Fighter sweeps in AE - too effective ??

[asdicus]

Reading the recent AAR's I noticed that fighter sweeps are a popular tactic for the japanese to reduce allied fighter strength.

Sweeps are of course a valid and effective tactic for a superior air force to use but the inferior opponent air force can of course refuse to engage fighter only attacks. The RAF in the battle of britain and the luftwaffe on defense in france 1941 onwards would spot on radar whether an enemy force consisted of just fighters ( speed and height of blip tend to give it away) and generally they would just ignore sweeps altogether. I think the game should reflect this tactic ie there should be a %chance for the defense to ignore fighter sweeps and just engage when bombers are also present. Otherwise we are going to see inferior air forces decimated by this tactic - something the japanese will also be subject to later in the war.

Any thoughts on this? I do realise that no new code/features can be included in AE now but perhaps a tweaking of the combat routines would help ??

[CV Zuikaku]

Maybe some of the defenders ignored orders and intercepted... [8|]

[jwilkerson]

Compared to stock, I think effectiveness of the "sweep bonus" has been dramatically reduced.

In my recent PBEM with Rob, we got to 15 August 42, one of the more hotly contested areas was my defense of the Andamans (I was Allied). Rob performed many sweeps with his Zeros versus my Hurricanes. Most of the oberver comments were complaining about the inability to destroy all the Hurricanes, but I'd cracked the tables enough to know that I should at least break even, given the factors in play.

With decent air to air skills in your pilots, and flying at appropriate altitudes, you can hold your own against sweeps. If heavily out numbered (even in stock) I will pull back a bit and defend with "bleed" CAP. Having ANY CAP is much better than having none, and having a small amount reduces your potential loss, while still encouraging the enemy to escort his strikes.

So compared to stock, the situation is notably improved.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: asdicus

Reading the recent AAR's I noticed that fighter sweeps are a popular tactic for the japanese to reduce allied fighter strength.

Sweeps are of course a valid and effective tactic for a superior air force to use but the inferior opponent air force can of course refuse to engage fighter only attacks. The RAF in the battle of britain and the luftwaffe on defense in france 1941 onwards would spot on radar whether an enemy force consisted of just fighters ( speed and height of blip tend to give it away) and generally they would just ignore sweeps altogether. I think the game should reflect this tactic ie there should be a %chance for the defense to ignore fighter sweeps and just engage when bombers are also present. Otherwise we are going to see inferior air forces decimated by this tactic - something the japanese will also be subject to later in the war.

Any thoughts on this? I do realise that no new code/features can be included in AE now but perhaps a tweaking of the combat routines would help ??

IRL, the inferior air force did control whether engagements took place. Morse and Kimball report that in the Pacific during 1943-44 Japanese (the inferior side during that period) casualties were completely insensitive to the number of American fighters present for the engagement, and the American casualties were proportional to the number of Japanese fighters present. In other words, the inferior side controlled the number of plane-versus-plane engagements that took place and there was no advantage to having excess fighters on the superior side.

[jwilkerson]

Further, there is a statistical indication that "more planes = more targets" and the airfarce with the larger number of aircraft, statistically, in WWII anyway, seemed to take heavier losses than the outnumbered side. I think I first read this in Overy.

This theory is not implemented in WITP - and this non-implementation is preserved in AE - however - ask Rob (my outnumbering opponent in our recent PBEM test) but perhaps he was frustrated by my ability to use small numbers of fighters to "keep him honest" in both Java and over Andaman - so to some extent (and to a greater extent in AE) it is possible to use small fighter forces to advantage in the game - over time.

[asdicus]

Thanks for your comment. I am glad to see the AE team is keeping an eye on this. Like everyone else I am eagerly waiting to see the final result of your efforts !

[Dili]

What about airbase/airport strafing, i hope that was improved, the results were dismal everytime i tried it. The casualities seemed okay but the damage made was almost insignificant while there are several instances of heavy destruction by strafing.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Further, there is a statistical indication that "more planes = more targets" and the airfarce with the larger number of aircraft, statistically, in WWII anyway, seemed to take heavier losses than the outnumbered side. I think I first read this in Overy.

This theory is not implemented in WITP - and this non-implementation is preserved in AE - however - ask Rob (my outnumbering opponent in our recent PBEM test) but perhaps he was frustrated by my ability to use small numbers of fighters to "keep him honest" in both Java and over Andaman - so to some extent (and to a greater extent in AE) it is possible to use small fighter forces to advantage in the game - over time.

I remember a Special Forces officer in Viet-nam who much preferred to be point man on patrol...