Escort fighters

[rader]

Why are escorting fighters at such a serious disadvantage compared with CAP or sweeping fighters? I know there was a bit of a disadvantage historically of haivng to stay close to their charges, etc., but dosen't it seem a bit extreme in WITP? I'm not sure how useful it is to even bother training the pilots you send on escort missions... sure they will do a bit better than well trained pilots but they still die in droves and, if the escorting fightesr are just ablative armor for the bombers (sucking up combat rounds), they do their job just was well untrained right?

[wildweasel0585]

Because the pilots flying the escorts have been threatened with being grounded if bomber losses are too high.
Seriously though, I don't think it's too extreme. You have your good days where fighters can hold of attackers, and you have your good days where your escorting fighters take losses but can still hold off an attack on the bombers.
Then you have your bad days where Murphy gets into the equation and your fighters don't do much, causing your bombers to take heavy losses.

[freeboy]

sometimes the best "escorts" are fighters sent in to attack the shipping.. pulls off cap and can allow for greater penetration.. or it can fail and get your bombers killed its a gamble

[bradfordkay]

In BOB/BOTR you had the ability to set your fighters to either a close or high escort, with the high escort fighters having a better time against the CAP. In WITP we have to fudge by using Sweep as our high escort. It's just a little manipulation of hte game system to re-create historical methods.

[Sardaukar]

Escort in game is Close Escort..and thus fighters are tied to bombers. Sweep is what you should use in lieu with your escorts to represent "loose escort" designed to find out and engage enemy CAP.

[LoBaron]

What Sardaukar and bradforkay said.

Escort is close escort, so on average they start the fight with E disadvantage, and without the initiative.
If you want to simulate high cover, mix in sweeps.

[rader]

Yeah, I know sweep is way better for attacking land targets than naval targets but why so much better? Why do fighters get shot doen in such droves on escort missions? Is there a historical basis for this? I know the Me-109s didn't do quite as well in terms of shooting down RAF fighters, but were they really commiting suicide by sticking close tothe bombers?

I'm also more talking about naval strikes, where you can't sweep. This is where escort missions really get ugly. It's even worse because you can't choose the strike packages to send, so you tend to send not enough to get the job done, but just enough to lose lots of planes. That way you can fail to accomplish the mission of sinking the ships and ge the opportunity to send more planes to the slaughter [8|]

Here's a very typical example (17:1 ratio... really?):

Japanese aircraft
A6M5c Zero x 8
A7M2 Sam x 10
J2M3 Jack x 6
J7W1 Shinden x 19
N1K1-J George x 17
Ki-84r Frank x 2
Ki-102b Randy x 7

Allied aircraft
F6F-3 Hellcat x 35
SBD-5 Dauntless x 32


No Japanese losses

Allied aircraft losses
F6F-3 Hellcat: 17 destroyed
SBD-5 Dauntless: 20 destroyed, 1 damaged

Japanese Ships
SC CHa-23
SC Ch 47
SC CHa-44, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
SC CHa-60
SC CHa-71

[witpqs]

The developers have explained that's what the terminology means. Maybe they should have used different words, but it wouldn't change things.

Close escort = Escort = Stay with the bombers to best protect them.

Loose escort = Sweep = Free to engage enemy fighters.

[Banzan]

Can you post the missing part of the report, please? It would be interesting to see warning time, altitude and how many planes were vectored on the bombers.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

In BOB/BOTR you had the ability to set your fighters to either a close or high escort, with the high escort fighters having a better time against the CAP. In WITP we have to fudge by using Sweep as our high escort. It's just a little manipulation of hte game system to re-create historical methods.

If you could somewhat rely on sweeps going in first (or at least a the same time as the bombers) but it's always just a coin flip.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The developers have explained that's what the terminology means. Maybe they should have used different words, but it wouldn't change things.

Close escort = Escort = Stay with the bombers to best protect them.

Loose escort = Sweep = Free to engage enemy fighters.

no matter how you call it, it doesn't change the outcome at all though. I agree with rader that the difference between sweep/escort, close escort, high escort, lose escort or whatever is just too big when you can have the same squadrons being shot down at 1:10 on escort and achieving 10:1 on sweep vs the same enemy. It's too EXTREME.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

In BOB/BOTR you had the ability to set your fighters to either a close or high escort, with the high escort fighters having a better time against the CAP. In WITP we have to fudge by using Sweep as our high escort. It's just a little manipulation of hte game system to re-create historical methods.

If you could somewhat rely on sweeps going in first (or at least a the same time as the bombers) but it's always just a coin flip.

You are describing exactly what high cover is like. Good in engaging CAP, bad at reliably protecting the bombers.
If you could ensure sweeps to go in first it would lose the character of high cover.

no matter how you call it, it doesn't change the outcome at all though. I agree with rader that the difference between sweep/escort, close escort, high escort, lose escort or whatever is just too big when you can have the same squadrons being shot down at 1:10 on escort and achieving 10:1 on sweep vs the same enemy. It's too EXTREME.

Everytime I see something like this I have to grin.

Air combat is higly dependent on relative numbers, relative aircraft/pilot quality, relative
fatigue/morale levels, early warning, CAP settings and incoming altitude, plus the usual suspects.

If a lot of factors work against you the result is extreme, but the same would most probably apply to the
comparable real world situation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Rabaul , at 106,125

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 40,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 93
Ki-61-Ia Tony x 27



Allied aircraft
P-38F Lightning x 24
P-38G Lightning x 41


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 7 destroyed ---> about 15 shot down
Ki-61-Ia Tony: 1 destroyed ---> 2-3 shot down

Allied aircraft losses
P-38F Lightning: 1 destroyed ---> 3 shot down, 2-5 op losses
P-38G Lightning: 1 destroyed ---> 2 shot down, 2 op losses

Aircraft Attacking:
22 x P-38G Lightning sweeping at 39000 feet
12 x P-38G Lightning sweeping at 39000 feet
17 x P-38F Lightning sweeping at 39000 feet

Wond why we always get these plausible results...strange, maybe Rob, Mike and me got the
only working version of WitP AE. [:D]

[LoBaron]

Bottom line is:

Air combat is extremely fast and highly chaotic on a small scale.

This leads to more erratic results, the smaller the scale observed is.
The larger the timescale or the number of engagements observed gets, the more the
results average out.

Was the same in WWII, every small engagement has its own story of heroes or crushing
defeats with 100% losses. Only when increasing the timespan or operational level
you get the averaged out statistical results everybody throws about.

[EUBanana]

It's not really that chaotic... Which is kinda the point. Escorting fighters getting nailed in massively one sided battles is par for the course.

Yeah, occasionally they don't get nailed. There's always outliers. But So what? Outliers are fine, randomness and the fog of battle is a good thing, but when the exceptional becomes the routine I am mildly bothered. That every so often they do OK due to the stars aligning for whatever reason is irrelevant.

There are a a few examples of odd things in that vein. Like how battleships are routinely useless in a surface brawl. Yes, I know there are various circumstances which would make a battleship a liability, and these circumstances even happened for real, but that doesn't mean it should be the routine.

[LoBaron]

This is where I disagree.

Escort fighters (close escort) do get nailed by CAP on a regular basis only when they
are victim of additional adverse factors. And then its the task of the player to correct
these adverse factors - instead to continue running in escorted raids from a disadvantage
and the complain over the results.

Thats one of the basic rules a wargame lives by. I don´t understand what there is to complain
about.

What might be worth discussing is that there is no mix in the air combat model.
The CAP first engages the escorts, and after burning through they attack the bombers.
The disadvantage of this sequence is obvious, as its not in accordance with reality.
In reality CAP has to mix with escorts to get to the bombers, but this could well happen
close to simultaneous.
But even then, as long as the attack is distributed in several packages, you heve this parallel
situation abstracted in different combat replays.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

In BOB/BOTR you had the ability to set your fighters to either a close or high escort, with the high escort fighters having a better time against the CAP. In WITP we have to fudge by using Sweep as our high escort. It's just a little manipulation of hte game system to re-create historical methods.

If you could somewhat rely on sweeps going in first (or at least a the same time as the bombers) but it's always just a coin flip.

You are describing exactly what high cover is like. Good in engaging CAP, bad at reliably protecting the bombers.
If you could ensure sweeps to go in first it would lose the character of high cover.

no matter how you call it, it doesn't change the outcome at all though. I agree with rader that the difference between sweep/escort, close escort, high escort, lose escort or whatever is just too big when you can have the same squadrons being shot down at 1:10 on escort and achieving 10:1 on sweep vs the same enemy. It's too EXTREME.

Everytime I see something like this I have to grin.

Air combat is higly dependent on relative numbers, relative aircraft/pilot quality, relative
fatigue/morale levels, early warning, CAP settings and incoming altitude, plus the usual suspects.

If a lot of factors work against you the result is extreme, but the same would most probably apply to the
comparable real world situation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Rabaul , at 106,125

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 40,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 16 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M3a Zero x 93
Ki-61-Ia Tony x 27



Allied aircraft
P-38F Lightning x 24
P-38G Lightning x 41


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 7 destroyed ---> about 15 shot down
Ki-61-Ia Tony: 1 destroyed ---> 2-3 shot down

Allied aircraft losses
P-38F Lightning: 1 destroyed ---> 3 shot down, 2-5 op losses
P-38G Lightning: 1 destroyed ---> 2 shot down, 2 op losses

Aircraft Attacking:
22 x P-38G Lightning sweeping at 39000 feet
12 x P-38G Lightning sweeping at 39000 feet
17 x P-38F Lightning sweeping at 39000 feet

Wond why we always get these plausible results...strange, maybe Rob, Mike and me got the
only working version of WitP AE. [:D]

lol, what ya want to show with that example? Not only are you missing the point (for the first time in your entire life) it seems you are also exploiting the game engine with your ceiling sweep lol. And I'm only quoting what your aircombat god said officially on the forum.

Absolutely plausible, really and so spot on for the topic.

[LoBaron]

Especially for you CT:

...have the same squadrons being shot down at 1:10 on escort and achieving 10:1 on sweep vs the same enemy

I just used an example to show above quote is BS. Please continue. [:'(]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

It's not really that chaotic... Which is kinda the point. Escorting fighters getting nailed in massively one sided battles is par for the course.

Yeah, occasionally they don't get nailed. There's always outliers. But So what? Outliers are fine, randomness and the fog of battle is a good thing, but when the exceptional becomes the routine I am mildly bothered. That every so often they do OK due to the stars aligning for whatever reason is irrelevant.

There are a a few examples of odd things in that vein. Like how battleships are routinely useless in a surface brawl. Yes, I know there are various circumstances which would make a battleship a liability, and these circumstances even happened for real, but that doesn't mean it should be the routine.

give it up, mate, it's senseless.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Especially for you CT:

...have the same squadrons being shot down at 1:10 on escort and achieving 10:1 on sweep vs the same enemy

I just used an example to show above quote is BS. Please continue. [:'(]

no, it's not BS, it's an exxageration if we speak about "in general" but if you fail (as so many times before without even realizing or being in a stage of the game you shouldn't even try to ever make a comment) to see that the difference between sweep and escort is an insane ratio then you just fail. FAIL again... You can slap a stubborn dog three times and the fourth time at the latest he'll notice he should not do what he's slaped for, human beings at times are not as smart as a dog but take this as my usual exxageration and not as a personal insult as it is not meant as one. In your oh so great perfectionism you even show an example of what your all time favourite game developer called an EXPLOIT. Sorry, but this is going so far into being piss poor I start to lack words for it. Boy, oh boy.

And to be honest, your AAR lacks so many combat reports that it's unfortunately not a great prove about what you're usually posting and definitely not discouraging to those that bring up all those "issues" again and again. Please note, that it's NOT the same people bringing up the same issues all the time. Oh, forgot, they are all too stupid.

[LoBaron]

Castor Troy, the fundamental difference between our ways of thinking is:

The first or second question that comes to your mind if you receive unexpected or undesireable results
in a row, is whether the game engine cannot handle the situation you created.

This is why you are uncovering and reporting small bugs faster than me, but have a high chance
to wrongly report something as a bug as well.

I on the other hand first ask whether I am doing something wrong to create this result, if
not, I question if the strategic or tactical situation is such that I cannot achieve the
desired result, and finally I try to assess if I can change anything to circumvent the
situation I am in.
Only if everything turns out as "no", then I begin suspecting an underlying bug.
But in close to every instance I am able to answer one of the questions with "yes" before that happens.

This is why I slower to claim to have found a fault in the game engine, but on the
other hand I have a much easier time to understand how to use the more complex features
of the game engine. And there my favorite is the air model which is really well done.

I enjoy my way of thinking and I really hope you enjoy yours.

But we will probably always have difficulties to accept the other´s way of thinking, and
I have not much interest to do so anyway. Let´s leave it as that.