Re: More Feedback on AWLS: Korea 2006

[Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu>]

Elijah Meeks wrote:

> I just tested this, and even if your city is occupied,
> it should be able to produce ground units, because
> places have a terrain size of 12, while units have a
> terrain size of 50 (The unit, rather than being placed
> in the city, would be placed in the same hex but
> outside the city).  

I wasn't seeing this, but maybe the cities were just out of materials. 
Those poor N. Koreans, you know....

> The problem that I see with this is in the
> creation of new naval units, which need to be placed
> in the city since, obviously, they can't go on the
> ground.

Right. And that was one of the worst cases. N. Korea only has one port 
city, and the moment a Chinese unit enters it that port is lost for 
naval (read, coastal submarine :-) production. And that somewhat 
diminishes N. Korea's ability to put S. Korean, Japanese, and American 
tonnage at the bottom of the Sea of Japan and E. China Sea.

> I'm going to create wrecked-type table entries for
> sub-ship combat, to represent that a sub isn't
> fighting a carrier air wing when it hits a carrier
> group.  I've already done this with air wings and adns
> in regard to damage from armor and infantry, (I'm not
> sure if the most recent check-in has this, though).

Sounds like a plan. Alternatively, you might be able to make an actual 
carrier air wing unit that can occupy carrier groups.

> There is, though, a method to this.  Trying to sink
> the USS Kitty Hawk with a diesel sub is a poor bet at
> best.

Is there some implicit ASW capabilities in the group, like a screen of 
picket ships or maybe some ASW choppers on the carrier's deck?

Even then, I think that might give an added detection boost against subs 
(choppers trawling sonar cans in the water, etc...), but if the sub does 
manage to get in and strike first, then what?

>>And, finally, it seems that the big American
>>submarines can very easily 
>>dispatch coastal subs even if the coastal subs are
>>striking first. 
>>(Perhaps the sub counterattack modifiers should be
>>lowered to something 
>>less than 100% in the 'counterattack' table.) 
> 
> 
> I think the US side has too many nuclear subs in
> theatre.  But, again, those greenwater fleets that the
> Koreans, Japanese and Chinese have are outclassed by
> their nuclear counterparts.  It's part of the design
> that an American nuclear submarine outclasses a
> diesel-electric, 

Sure. I understand that. The nuclear sub should be tougher and meaner. 
I'm not saying that the little diesel boat should be able to run up and 
blow it away in one or two pops, but the little sub shouldn't 
necessarily be guaranteed to die if it gets first strike, either.

> The other possibility is to split up surface and
> carrier groups, which are meant to represent a
> collection of ships, and implement Destroyer
> Squadrons, Cruisers and make the Carrier Air Wing a
> seperate unit transported by Carriers, 

I think the Carrier Air Wing is a good idea. It would decouple two 
different aspects of the present Carrier Group units, and save you from 
having to make a bunch more special wrecked types based on who does the 
killing.

>which gives you
> a chance of sneaking your coastal sub through the
> fleet and sinking (Or critically damaging) that damned
> Kitty Hawk yourself.  

Actually, I'm pretty much pro-Kitty Hawk, except when I'm playing "Kim 
Jung Il's advocate" (N. Korea is the default first side). Hopefully, 
I'll be able to make some time to play as some of the other sides later on.

It would be cool if the Russians were in the game. Then I could defend 
that one chunk of land on the Amur river (IIRC) that they and the 
Chinese skirmished over a few decades ago.

>It'd make more sense, because as
> it stands there's only one carrier tech, which
> theoretically improves both fighters and the carrier
> itself, as well as better simulating battle, which
> could wipe out a carrier air wing while leaving the
> vessel itself unscathed (Right now Air Defense
> Networks damage carriers, somewhat silly in certain
> situations).  But, I have a feeling the AI wouldn't
> deal so well with that.

It might do okay with it, if you allow carriers to produce carrier air 
wings over time.

> them a fire attack that consumed 'Cruise missile'
> materials, but the AI doesn't like a unit that
> utilizes both Attack and Fire.  

Hmmm... That seems odd. It should do okay in that situation. I guess I 
will have to make a new Windows installer, so that you can see whether 
Hans' victim finder and hit-unit improvements help things any.

One more thing that I forgot to mention earlier. It seems that the N. 
Korean cities can produce Carrier Groups but not Air Wings. That strikes 
me as a bit odd.

Eric