More air related questions

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21

Post Reply
Chris21wen
Posts: 6948
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Cottesmore, Rutland

More air related questions

Post by Chris21wen »

I'm finding this to be the hardest part of the game t come to grips with. What are pros and cons of the following options:-
  • Filling up a/b with the full complement, 9 air groups I think, or not. I know that when all a/b are full you can get new one.
  • Removing a/b with no air groups. Only applies after you start to rebuild.
  • Removing SAD early
  • Putting F/FB into none IAD a/b
  • Putting DBAP a/c into BAD a/b

In real life there must have been a reason why the Soviets didn't do the last two or they would not have got rid of their SAD a/b.

Now Kiev has been captured the Kharkov MD has been moved and renamed to the Southern Urals. The Kharkov Air Command was moved as well but it has not been renamed. Will it, does it get disbanded or is it an oversight.
Chris21wen
Posts: 6948
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Cottesmore, Rutland

RE: More air related questions

Post by Chris21wen »

Anybody know
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: More air related questions

Post by morvael »

1) Cons: you will go over support provided by airbase and will lose more planes due to operational losses. Only 6 groups per base needed to spawn new bases.
2) Cons: costs AP, simply reduce load to less than 6 per base if you don't want more bases. A temporary, AP-free solution to conserve manpower is to reduce MAX TOE to 50% for unused airbases.
3) Cons: see 2)
4&5) In my game I have estabilished two "types" of airbases. VVS and not VVS. VVS would get 1 long-range level bomber and 1 FB group set to night missions, 1 transport and 1 recon. They were to support partisans, resupply troops and recon. All non-VVS airbases (whatever their name) got the same setup: 3 F/FB, 1 tactical bomber (Il-2), 1 light level bomber (Pe-2). Later, when the F/FB/TacB groups expanded to 40 aircraft and level bomber to 32, I removed 1 F/FB. Each front had about 5-6 such non-VVS airbases and 1 VVS airbase.
Chris21wen
Posts: 6948
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Cottesmore, Rutland

RE: More air related questions

Post by Chris21wen »

ORIGINAL: morvael

1) Cons: you will go over support provided by airbase and will lose more planes due to operational losses. Only 6 groups per base needed to spawn new bases.
2) Cons: costs AP, simply reduce load to less than 6 per base if you don't want more bases. A temporary, AP-free solution to conserve manpower is to reduce MAX TOE to 50% for unused airbases.
3) Cons: see 2)
4&5) In my game I have estabilished two "types" of airbases. VVS and not VVS. VVS would get 1 long-range level bomber and 1 FB group set to night missions, 1 transport and 1 recon. They were to support partisans, resupply troops and recon. All non-VVS airbases (whatever their name) got the same setup: 3 F/FB, 1 tactical bomber (Il-2), 1 light level bomber (Pe-2). Later, when the F/FB/TacB groups expanded to 40 aircraft and level bomber to 32, I removed 1 F/FB. Each front had about 5-6 such non-VVS airbases and 1 VVS airbase.


Thanks

1. So 9 is the max but 6 is optimal.
2/3. I was thinking more about the start
4/5. So a/b type has no effect upon the game.
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: More air related questions

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: Chris H

ORIGINAL: morvael

1) Cons: you will go over support provided by airbase and will lose more planes due to operational losses. Only 6 groups per base needed to spawn new bases.
2) Cons: costs AP, simply reduce load to less than 6 per base if you don't want more bases. A temporary, AP-free solution to conserve manpower is to reduce MAX TOE to 50% for unused airbases.
3) Cons: see 2)
4&5) In my game I have estabilished two "types" of airbases. VVS and not VVS. VVS would get 1 long-range level bomber and 1 FB group set to night missions, 1 transport and 1 recon. They were to support partisans, resupply troops and recon. All non-VVS airbases (whatever their name) got the same setup: 3 F/FB, 1 tactical bomber (Il-2), 1 light level bomber (Pe-2). Later, when the F/FB/TacB groups expanded to 40 aircraft and level bomber to 32, I removed 1 F/FB. Each front had about 5-6 such non-VVS airbases and 1 VVS airbase.


Thanks

1. So 9 is the max but 6 is optimal.
2/3. I was thinking more about the start
4/5. So a/b type has no effect upon the game.

1- it depends, each type of air unit brings a different demand on the airbase. Ideally you don't want to exceed this as the number of inoperative and destroyed planes will increase.

When 20 is your default air unit size, then the U2s take next to no space. Try as an experiment loading up a base with 9 and you'll see. You can also get away with 9 FBs or Ground support units. But the Il-4s take up a lot of space so you'd struggle to fit in more than 3 or 4 of these.

2/3 - whether you mix fighters and bombers or not is a matter of choice at most bases (again before the late 42 re-organisation). One gain to keeping the Ground Support separate (Il-2, Su-2 and the U2VS) is they cause more 'kills' according to the game logic. Thus those bases have a higher chance of flipping to Gds status than either FB or mixed allocations.

So thats worth keeping in mind, but I'd be as influenced by the situation and what I was trying to do on a given structure.

4/5 - only VVS (use as Morvael suggests) and the PVO bases do anything special. The latter should only have fighters/fighter bombers and use them for interception. I tie both to the remaining BAK commands (I keep 3 of these) and deploy where I want extra fighter cover or to prioritise the partisan war.
Chris21wen
Posts: 6948
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Cottesmore, Rutland

RE: More air related questions

Post by Chris21wen »

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Chris H


Thanks

1. So 9 is the max but 6 is optimal.
2/3. I was thinking more about the start
4/5. So a/b type has no effect upon the game.

1- it depends, each type of air unit brings a different demand on the airbase. Ideally you don't want to exceed this as the number of inoperative and destroyed planes will increase.

When 20 is your default air unit size, then the U2s take next to no space. Try as an experiment loading up a base with 9 and you'll see. You can also get away with 9 FBs or Ground support units. But the Il-4s take up a lot of space so you'd struggle to fit in more than 3 or 4 of these.

2/3 - whether you mix fighters and bombers or not is a matter of choice at most bases (again before the late 42 re-organisation). One gain to keeping the Ground Support separate (Il-2, Su-2 and the U2VS) is they cause more 'kills' according to the game logic. Thus those bases have a higher chance of flipping to Gds status than either FB or mixed allocations.

So thats worth keeping in mind, but I'd be as influenced by the situation and what I was trying to do on a given structure.

4/5 - only VVS (use as Morvael suggests) and the PVO bases do anything special. The latter should only have fighters/fighter bombers and use them for interception. I tie both to the remaining BAK commands (I keep 3 of these) and deploy where I want extra fighter cover or to prioritise the partisan war.

Thanks, got it now.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”