of fighters planned in a raid, multiply the enemies expected number of AA dice by 0.75 to compute the minimum recommended number of fighters to bring.  An example:
You decide to bomb New Georgia airfield which has 3 infantry, 3 artillery and an AA gun, with 2 fighters at the airbase.  The Japanese also have 4 carrier squadrons that can be dedicated to New Georgia.  Therefore, you have to expect to resist (2 FIGs + 4 FIGs) x 2 + 3 = 15 AA dice in the raid.  15 x 0.75 = 11 FIGs and probably 2 bombers to have decent chances.  The problem, as you correctly noted is the FIGs have to be carrier squadrons which requires six carriers, although at this scale you probably have good enough chances with 5 carriers, 10 FIGs and 2 bombers.  You will probably lose a bomber and another 4 or 5 fighters too, but you have a huge chance of taking down the airfield.  When one victory point can let you win, this is not an impossible scenario.  Just remember to have some other FIGs to defend your own airfields.

As an aside, my computer bit the dust back a few months and I lost my spreadsheet to compute the air battle “value”.  I have been using a notebook just to surf, so I don’t expect to do any more rigorous calcs for some time.

[frimmel]

Okay so for the most part the problem is largely that a force of planes can’t attack a fleet of ships on its own? That is what is meant by ‘not a threat.’  :?

Just so I’m understanding correctly.  :-)

[Krieghund]

@timerover51:

I guess my problem with reducing the effect of air power is that it is totally non-historical.  Air power was THE dominant factor in the Solomons campaign.  Japanese ship-based antiaircraft fire was abyssmal in effectiveness, to be generous.  If you are trying to reduce that, why call the game Guadalcanal.

Ummm, we are trying to increase the effectiveness of air power here.

@frimmel:

Okay so for the most part the problem is largely that a force of planes can’t attack a fleet of ships on its own? That is what is meant by ‘not a threat.’  :?

Just so I’m understanding correctly.  :-)

You’re understanding correctly.  The problem seems to be that planes are wiped out by AA fire before they can inflict much damage, making attacks with only air units very costly and not very effective.

[frimmel]

Thanks, Krieg. I was just rereading the thread (which started in Feb!) and I’m back on track.

I think the problem is one of scale (at least on the conceptual level.) How much material does each piece actually represent? How much space is each space? Which frankly is the real difficulty with A&A or at least IMO is what causes most of the tweak the rules discussions.

So while I’m not much for tweaks (I think the game (note not the ‘simulation’ is fun as is) or even offering them I’m going to ask this one: What about reducing the cost of fighters and increasing the fighter basing capacity of AC’s and airfields?

Leave all other things unchanged? Or would you need to then cut back on Fighter naval attack dice?

I think Krieg’s Method One is the most elegant solution– reduce the effectiveness of AA.

But it seems it might just need more fighters?

[frimmel]

Something occured to me about the way I’ve been playing this one. I get fighters the turn before I’m anticipating an air battle and unless I urgently need ships I really try to get a fighter every turn (supplies and fighters seem the best option for RPs you’ll have ‘left over.’)

I get an additional AC turn 1 specifically to bring those fighters at base into the game turn 2.

Maybe I’m just not so whigged out about the ‘non-threat’ of fighters because I’ve made the strategy/tactics/conceptual leap to adapt.  :|

[frimmel]

The game does not allow for differing effectiveness because then it would be a simulation and not a game.

Let’s say we just make the US AA more effective in the game for History’s sake. That’s it. None of the other stuff you mention (all of which favors the US.)

How long before no one wants to play the Japanese?

It might be historical but it won’t be fun.

[Builder_Chris]

Yup, I agree, there is a fine line between “historically ACCURATE” and “historically PLAYABLE”.

In my opinion, if ANY game is TOO accurate I might as well watch the history channel or read a book because there is no need/fun in playing it, I already know that the Japanese lost WW2, why would I want to play a game were the player that plays the Japanese always looses just because it is “historically accurate”.  :cry:

But, at the same time, because it IS a history game that touts the fact that it IS a history game, some things should/could be “historically SIMULATED”…better?…while still giving players a “fair/balanced game”. (Balanced to me means that both sides have an equal or nearly equal chance to win the game. That’s why I like the idea of a “bid”, because a game can be “set up historically” and players can take/give a bid as they believe/think they need to in order to “balance” a players “chances” to win….just a side note.)  :-D

That’s why I think this topic is interesting,  8-) because the way the aircraft are “simulated” in it seems to make them too weak.  :-( They “feel” weak to the point that they don’t “feel” “good enough” to be considered “historically accurate”.

Do they need to be SO accurate that we would need to worry about how much fuel and munitions and turning radius and assent and descent rates for the various aircraft,  :roll: or how much whisky or Saki that the pilots could keep on board?  :lol: No way man!  Not the kind of game for me!  (Although I wouldn’t mind to “use” the whisky or Saki while gaming.)  :-D

But, even history “enthusiasts” like myself, with my limited knowledge of the Pacific in WW2 believes that air power WAS a major influencer in the pacific theater of war, and the air power in this game seems to be…limited…and only usful on defense, and certainly not any kind of “threat” on their own merit on the attack, which is how most books and documentary’s have lead me to understand them to have been.  And that kind of “general knowledge/belief” doesn’t even take into account the various “advantages or disadvantages” of all of the aircraft that were really used…I haven’t a clue about any of that.  :oops: Just generally speaking, wasn’t air power in the pacific “arguably” a significant factor in the war over the pacific?  If they were there, I don’t believe they are being given justice in this game.

Do the aircraft in the game make GOOD gaming mechanics and solid logic and fun?  I think they do…so far…but I’ve still only had the chance to game this thing two times  :oops: so take that into consideration when you read my thoughts too.  :-P

Don’t get me wrong though, I still think the game is way cool fun, just not as “aircraft strong”  :evil: as I was anticipating it to be.

[frimmel]

I’m right with you guys on the scale things.

I would appreciate if there was a finer line drawn between accurate and playable. But I got over being too upset about the width some time ago. Particularly the part about how many troops, ships or planes an individual piece represents.

Although the land based minis games problems are large enough that I can’t get over.

Could Guadalcanal be more historically accurate? It seems likely.

But would that make it more fun? Depends on your point of view doesn’t it?

[Krieghund]

@frimmel:

I think Krieg’s Method One is the most elegant solution– reduce the effectiveness of AA.

Thanks.

@frimmel:

So while I’m not much for tweaks (I think the game (note not the ‘simulation’ is fun as is) or even offering them I’m going to ask this one: What about reducing the cost of fighters and increasing the fighter basing capacity of AC’s and airfields?

Leave all other things unchanged? Or would you need to then cut back on Fighter naval attack dice?

That’s the problem with adjusting things.  It tends to snowball.  If you make one thing more powerful, you run the risk of creating a situation where it dominates the game.  Then you end up having to change something else to make up for it, and so on.  I’ve been down this road before.  I started out tweaking the basic A&A combat system, and ended up rewriting it because of the ripples those tweaks caused.

In this case, it’s obvious (as Timerover said) that airfields should have a much higher capacity to support air units than carriers do.  However, it you boost the airfields’ capacity, you run the risk of making carriers superfluous.  If you do that, you need to give carriers some other property or ability to make them necessary.  Or you could cut down on the number or airfields available, which would be historically accurate, but then you have to start messing with the victory conditions.  And so on.

That’s why I tend to favor small adjustments.  It’s very easy to destroy game balance with large ones, unless you can manage to make multiple large ones that balance each other out.

On another note, Axis & Allies games have never claimed to be overly historically accurate.  That’s not their mission.  Their mission is to provide a fun gaming experience while introducing people (especially young people) to an important chapter in history.  They’re meant as a jumping-off point to stimulate curiosity.

As such, there is a fine balance between not only historical accuracy and playability, but also between evoking the “feel” of World War II combat while keeping things simple and easy to learn while not overly distorting the reality of history.  If you veer too far into simulation territory, you’re going to scare a lot of people off.  If you make it too abstract, you’ll also lose people.  I think the track record of these games and their continued popularity prove that Larry has struck a near-perfect balance here.  Sure, there are historical inaccuracies, but no more than you’ll find in fiction books and movies (and even some non-fiction books) about the war.  People whose curiosity about history is truly fired by these games will find out more about the war, and will learn for themselves what’s been glossed over or eliminated for the sake of simplicity.

The thing that I find most fascinating about the design of these games is that two historical inaccuracies will often cancel each other out.  There’s a perfect example in this very discussion.  Complaints have been made both about the fact that airfields are allowed to be built on islands that can’t possibly support an airfield, and that airfields have the same capacity to support planes that carriers do.  Both complaints are valid from a “realism” point of view.  However, combining these two features of the game yields the practical result that airfields, as a whole, can support more fighters than carriers can.  While the mechanical details contain inaccuracy, the abstract whole reflects reality in a way that creates a fun strategic puzzle.  Rather than working to increase the capacity of one or two airfields throughout the game in order to support more planes, the player is encouraged to gain territory in order to reach that goal.  Thus, conflict is promoted while at the same creating an abstract measure of victory.  That’s what I call elegant design.

The fact that these abstractions in the games’ designs also provide a “skeleton” that can be customized in any way that the consumer wants is another reason for the success of these games, in my opinion.  The basic system is there to be tweaked in any way that you want to “fix” whatever pet peeve you have with the way the game represents history, or just flesh out an area that you think deserves more detail.  You can do anything from play the game as is to making major modifications (possibly to the point of creating a new game entirely) in the way that Timerover, Imperious Leader and others have.  I think that some folks have more fun tinkering with the games than they do actually playing them.

[legion3]

On another note, Axis & Allies games have never claimed to be overly historically accurate.  That’s not their mission.  Their mission is to provide a fun gaming experience while introducing people (especially young people) to an important chapter in history.  They’re meant as a jumping-off point to stimulate curiosity.

As such, there is a fine balance between not only historical accuracy and playability, but also between evoking the “feel” of World War II combat while keeping things simple and easy to learn while not overly distorting the reality of history.  If you veer too far into simulation territory, you’re going to scare a lot of people off.  If you make it too abstract, you’ll also lose people.

This why my friends (some who are very good wargamers and some who are far more casual) can always play A&A, (or Fortress America et al) quick, simple with few complicated rules. Sure we could break out the older Avalaon hills games but they take to long too set up, to long too play and are too complicated for many.

Many new players get frustrated with the older more complex games, heck, even some of the old hands get weary of complexity. I knew some purists (if it wasn’t squad Leader it wasn’t a war game) back in the service who initially would not touch A&A but they ended up eventually joining in, as A&A even brought people in who hated games but enjoyed the table chatter and fun of invading the US as Japan. Certainly not “historical” but its enjoyable.

What a great series of games.

[Adlertag]

If it is true you have your own small game company, what products are you selling ?

I have never heard about you before you startet posting here.

[Adlertag]

@timerover51:

We hope to have some additional products for release later next year or 2010.

Like expansion sets with plastic miniatures to use in A&A games ?

If someone make nation specific high quality plastic pieces of jets, rockets, blockhouses, trucks, heavy bombers, heavy artillery, Italian naval units, all French units and neutral infantry, they will soon be very wealthy since everybody on this site will buy for sure.

Oh, and I will quit smitin you, :-D too.

[timerover51]

I will simply say that I am working on it.

[Adlertag]

Here, one + karma to you, son. Keep up this good work, and soon you’ll have more applauds than smites.