The current version of strat in AH is seeing a lot of discussion lately. As with many, I find the recent changes to be a step backward. It was this very “big pork” concept which finally drove me out of AW after 8 years of playing.
Obviously, I’m not a strat guy in AH -- furball all the way. However, that does not mean that I don’t like tactical and strategic gameplay. Truth be told, I probably spend more hours playing games like Civilization 3 than I do AH. In fact, I can’t recall ever playing AH or AW for 18 hours straight like I have DOS Empire or Civ 1- 3 or a variety of wargames, so it’s not like I dislike strat in general. It’s just that the strat in AH, in spite of an excellent selection of tools to play with, leads to the least common denominator, steamroller style of play that keeps my interest about as much as tic-tac-toe. So, what can be done with the already excellent set of tools to add more variety, challenge and opportunity for both furballers and strat guys alike without forcing too much change in individual gameplay preferences? What could get a guy like me interested in AH strat? Here’s my idea.
1. Building upon the current zone setup, have strategic targets deep in each country’s territory that act as an on off switch for base capture (you could use existing facilities or change the current map layout to better suit the concept). In essence, each target would influence the airfields in its zone. If the strat target was up, then the fields would be invulnerable. Once the strat target received a certain amount of damage, the fields would be damageable and captureable as they are now for a set amount of time, say one hour. This would be indicated by a change in color on the map. The strat targets could not be rebuilt, but would automatically come up after the allotted time. Consider this the impact of industrial attrition that makes the “invasion” possible in the first place.
The strat targets could be set up to highly encourage the use of heavy bombers with more physical area, heavy low altitude AAA and their distance from the front lines earlier in the “war.” This would give the heavy bomber guys a real war-winning role. Bomber mission(s) would have to be organized, planned and escorted to open the drive into enemy territory. Conversely, the LW guys could hitch on the leather underwear and spend time flying high altitude anti-bomber patrols with some assurance of actually seeing regular action. Would this force someone out of their heavy P-51 to fly a bomber if they don’t want to? Perhaps, from time to time, but I rather think there would be standing bomber squads on call planning and executing these missions regularly if they had a stronger reason to participate.
2. Once the strategic target is hit, the airfields could be made invulnerable again if a truck convoy, barge or train reaches the airfield. These would have to be stopped at any cost, leading to an attack mission where some of the jabo horde would have to fly interdiction. Elements at the airfield like fuel, etc, could be rebuilt by a c-47 or M-3 with a more favorable ratio than currently exists. This would lead to the attackers having to fly some C-47 intercept missions as well as the defenders. You could also add a marshalling yard (trains), barge port (barges) or supply depot (trucks) at a size and distance and adjusted AAA that would make them primary targets for medium bombers where speed and load would count. Hitting one of these targets would slow down the resupply interval for that type of transport. You could also add bridge targets for divebombers, with some increased bomb dispersion for fighter jabos to be more historically accurate (IMO) and actually give someone a reason to fly a JU-87/88, Val or Dauntless (A-24). Dropping a bridge could block a river from barge traffic or cut a road or rail line. These should be heavily defended (AAA) as they were in real life. Bridges of Toko-Ri anyone?
Once captured, the airfield would be linked to the capturing country's associated strat and supply zone.
3. How about a land war? Required a land assault to take the large airfields, but leave the small bases open to land or C-47 capture.
4. In general the current jabo capture style would remain the same, but various adjustments as discussed in other threads and a few of my own could lessen the sheer numbers aspect that exists now. More dispersed fuel targets. How many WW2 airfields had a big central fuel dump vs dispersed, camouflaged 55 gallon drums in the woodline (at least for the axis)? Adjustments on survival time requirements after the hit for the hit to count in order to counter the kamikaze hordes. Having a fuel or hanger hit take out the premium aircraft, but leave 1942/43 era aircraft flyable, perhaps from remote grass “spawn” fields around the main airfield. More mannable acks. Vulnerable Jeeps with a .50 that could spawn from a remote vehicle spawn point (even when the main VH was down) and drive to the field (give the defenders something to do and even give the vulchers some added action squashing the cockroaches
). Of course, with changes 1-3 you could leave jabo as it is now and still have a more entertaining strategic game.
Well, build on it, ignore it or tear it apart. I believe these changes would bring some real strategy and tactical planning/operations to AH that I would actually like to participate in on a regular basis. It would make capture harder, but then there would actually be some challenge for the serious strat player and a worthy companion to the excellent A2A ACM simulator which is where the game really shines. Obviously, the maps would have to be readjusted. I would imagine that the strictly jabo guys would always be able to find a vulnerable zone to attack, the bomber guys a zone in need of hitting, and the furballers as much if not more opportunity to find a fight. The milkrunners on a Pizza or Trinity might be out of luck more often, but there’s always offline play.
Charon
