Some questions after my initial pbem impressions

[Ktonos]

Well here goes nothing...:

1) When I am allies I tent to get better combat results than the initial predictions, when I am Axis I get worse. (ex. projected 1:3 when actual result is 2:2)

2) In the manual I can't actually discern the distinction between morale and readiness. In practice my guess is that readiness is a combat factor modifier (if a unit has a total combat factor of 10 it will be modified by it's readiness % - not it's strength). It's strength affects the morale (?). The morale is the projected readiness for the next round. Is it about so or am I totally wrong?

3) In one of my games, my Axis opponent successfully Sea Lioned, ending up conquering the whole island - except London. London is encircled by every side but never taken. The result is that the capital never moves to Canada, my convoys do not redirect and thus their MPPs are lost, plus I can't place any units anywhere. I perceive this as a) a gamey tactic and b) as a bug of some sort. Is this something that the pbem players usually exploit, or is it considered discourteous?

4) Please have an option for fighters to be set as "only intercept bombers" or "do not intercept enemy reccon flights"...

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

It is very popular now for the Axis player (Allied later in game) to send fighters first to no where on map until opponents fighter intercepts are exhausted then send Bomber to no fighter resistance. This is very unrealistic and I think there should be a change to intercept capabilities of fighters for more realism. I believe fighters should have two intercept options 1) intercept all 2) intercept bombers only.

Nothing against the people who use this tactic, its perfectly legal and I do it for time to time myself. Given the overwhelming air advantage of the Axis early the sending fighters first to wipe out fighter coverage should change for more parity.

My post from March 1

[Sugar]

I can hardly imagine a scenario where defending fighters aren't engaged by escorts when trying to engage bombers only. If outnumbered, use your fighters only to escort own bombers, and AA to protect objectives or units.

There's no difference between how combat results are calculated between Axis or Allies afaik; the predictions are in fact very precise, but after calculation expanded by randomly +-1 (allthough usually a +1 in enemy losses are very rare, as well as a -1). Given the fact that a units can't win strenghpoints from fighting, the probablity to suffer losses even at a prediction of 0:something is 33%.

[PvtBenjamin]

I find your argument comical considering this is one of your tactics. In '40-'41 the Axis has better HQ's and HQ's & planes with much more experience and much more MPP to replenish with and you know it. Allied fighetrs go down 2/4 for every one that the Axis does and the Allies dont have the resources to replace. You know its impossible to cover all units with AA's. So your argument is the Allies should just not have any fighter defense against bombers. This is another one of your lame arguments to justify your strategy not improve the game. Continuously sending fighters first to weaken the opponents inferior air force should be changed so fighters can just intercept bombers.

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: Ktonos


3) In one of my games, my Axis opponent successfully Sea Lioned, ending up conquering the whole island - except London. London is encircled by every side but never taken. The result is that the capital never moves to Canada, my convoys do not redirect and thus their MPPs are lost, plus I can't place any units anywhere. I perceive this as a) a gamey tactic and b) as a bug of some sort. Is this something that the pbem players usually exploit, or is it considered discourteous?

Sounds very gamey to me...Comments from the developers please? [&:]

ORIGINAL: Ktonos
4) Please have an option for fighters to be set as "only intercept bombers" or "do not intercept enemy reccon flights"...

Not sure what to say about this one...so comments from the developers would also be most welcomed here. [:)]

C

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: Christolos

ORIGINAL: Ktonos


3) In one of my games, my Axis opponent successfully Sea Lioned, ending up conquering the whole island - except London. London is encircled by every side but never taken. The result is that the capital never moves to Canada, my convoys do not redirect and thus their MPPs are lost, plus I can't place any units anywhere. I perceive this as a) a gamey tactic and b) as a bug of some sort. Is this something that the pbem players usually exploit, or is it considered discourteous?

Sounds very gamey to me...Comments from the developers please? [&:]

ORIGINAL: Ktonos
4) Please have an option for fighters to be set as "only intercept bombers" or "do not intercept enemy reccon flights"...

Not sure what to say about this one...so comments from the developers would also be most welcomed here. [:)]

C

agreed

[Christolos]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

It is very popular now for the Axis player (Allied later in game) to send fighters first to no where on map until opponents fighter intercepts are exhausted then send Bomber to no fighter resistance. This is very unrealistic and I think there should be a change to intercept capabilities of fighters for more realism. I believe fighters should have two intercept options 1) intercept all 2) intercept bombers only.

Nothing against the people who use this tactic, its perfectly legal and I do it for time to time myself. Given the overwhelming air advantage of the Axis early the sending fighters first to wipe out fighter coverage should change for more parity.

My post from March 1

Hi PvtBenjamin,

Could you direct me to the thread that contains your March 1 post you quoted above. I tried searching for it but couldn't find it.

Thanks,

C

[KorutZelva]

I'm fine with fighter sweeps, but they should not be allowed one sweep AND and an escort. Wouldn't complain if maritime bombers had only one strike too.

[PvtBenjamin]

[/quote]
Hi PvtBenjamin,

Could you direct me to the thread that contains your March 1 post you quoted above. I tried searching for it but couldn't find it.

Thanks,

C
[/quote]





Bottom section "Proposed Change - Fighter Intercept" 3/1/18

[Sugar]

Hmm, how much xp will german fighters gain in Poland? They have 3, the Brits 2 + at the same lvl, France has 1, and there are also 4 carriers at the time. Perhaps replacing Lord Gort by Monty might help.

Britains' income is higher than germans` at that point.

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

I'm fine with fighter sweeps, but they should not be allowed one sweep AND and an escort. Wouldn't complain if maritime bombers had only one strike too.

This would certainly be an improvement. Currently some "above" just recon superior AF to no where until the Allied AF is exhausted. It totally lacks in realism.

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

Hmm, how much xp will german fighters gain in Poland? They have 3, the Brits 2 + at the same lvl, France has 1, and there are also 4 carriers at the time. Perhaps replacing Lord Gort by Monty might help.

Britains' income is higher than germans` at that point.

I think the man is actually arguing that the Allies Air force is better than the Axis.

[Sugar]

No, I'm argueing some players don't have a clue how to use it. That doesn't mean it's impossible.

[PvtBenjamin]

[>:][>:]

[sPzAbt653]

I would argue that it is not the escort/intercept functions that are off, it is the spotting routines that are off. My opinion, spotting is not a function of fighter units at the strategic level. Most units in the game had their own spotting capability. The current behavior, again in my opinion, doesn't work well and is open to the mentioned exploit.

That said, even with adjusted spotting rules, there is no way to avoid staggered air attacks to optimize results. For example, in 653H/N there are adjusted spotting rules, but still, my current routine when doing Sealion or Overlord is to send in Tac's first, then Strat's, then use Fighters to attack any enemy air units that are stranded and helpless after taking losses from intercepting those Tac's and Strat's.

I guess there was good reason for why the UK withdrew its' fighters further north in England in 1941, and why the Germans withdrew theirs back to Germany in 1944 [:)]

[Dorky8]

ORIGINAL: Sugar

No, I'm argueing some players don't have a clue how to use it. That doesn't mean it's impossible.

LMAO [:D]

This guy really needs to work on his people skills


It is because everyone is a dummkopf No one play like me

[Sugar]

I'm very pleased to make you happy.

But no, it`s more of thinking outside the box. PvtBenjamin has used this tactics against myself during our last match, and managed to destroy a german med. bomber. He therefore already knows what I'm talking about, but imho he wasn't consequent enough, and had chosen the "wrong" target. To achieve air superiority it's inevitable to destroy/knock out fighters, because of the fact that bombers aren`t able to attack efficiently without escorts against a strong fighter defense.

As I already mentioned, carriers are very usefull against enemy aircraft placed in plains, if fully reinforced. They don't even need upgrades to fullfill their task. On the other hand they suck in dogfights, not very surprising if you look at their stats. If you're using your carriers only to attack, together with your tac. ad strat. bombers, and your fighters to escort, you should easily wipe out at least one german fighter; leaving the others in bad shape preventing them from any attack in response. You won`t usually face more than 3 fighters in France or 4 in NA, destroying one has a significant impact.

Next turn your opponent runs into serious questions: should he reinforce his fighters or move them outside (yours, but also his) attacking-range?

In general fighters are hard to train, they only can attack few targets, and recon-missions, even if intercepted, don't gain any xp. Since Britain and Germany are starting at the same lvl, I can't see any reason why brit. fighters shouldn't be at the same lvl as their opponents later in game; they even have the advantage of higher range.

[KorutZelva]

tm.asp?m=4421024

If you check this AAR, it gives an idea of what Sugar is talking about.

Taifun uses its carriers aggressively during the battle of France and in the Western Med to really drain the German airforce.

[crispy131313]

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

tm.asp?m=4421024

If you check this AAR, it gives an idea of what Sugar is talking about.

Taifun uses its carriers aggressively during the battle of France and in the Western Med to really drain the German airforce.

That was a painful game. I've learned to play more focused ever since.

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

tm.asp?m=4421024

If you check this AAR, it gives an idea of what Sugar is talking about.

Taifun uses its carriers aggressively during the battle of France and in the Western Med to really drain the German airforce.

I used the carriers (4 upgraded) very aggressively in Egypt and took out Sugars Med Tac (he says I should have taken fighter thats debatable). He then moved all his planes to Siwa so they were out of range of the carriers. Sugar wasn't winning the game against me, or at least by much and he knows it. It was fall of '41 he had only just taken el Alamen and I had a major force left, I had also taken out 2 Italian Armies and a tank. It would have at least taken to Spring of '42 to take Egypt and thena the US arrives. He was bogged down in USSR and by the time he got his airforce (all of it was in Northern Africa) to USSR in mid '42 I would have had a formidable force.