Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message


SqzMyLemon -> Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/4/2013 7:01:32 PM)

I know there's always been a case where air units set to training can intercept raids, but I've noticed some different behaviour lately that bothers me.

I've noticed that I can sweep a base prior to a bombing raid and encounter no enemy fighters, yet as soon as the bomber raid arrives (either escorted or not) all of a sudden there are "Training" fighters interdicting my force.

I just had a raid of 50+ Sally's escorted by 31 Oscar's intercepted by "Training" fighters of Dutch Hawks (3 in total) despite being swept prior to the raid by 25+ Zero's and lost 2 Oscar's and a number of Sally's as Ops losses from damage as a result with no Allied fighters lost. This bugs me. Since I can't sweep these "Trainers" from the sky prior to my raid I have to suffer the escort penalty and dive bonus against three fighters when they are outnumbered 10:1? Really? Seems like a way to exploit the fact you are "Training" yet can interdict raids avoiding any kind of risk from sweeps and limited risk from escorts.

This has happened to me about 6 times now and is pissing me off. What's the solution in terms of orders on my part to counter this? I sweep and they don't intercept the "Trainers" or I escort at a tactical disadvantage and still don't get to the "Trainers" and I won't even mention what happens if I get caught unescorted on occasion. It also appears that since the fighters are "Training" they are not on the ground and suffer no damage from the bombers.

Seems like an exploit to me and I don't like it, but if someone can explain an adequate counter I'm all ears.




Cannonfodder -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/4/2013 8:20:10 PM)

There is no guarantee that they will dodge the sweep and there is no guarantee that they will intercept bombers..

Annoying when they do but there it is...




Alfred -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/5/2013 5:50:39 AM)

Is this just another manifestation of the behaviour raised in this thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3208742&mpage=1&key=fighters%2Ctraining�

As you deleted your two posts in that thread and provided no subsequent feedback on the suggestions provided by others, it is impossible to know whether the "issue" was fixed for you.

In any case, it is not an exploit. Following on from my post in the linked thread, have you tried sending in your sweeps at the same altitude which the enemy fighters are training at?

Alfred




AW1Steve -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/5/2013 6:45:26 AM)

I had that happen to me on the current PBEM I'm involved in. A squadron of fighters got caught up in training and intercepted the Japanese attack at PH. Socked the daylights out of me and had me rushing back after the turn to make sure that they were not set to CAP. They weren't.[X(]




JeffK -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/5/2013 7:32:52 AM)

Maybe the Rookies were smart and hid in the clouds while the fighter sweep came through but saw their chance when some bombers which could damage their base flew in.

I recall the poles (and probably Czechs) did the same in the Battle of Britain)

Also, what makes players believe that they have perfect control of every single action in a Theatre of this size??




SqzMyLemon -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/5/2013 8:42:13 AM)

Considering I never know when it's going to happen, I can't very well magically set my sweeps to the same altitude.

Alfred, your point is well taken, but so far I don't recall winning one encounter with these fighters that jump me when set to "Training" and I've lost a fair number of aircraft to them despite sweeping and escorting or of course when I get caught with no escort. This is the first time this has occurred over Batavia.

Here are the combat reports to shed light on the subject. First the sweeps go in followed by the bomber strikes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Batavia , at 49,98

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 28 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 9 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 26

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
26 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Batavia , at 49,98

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 19 NM, estimated altitude 20,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 6 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 3

No Japanese losses

Aircraft Attacking:
3 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Batavia , at 49,98

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid detected at 20 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 5 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 66
Ki-43-Ic Oscar x 33

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 2 damaged

Allied ground losses:
7 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Airbase hits 2
Runway hits 20

Aircraft Attacking:
22 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 12000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
20 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 12000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb
24 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 12000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
1-Vl.G.IV with 75A-7 Hawk (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 9000
Raid is overhead

Training flight from 1-Vl.G.IV has been caught up in attack

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Batavia , at 49,98

Weather in hex: Heavy rain

Raid spotted at 7 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 2 minutes

Japanese aircraft
Ki-21-IIa Sally x 19

Allied aircraft
75A-7 Hawk x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
Ki-21-IIa Sally: 2 damaged

No Allied losses

Airbase hits 6
Runway hits 3

Aircraft Attacking:
19 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombing from 12000 feet
Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
1-Vl.G.IV with 75A-7 Hawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 9000 , scrambling fighters to 19000.
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 59 minutes

Ok, I get random, but what I don't get is why the defenders can pick and choose what to engage. They avoid the sweeps and outmaneuver against an escort that outnumbers them 10:1 and then get a free pass at an unescorted second strike. Ok, sweep too high, I guess I'll try and sweep at 9k then. Yet my bomber strike was at 12k, as were my escorts, yet I get no tactical advantage against only three enemy fighters at 9k?

JeffK, I never once said anything about wanting to control every engagement, what I did ask is what do I need to do to counter. So far the "Trainees" have burnt me every time regardless of my efforts. Telling me they dipped into the clouds does nothing to contribute to the discussion. Who's to say my sweeps couldn't catch the "Trainees" in flight once in awhile? It has to work both ways and so far it hasn't.




obvert -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/5/2013 9:00:25 AM)

I completely get what you're saying here Joseph. Why does a 'training' CAP behave differently than any other CAP. If you sweep at 15k you will annihilate any fighters on regular CAP, so why not the training group?

As for what to do about it, maybe try a LR CAP over the base in addition to or instead of the sweep. At least it will be there during all of the bombers missions. Or talk to the opponent (Jocke?) and see if you can't work out something to make sure this is not exploited in a larger way. I do feel like the trainees will get caught out either way and wiped pretty soon, but it would be annoying until that happens.




JocMeister -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/5/2013 10:02:00 AM)

I donīt like the behavior of this either. If anything the sweep should have an even higher chance to intercept the training missions. After all they are there actively looking for a fight while the bombing mission will try and avoid it.

So far in our game none of the sweeps have connected with my training missions while they have intercepted bombers on several occasions. I have seen some other posts on the subject bringing this up.

I will stop doing training in forward areas for now as I donīt think this is working very well.




Alfred -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/6/2013 7:03:06 AM)

Normally I allow LoBaron to take First Chair on these sort of "issues" but in his absence I'll step up.

As I said before, this is not an exploit. Nor is it a case of "Training CAP" behaving differently from any other CAP. Nor are there any objective grounds for making the blanket statement that the sweeps should have an even higher chance to intercept the training missions.


PART 1

These are the "objective facts" provided by the Combat Report in post #6.

(A) Strike package #1


  • 26 x A6M2 Zero on morning sweep mission
  • weather is heavy rain
  • initial Allied estimated altitude is 17k, actual sweep comes in at 15k
  • warning time is 9 minutes
  • no Allied fighters intercept


(B) Strike package #2


  • 3 x A6M2 Zero on morning sweep mission
  • weather is heavy rain
  • initial Allied estimated altitude is 20k, actual sweep comes in at 15k
  • warning time is 6 minutes
  • no Allied fighters intercept


(C) Strike package #3


  • 66 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombers, with an escort of 33 x Ki-43-Ic Oscar fighters on morning airfield bombing mission
  • weather is heavy rain
  • initial Allied estimated altitude is 16k, actual bombing comes in at 12k
  • warning time is 5 minutes
  • 3 x 75A-7 Hawk fighters of Dutch unit 1-VI.G.IV are training and airborne at 9k
  • the bombers come in "overhead" of the locations where the Dutch are training and an interception results
  • Japan suffers 2 damaged Sally bombers, the Dutch suffer no damage to their airplanes
  • the bombers inflict 2 Airbase hits + 20 Runway hits


(D) Strike package #4


  • 19 x Ki-21-IIa Sally bombers with no escort on morning airfield bombing mission
  • weather is heavy rain
  • initial Allied estimated altitude is13k, actual bombing comes in at 12k
  • warning time is 2 minutes
  • the Dutch unit 1-VI.G.IV is no longer conducting training and has no planes airborne
  • 1 x 75A-Hawk is set to scramble to go to 19k to intercept the bombers
  • estimated time for Dutch fighter to intercept is 59 minutes
  • Japan suffers 2 damaged Sally bombers, the Dutch suffer no damage to the sole airplane
  • the bombers inflict 6 Airbase hits + 3 Runway hits


(E) Key relevant fighter stats


  • the 75A-Hawk has max speed of 321, cruise speed of 262, maneouvre rating of 34 at both 12k and 15k
  • the A6M2 Zero has max speed of 331, cruise speed of 207, maneouvre rating of 33 at both 12k and 15k
  • the Ki-43-Ic Oscar has max speed of 305, cruise speed of 199, maneouvre rating of 46 at both 12k and 15k
  • the 75A-Hawk has a 2500 feet per minute climb rate




PART 2

The above "objective facts" tell us the following.

(1) The Zeros were set to sweep 6k above the altitude set for the training.

(2) The weather conditions were very poor and as page 224 of the manual states, the worse the weather the greater is the likelihood that an Air Mission will miss its target.

(3) A delta of 6kin altitude is significant and markedly increases the chances that opposing aircraft will not see each other, particularly when detection is not based on radar reports but the Mark I eyeball operating in poor weather conditions.

(4) The 75A-Hawk is one of the best Allied aircraft available in the first few months of the war. It's major shortcomings are:


  • compared to the best British and American fighters, it has relatively weak armament, no armour and no production
  • compared to the best American fighers, it's max speed is slower by about 30 mph


Against those shortcomings it's strengths compared to the Allied fighter inventory are:


  • far superior maneouvre ratings
  • a large part of the Allied fighter inventory is comprised of aircraft with similarly weak armament, no armour, no (or minuscule) production, slower max speed


(5) Taking into account the fighter mission profile adopted by the Japanese player in this instance, the 75A-Hawk's strengths were maximised and it's weaknesses minimised.


  • the Oscar has a far superior maneouvre rating but a slower max speed. Because the Oscar was used to close escort the bombers, the Oscar was largely prevented from using its main advantage, namely its maneouvre advantage. Combined with its slower max speed, the Oscar was in a tactical disadvantage.
  • the Zero is slightly inferior in maneouvre rating and just a little bit faster in max speed but significantly slower in cruise speed. In combat much would depend on the pilot quality to determine which aircraft would come out on top but in searching to locate the enemy somewhere in the 40 mile hex, the advantage clearly lies with the 75A-Hawk.


    (6) The delta with the bombers was only 3k. At that delta, even under poor weather conditions and using the Mark I eyeball, there is some chance that a visible sighting will occur. In this instance, strike package #3 was found overhead of the training aircraft whose climbing rate allowed an almost instanteous interception. Compare that with the much longer climb time the Dutch would have faced to get into position to challenge the Zeros if they had been spotted and were assigned to CAP instead of training.

    (7) After it's training flight was disrupted by strike package #3, the Dutch were not conducting training when strike package #4 arrived. They reverted back to the status of any squadron not given any CAP orders. Hence why the time required to scramble the sole fighter was 59 minutes. It had to be refueled, rearmed etc and was only able to intercept the bombers after they had delivered their payload and were on their egress. Particularly note the altitude the fighter was set to scramble to; significantly higher than the Allied estimated incoming altitude, let alone the actual altitude used by the bombers.

    (8) The "Training CAP" was not particularly effective. All the Japanese bombers, with their limited payloads, were able to drop their ordnance and achieve a satisfactory result.


    Alfred




  • PaxMondo -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/6/2013 2:19:49 PM)

    I'm kinda missing the what the bruhaha is about here.  The training flight acted in (it happens), with almost no result (a couple of damaged bombers, but strikes hit AF).  Not sure where the issues lies?  Pretty much agree (and understand) with Alfred's analysis (he is more conversant with the ACM than I am anyway, so I always defer to him). 

    Guys, are we getting worked up here about pretty much nothing?  Mountains from molehills?  ?? [;)]




    obvert -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/6/2013 3:39:45 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Alfred

    Normally I allow LoBaron to take First Chair on these sort of "issues" but in his absence I'll step up.

    As I said before, this is not an exploit. Nor is it a case of "Training CAP" behaving differently from any other CAP. Nor are there any objective grounds for making the blanket statement that the sweeps should have an even higher chance to intercept the training missions.


    (1) The Zeros were set to sweep 6k above the altitude set for the training.

    (2) The weather conditions were very poor and as page 224 of the manual states, the worse the weather the greater is the likelihood that an Air Mission will miss its target.

    (3) A delta of 6kin altitude is significant and markedly increases the chances that opposing aircraft will not see each other, particularly when detection is not based on radar reports but the Mark I eyeball operating in poor weather conditions.

    (4) The 75A-Hawk is one of the best Allied aircraft available in the first few months of the war. It's major shortcomings are:


    • compared to the best British and American fighters, it has relatively weak armament, no armour and no production
    • compared to the best American fighers, it's max speed is slower by about 30 mph


    Against those shortcomings it's strengths compared to the Allied fighter inventory are:


    • far superior maneouvre ratings
    • a large part of the Allied fighter inventory is comprised of aircraft with similarly weak armament, no armour, no (or minuscule) production, slower max speed


    (5) Taking into account the fighter mission profile adopted by the Japanese player in this instance, the 75A-Hawk's strengths were maximised and it's weaknesses minimised.


  • the Zero is slightly inferior in maneouvre rating and just a little bit faster in max speed but significantly slower in cruise speed. In combat much would depend on the pilot quality to determine which aircraft would come out on top but in searching to locate the enemy somewhere in the 40 mile hex, the advantage clearly lies with the 75A-Hawk.


    (8) The "Training CAP" was not particularly effective. All the Japanese bombers, with their limited payloads, were able to drop their ordnance and achieve a satisfactory result.

    Alfred


  • Great to get the breakdown Alfred. It all makes sense except that if those same Hawks were set to fly CAP instead of training, I am pretty sure they would have been engaged by the sweeping zeros. I can't be sure, it's not my game, but that has been my experience so far.

    Yes, it's not a huge deal as the bombers were able to do their job, but even losing 1-2 planes a day in the early going can be frustrating in circumstances where you have not enough of anything globally and yet local superiority.




    SqzMyLemon -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/6/2013 4:25:46 PM)

    Thanks for the breakdown Alfred and what you say makes a lot of sense.

    Ok, I'll accept the fact this isn't an exploitable game function, but what then is my recourse?

    As stated, I never know the altitude of the "Training" CAP until they actually interdict, so that makes it incredibly hard to guess their altitude and that possibly explains the trouble my sweeps have engagng the CAP.

    How can my Oscar's not provide anything other than close escort? If I set the altitude differently they will act as sweeps and possibly not coordinate with the bombers. Also, I've read time and again how numbers matter, well in this case 33 Oscar's proved next to useless on escort and that tells me the escort penalty is perhaps weighted too much in favour of the attacker considering the numbers of aircraft involved. Do I resort to providing LRCAP, which I do believe is an exploit to avoid any escort penalty?

    I have two fighter types, the Oscar and Zero so I'm using my best fighters of the period, if they aren't up to snuff at this stage then that's beyond my control.

    Yes, I get the fact only four Sally's were damaged, but I lost 2 Oscar's and a number of Sally's to Ops. The Oscar's due to damage from the Hawk's and the Sally's either from the fighters or FLAK damage.

    As stated in the original post, this has happened about six times now, so it's not complaining about one isolated, meaningless engagement. I've swept other bases, provided escort and had "Training" CAP always get to the bombers or jump the unescorted portions of raids. I lost 12 bombers alone on one action from "Trainers" in the Philipines.

    As stated above, what do I need to do differently to give me a better chance of these "Training" units from nibbling away at my forces? I know I can definitely set my Sweep's to an altitude closer to that of the raids, but providing anything other than "close"escort often sees the fighters not coordinate with the bombers and the enemy "Training" CAP gets a free shot at unescorted bombers and the results are quite different than "just a few damaged bombers" and that is why this is an issue to me in the first place.

    I get my losses, just help me understand how to get a crack at the CAP, which so far I've not been able to do. They avoid all the sweeps, the escorts never perform well against them and they often get to interdict unescorted raids due to lack of coordination.

    Thanks for the comments and I believe this isn't just a minor issue, the consequences of not being able to deal with this "Training" CAP and engage it effectively often results in a lot of bombers shot down if large numbers of "Training" CAP can avoid fighter sweeps and interdict unescorted portions of raids.





    AW1Steve -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/6/2013 5:55:14 PM)

    In my opinion , there is only one turn of the entire war that this is an issue. That's on December 7th, 1941. That is the only time in the entire war that one side is supposed to be passive. Otherwise, one of the main objectives of either side is to engage , and kill , as many of it's opponents pilots as is possible. Sorry , this is a feature, not a bug , in my humble opinion. Since this happened to me in my current PBEM (about ten turns ago) I've been trying to figure out what happpend. He's my theory:

    It's always been my practice to start training pilots as fully and as fast as I can from turn one. That means ANY squadron that is not in immediate danger of attack goes to 100% training even before the 1st turn. Any training commander will be the absolute best I can afford or have available. Fighter squadrons ALWAYS get leaders with high aggression (as that's the way fighter squadron leaders are SUPPOSED to be). And if under 50% air, all squadrons go to general to get the basic skills up to par before they specialize.

    Part of the reason that PH was so damaging is that almost all Navy aircraft were at full training status. Kimmel did NOT have Bellingers PBY's at patrol , but training , as per agreement with the Army , the USAAF was responsible for air defense AND early warning.

    That being the case I saw no reason why the Army wouldn't have it's fighters doing training vice CAP. So my fighters were set to 0 CAP , and 100% training. It never occurred to me that an agressive flight leader would break training and engage (versus getting his flock to safety) simply because it never occurred to me that he might have live ammo in his guns! (Sorry , in my limited Naval air experince , WE NEVER carried hot loads UNLESS 1) it was real , or 2) we were going to some kind of live fire exercise (and the fast majority of those were with INERT warheads). Did the peacetime USAAF have a different policy? Or was there a target range near PH?

    I think these thoughts might have some bearing on the issues expressed by others here. Any comments from the development team? [&:]




    gmoney -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/6/2013 7:04:03 PM)

    Not sure how it would work out, but maybe LRCAP the enemy base to shoot down the trainers? if you have fighters to spare it is probably worthwhile to do this anyways to catch cap/transports anyways. I do know that LRCAP will shoot down enemy aircraft (presumably as they land ala BtR), and would suppose it would be helpful to kill of those pesky trainees. Just a thought. Personaly I've found my trainee flights get eaten alive by both sweeps and escorts, but that's just me.

    Also you are the Japanese, bomb the base at night as well as during the day-(japs were accomplished night fighters after all). Damaged A/C don't fly at all, even to 'train'.




    BBfanboy -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/6/2013 7:21:48 PM)

    Since your trainees are getting hit by sweeps, I have to guess that there is something different in your settings vs what others have reported (no trainees hit by sweeps). This could be the range setting for the trainees. If yours are set a 0, they will always be over the base when the sweeps arrive. If they are set with a distance from base allowed, they could be absent when the sweep arrives but returning to base when the bombers arrive.




    gmoney -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/7/2013 7:50:13 AM)

    very true BBfanboy, I do in fact set mine to 0 in order to limit ops losses on training flights. And it's only happened maybe 2 times (disclaimer i have only gotten a game as far as late apr 42 before abandoning it-reliable us torps against the AI is a game breaker) and both times it wasn't pretty.




    Alfred -> RE: Air units set to training and intercepting raids. (1/7/2013 7:41:06 PM)

    Now to address some of the questions raised.[:)]

    Obvert (post #11),

    If the Dutch unit had been assigned a dedicated CAP percentage instead of being 100$ on "Training", the likelihood is that strike package #1 would have tangled with the Dutch. But it is not 100% certain that would have been the outcome anyway.

    (1) A dedicated CAP is tasked with intercepting any enemy intruders and therefore will always attempt to do so. A "Training" unit is not so tasked and will therefore attempt to avoid combat if at all possible.

    (2) Whether the sweepers would actually meet a dedicated CAP then depends on several factors.


    • weather conditions. With the poor weather in question, as per page 224, the Offensive Mission (ie the sweep) might still miss it's target (ie the Allied fighters on CAP)
    • CAP percentage set. Even if the Dutch unit were set to 100% CAP, it would have had only 1 aircraft airborne at 9k. The rest of the unit would have attempted to get into action but may not arrive in time to see combat.
    • warning time, patrol altitude and climbing rates. The 1 Dutch fighter airborne on CAP would probably be just able to climb up to the desired altitude (which is ideally above the estimated altitude of the incoming strike package #1). The Dutch fighters on the ground might not have enough time to get up


    SqzMyLemon (post #12),

    (1) Fighters assigned the "escort mission" provide close escort. It is how the game is coded. There is no "high escort" function available per se in this game, unlike say BTR. You can attempt to simulate high escort by assigning fighters to sweep or LRCAP missions. But these have their own inherent disadvantages and are not the same as a true high escort mission. You should not be squeamish in utilising LRCAP missions for they too are not game exploits.

    (2) Historically, fighters on close escort were at a tactical disadvantage. I don't view the game code as magnifying the historical tactical disadvantage. The point I made regarding the Oscar is that you were using the wrong fighter on escort duties if you were expecting it to demolish the 75A-Hawk. The only advantage the Oscar has over the the Dutch plane is its maneouverability, and this advantage is largely not in play when it is shackled to provide close escort. You may not like the answer, but you almost certainly would have been better off using the Oscar to sweep and the Zero to escort.

    (3) I simply don't see any validity to the point of frisson that you did not know the altitude of the training group before you launched the sweep. You still would not have known in advance the altitude of the Dutch unit if it had been on 100% CAP instead of 100% Training. That is the role of gathering intel before you attack. If you don't have a good DL on a target, you are not going to be very effective in attacking it. In the process of upping your DL on Batavia, you would get an indication of how many Allied planes are based there. Depending on what you find there, you might have to spend some days beforehand just sweeping at various altitudes to find and destroy the enemy before you send in bombers. Alternatively if not much opposition is expected one can send in early the bombers with escorts as an insurance policy. This is what you did here and frankly the opposition you encountered was of no substance.

    (4) Even on "milk runs" aircraft losses will be experienced. That is the nature of war. Heck it is the nature of training exercises in peacetime. The losses you have experienced are low. Don't attack if you can't afford these very low losses.

    (5) There is an opportunity cost paid by the Allied player in placing his fighters on training instead of CAP. They do not provide good CAP if their training flight is interrupted by enemy planes. Note how out of position the Dutch were to meet strike package #4. One way of taking advantage is to ensure you do not get coordinated strike packages. Have the first bomber package escorted, then follow up with multiple bomber packages at varying altitudes to get the by now grounded fighters/crater the runways.

    (6) It is a well known defensive tactic to layer one's CAP. Try layering your sweeps too, particularly on good weather days. The point of sweeps is not to fly them above the enemy fighters; it is to find and engage enemy fighters. It is not axiomatic that the Zero is always, under any circumstances, the best and only aircraft to be tasked with sweeping.

    (7) Above all else, stop thinking of training groups as providing CAP. Recognise them for what they are and adjust your mind set accordingly. Then you will start to think outside the circle and perhaps start contemplating the merits of sending in your bombers only at night, leaving all your fighters to conduct day sweeps, or day LRCAP, or day airfield bombing. After you have actually established local air control of the sky, you can revert back to more traditional use of the Sallys.

    Alfred




    Page: [1]

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
    0.0234375