So I've been trying out Panzer General

[Ahriman]

Vietnam was not a "conventional" war, and Vietnam's unconventional tactics were able neutralize the US Air advantage.

Agree to some extent, the Viet Cong were not a conventional enemy but the NVA was (to some extent at least).

But the Cold war planners for Europe also tended largely to think that western air superiority would not be enough to brunt a conventional Soviet invasion, simply because the number of Warsaw Pact armored forces and the speed at which they would advance would mean that there just wouldn't be enough time to use air power to significantly thin their numbers or hinder their supply lines.
Thankfully, we'll never know.

But ground forces win wars, and the air superiority argument can be a chicken and egg; a faction losing a ground war starts becoming much more aggressive with its airforce to try to turn the tide, which leads to its air force being destroyed and losing air superiority.
So I would say: the winners of wars end up with air superiority, rather than air superiority necessarily letting you win the wars.

The Germans still had air superiority over the Russians when they started losing the eastern front.
And I don't recall air superiority being particularly important in the Korean war. And air power had no significant impact in WW1.
Gulf war 1 would have been won by the Coalition even without any air use at all, because of the huge superiority of ground forces (in terms of quality, organization, coordination, intelligence, equipment and morale).

How many modern conventional wars with air power are there to look at?

 

[WeaselSlapper]

But ground forces win wars, and the air superiority argument can be a chicken and egg; ... the winners of wars end up with air superiority, rather than air superiority necessarily letting you win the wars.

Ground forces do win wars but air superiority allows the country with air superiority to win the ground battles much more easily with a lot few losses

The Germans still had air superiority over the Russians when they started losing the eastern front.

The Germans had an air advantage over Russia, but I wouldn't say they had air superiority, also the Russians suffered far more casualties then the US and Britain.

And I don't recall air superiority being particularly important in the Korean war. And air power had no significant impact in WW1.

My knowledge of the Korean war is a bit weak, but from what I know of it, it's classified as more of a guerrilla war. As far as the first WW that's why I said "conventional wars since planes were useful." In WWI flight was still in it's infancy and planes couldn't really carry much of an offensive payload, but were still very useful for scouting and support ground forces.

Gulf war 1 would have been won by the Coalition even without any air use at all, because of the huge superiority of ground forces (in terms of quality, organization, coordination, intelligence, equipment and morale).

The US actually used a lot of air support in the first Gulf War and the huge air superiority is what lead to many of the Iraqi moral problems making the job of the ground forces much easier.

How many modern conventional wars with air power are there to look at?

The first Gulf war is actually a good example, the six days war mentioned earlier is another. You can also look at US against Iraq before Baghdad was taken, after that it got more guerrilla then conventional.

The bottom line is Air power in and of itself doesn't win the war, but it makes the job of winning a lot easier for the country that has it.

 

[Osymandias]

If i remember correctly the Falklands War between the UK and Argentina in the 80s was won by the UK due to air superiority.

Nevertheless, i never played Panzer General, but i'm positive about the new combat system and really can't wait to play it.

 

[the Falcon]

…

 

[Naokaukodem]

While it is true that technology evolved a lot during WWII (epically radar) that would be really hard to model in civ (imagine having three different WWII fighters)

Yeah and that's why there shouldn't be things like "air immunity" in Civ...

 

[Disgustipated]

Vietnam?
I don't remember the massive superiority of the NVA over the US Airforce/Navy as being a determining factor in the eventual conquest of South Vietnam.

[I also remember a bunch of Cold War jokes going around about the "importance" of air superiority. While sitting in Paris having a smoke, one Soviet Tanker says to another "I wonder who won the air war".]

Vietnam is kind of a pet peeve of mine. Let's just say militarily the U.S. dominated the Vietnam war without question. Even the tet offensive was a victory for the U.S. (militarily). The war was unwinnable in two ways imho. One was our political limitations and the fact we made no effort to conquer North Vietnam, only to defend South Vietnam. The second was the resistance would have never ended. Even if we did conquer North Vietnam we would still be facing attacks even today. So even though we won every single military battle in Vietnam, the war could not be won under any conditions.

One person above said it would be too difficult to emulate in civ5. But I think it's worth a try. Guerrilla war should have some impact on modern wars in civ5. It would help balance out a smaller civ from being overwhelmed by a larger one. Admittedly, I don't know exactly how to do this as I don't design computer games for a living. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

 

[Ahriman]

The first Gulf war is actually a good example

Would the outcome have been different without the Coalition air power?
Certainly the Coalition would have taken more casualties, but the outcome would have been the same.
Arguably Iraqi morale was poor because they knew they would be defeated because of the superior enemy strength, not just from air power.

the six days war mentioned earlier is another

My limited understanding of the 6 day war is that the Israeli air force was able to achieve rapid air-superiority through pre-emptive strikes, but that the Israeli air force was *not* a significant part of them then winning the ground war. It neutralized the opposing air force, it didn't defeat (or significantly hinder) the opposing ground forces. But I am no expert.

But again, I think there is a danger of mistaking correlation with causation. Sides that win conventional wars tend to have air superiority, but that is not the same as saying that air superiority wins them wars.
Air superiority tends to correlate with all kinds of other technological and organizational advantages (particularly with any war involving the US), so it makes a causal link difficult to manage.

The bottom line is Air power in and of itself doesn't win the war, but it makes the job of winning a lot easier for the country that has it.

Agreed.

Vietnam is kind of a pet peeve of mine.

Agree with your analysis.

One person above said it would be too difficult to emulate in civ5. But I think it's worth a try.

Its very difficult to think of how guerilla wars could be worked into the game in a way that was both meaningful *and* actually fun to play (rather than frustrating).

The key features of a guerilla war are that a) you cannot directly strike the enemy, because they are hidden in the general population (or in hard to access terrain, like Vietnamese jungles or Afghan mountains). They aren't a military unit that sits on a tile and can be attacked. Hunting down invisible enemies is frustrating for a player.

And b) the attitude of the population really matters. If the general population supports the guerillas then final victory is virtually impossible. But its difficult to model these kinds of sophisticated attitudes.

Wargames in general are not good at emulating strategic scenarios that *cannot* be won through overwhelming force alone.

I suspect that if you were trying to really model a guerilla warfare game, you'd need to do that separately on its own, rather than in a broad-brush economy/military game like Civ.

 

[Dragonlord]

-- Barbarossa Campaign -- at matrix games. A remake of PG essentially with more modern engine.

Lin

Thanks for this tip! I checked it out and immediately ordered it on Amazon. Might tide me over til CiV comes out..

 

[LiDDiS]

I've been trying it out also. "The Panzer General Forever" freeware remake to be exact. I suck so bad at it, I can't even beat the first level in the Poland campaign

 

[Deckhand]

I've been trying it out also. "The Panzer General Forever" freeware remake to be exact. I suck so bad at it, I can't even beat the first level in the Poland campaign

Definiitely a learning curve and learning of the "tricks". Similar to Civ in that respect.
Great, fun, tactical war game. Civ is so much more than just a war game. Civ V might have a few things in common with PG, but I wouldn't expect much similarity.

 

[Ellestar]

The other thing that could be a problem is technology. I think Civ 4 had a nice balance between giving you an advantage for having better technology, but still allowing obsolete units to be useful. In the PG system, a few advanced units would completely dominate even a huge army of obsolete units. And, if the map is small enough that you could make a line of units across it, it would be almost impossible to break through that line. You wouldn't even want to try, because you'd take massive damage from attacking and the defender would take none.

Anyway, that's my speculation as someone who knows just a little about Panzer General, and almost nothing about Civ 5. Hope you enjoyed reading my random thoughts.

Well, i think all of your concerns are concerns about balance, not about the core game mechanics (like hexes and one unit per hex). I think it's not that hard to balance combat just right for Civ 5. Say, elite units may get just half the maximum possible attack/defence bonus compared to PG. Also, most of the time if you attack on a small front you attack a weaker empire so you may have a technological advantage that translates to a unit cost advantage. You may use diplomacy so to force enemy into a two-front war. Defence bonus may be reduced. And so on.

 

[wolfigor]

The best and most concise description of combat system in PG is from wikipedia:

The game requires the player to use combined-arms tactics, where each unit is strong against some unit types but very vulnerable by others.
Dug-in enemy positions must be softened by artillery, which is vulnerable and needs protection.
Before attacking the infantry and anti-tanks, one needs to destroy the artillery which protects them from behind. If no tank can slip there, one does this mostly by bombers, but then it is advantageous to destroy the air defense units first.
The fighters have a dilemma between destroying enemy air force and protecting the bombers.

One must carefully observe the road system to speed the advance, or he/she can use Bridge engineers to cross the rivers. The game rewards a Blitzkrieg strategy - penetrating deep into the enemy positions while postponing destruction of some of the encountered enemy units for later.

The performance of units is affected by their experience which takes very long to collect. Particularly in Campaign mode one then has to protect the experienced units as the most valuable asset.

I did play PG a LOT, and it's a great game at operative level (tactical more than strategic).
I agree that veteran units are super-valuable but I do not agree on their "immortality".
If you play PG with fuel and ammo constraints, even the most powerful unit can be encircled, blocked and rendered a lame duck (no fuel to move, no ammo to shoot).
Dig-in units can be eliminated with artillery and air-attacks (to be noticed that there are 2 types of air-bombing in PG).
Artillery works for the offensive, but also has an automatic barrage in defense.

Air superiority is very important, not only to weaken enemy troops but also to have a clear view of enemy units... fog of war is extremely dangerous in PG.

I'm not sure you can apply the full combat system of PG to CIV... but I suggest everybody to try out PG
It's a great game by itself (very much chess-like).

 

[chongli]

However I think guerrilla warfare would be extremely hard to simulate in a Civ style game and is better left for first person shooters.

I disagree. I think a great deal of it can be simulated with "stealth" ground forces and special abilities such as sabotage, bombings and assassinations. Hell, a lot of these abilities have already been demonstrated by spies in past Civ games. The main difference is that guerrillas would have some limited fighting ability.

I think it could be a lot of fun using guerrilla units to soften different targets and pick them off in ambushes and the like.

Oh, and if I may go a bit off-topic (but still related to the topic of air superiority) with a question:

Does anyone else think it is a bit ridiculous how difficult it is to build airports in past Civ games?

This, to me, has been the number one annoyance factor in the use of air power. It's really not that hard for an army to build an airstrip in the field so they can begin to fly in supplies and establish a base.

This should be a special ability of units in Civ V, build an airstrip and let me fly in my fighters and other goodies (reinforcements, tanks, AAA guns, SAMs etc). Also, I think heavy lift military transport planes should be included. We already have naval transports, why not a Hercules or something?

 

[Grimlin]

The best and most concise description of combat system in PG is from wikipedia:
[...]
I did play PG a LOT, and it's a great game at operative level (tactical more than strategic).
I agree that veteran units are super-valuable but I do not agree on their "immortality".
If you play PG with fuel and ammo constraints, even the most powerful unit can be encircled, blocked and rendered a lame duck (no fuel to move, no ammo to shoot).
Dig-in units can be eliminated with artillery and air-attacks (to be noticed that there are 2 types of air-bombing in PG).
Artillery works for the offensive, but also has an automatic barrage in defense.

Air superiority is very important, not only to weaken enemy troops but also to have a clear view of enemy units... fog of war is extremely dangerous in PG.

I'm not sure you can apply the full combat system of PG to CIV... but I suggest everybody to try out PG
It's a great game by itself (very much chess-like).

I like this description, it results in a much improved combat system, comparing to the SoD... But like I said in the other thread, I don't quite get how this should work with air and naval units.

@Guerilla topic
In Rise Of Mankind there are several units without nationality one could use to wage guerilla warfare. Its possible to send them over the border, loot a tile and retreat.

 

[wolfigor]

I like this description, it results in a much improved combat system, comparing to the SoD... But like I said in the other thread, I don't quite get how this should work with air and naval units.

the combat system in Pg was mostly geared for WW2 type of war, and mostly for land based battles (with limited role for naval units).

Naval warfare
There were transports (actually any unit could become a transport ship in a port transporting itself), various classed of ships with ranged bombing, and a few ships to take down the others (e.g. submarines).

Air warfare
There were different classes of air units, however they all had points for characteristics:
a. air-to-air combat, to damage and kill other aircrafts
b. air-to-ground, to damage and kill land or naval units
c. (carpet) bombing, to reduce entrenchment of land units and sometime damage them, useful against naval units too
d. range (fuel), how long they can fly before going back to an airport to refuel.
fighters had high a, some b, and no c.
fighter-bombers little a, lot of b, little of c
bombers no a, some b, lot of c.

To be mention that every unit has a characteristic "initiative" that dictates in a combat who shoot first.
This is very important because a unit with a very high initiative can be stronger against a unit with higher strength.

Fighters could also escort bombers: imagine you have one of your fighters placed in hexagon adjacent to the hexes of your bombers.
If the enemy attacks one of your bomber, first will have to fight against your fighter (that could get damaged anyway).



Ground warfare
the description I quoted from wikipedia summarize a very complex combat mechanism.
every land units had points for (i mention only the most important):
0. size, could be seen at percentage of effective force of a unit.
All units starts with size 10 (i.e. 100% of the effective number of soldiers/tanks/etc in the unit
with combat (even winning) you have casualties that reduce the unit size down to zero (dead)
Size is used for air and naval units too.

1. combat against infantry
2. combat against tanks
3. combat against airplanes
4. "close combat" for fighting in restricted areas, like towns or forests
5. fuel (how many hex can move before stop for refueling)
6. ammo (how many combats before stop for resupply)
7. initiative (explained earlier)
8. max movement in a turn
9. shooting range for artillery

Then there are "acquired" characteristics like experience and entrenchment

Experience, obviously, come from fighting.
The more battles the more experience, and the units gets bonuses in their overall strength and initiative.
With more experience you can also grow the size of your unit up to size 15.
When you loose size you can get replacements for your casualties:
- rookies: low cost, but no experience, bring down the experience of the unit
- veteran: high cost, but do not reduce experience


Entrenchment is for land units.
The more a unit stays put in a hex the more it acquire entrenchment (they dig-in) making it MUCH harder to kill.
Entrenchment is lost when the unit moves.
Entrenchment is reduced by enemy bombardment.


All of this makes for a very large number of different units from generic to specialized.
It takes quite sometime to master this level of complexity with subtle differences between units.

 

[Grimlin]

the combat system in Pg was mostly geared for WW2 type of war, and mostly for land based battles (with limited role for naval units).
There were transports (actually any unit could become a transport ship in a port transporting itself), various classed of ships with ranged bombing, and a few ships to take down the others (e.g. submarines).

There were different classes of air units, however they all had points for characteristics:
a. air-to-air combat, to damage and kill other aircrafts
b. air-to-ground, to damage and kill land or naval units
c. (carpet) bombing, to reduce entrenchment of land units and sometime damage them, useful against naval units too
d. range (fuel), how long they can fly before going back to an airport to refuel.
fighters had high a, some b, and no c.
fighter-bombers little a, lot of b, little of c
bombers no a, some b, lot of c.

To be mention that every unit has a characteristic "initiative" that dictates in a combat who shoot first.
This is very important because a unit with a very high initiative can be stronger against a unit with higher strength.

Fighters could also escort bombers: imagine you have one of your fighters placed in hexagon adjacent to the hexes of your bombers.
If the enemy attacks one of your bomber, first will have to fight against your fighter (that could get damaged anyway).

So only one airunit per hex? Are they always flying? I compare to Civ now and ask myself where to put my (huge) airforce. If there is only space for 1 airunit per city this forces me to build forts everywhere...

 

[wolfigor]

So only one airunit per hex? Are they always flying? I compare to Civ now and ask myself where to put my (huge) airforce. If there is only space for 1 airunit per city this forces me to build forts everywhere...

In PG that wasn't an issue.
staying in the hex adjacent to an airport counted as airport (if I remember correctly)
And for the combat... there was space enough for all aircrafts in the map.
Anyway, having to choose which unit move in a limited number of hexes makes the game more strategic

 

[Gliese 581]

It's true in PG that often a quality unit can take on several lower-quality units. I always found that moving on to the Russian campaign after conquering Poland, France (and possibly Britain), fuel and ammunition stats of my units became more and more important as you had huge areas to cover with your advancing army in Russia and often the main enemy of your spearhead tank -formations would not be enemy armor but lack of ammunition/fuel or getting bogged down in bad weather.
Yes PG also features weather like rain, snow (which makes air units useless for their duration). Lots of rain could make the terrain muddy which would slow down armored uits to a crawl etc.

 

[chongli]

I don't think we know for sure whether the aircraft will be modeled after PG (move them around the map, always in the air) or Civ 4 style (always based on a carrier/airport, flies missions and immediately returns).

 

[V. Soma]

"Panzer General Forever" freeware remake

thnx for the tip!