Air War

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Air War

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> Air War

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Air War - 12/13/2011 5:19:35 PM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2247
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

Using the Fall Gelb scenario, as Axis v AI, to gain experience with the game and the air war seems strange. The Allies have started a strategic bombing offensive against Innsbruck, attacking over several turns. I restarted the game from earlier saves and the offensive was again targeted at Innsbruck, is this a scripted event, as I would have thought there would be more appropriate targets.

Using air recon to find French and British airfields in France, attacking with fighters seems to eliminate their fighter units after 3, or 4, attacks, much as the Germans did in reality, but I can make no impression on TAC, or SAC, bomber units. I am losing a lot of fighters in these attacks, but not causing any casualties to them.

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

Post #: 1

RE: Air War - 12/13/2011 5:56:48 PM

macroeconomics

Posts: 126
Joined: 7/28/2004
Status: offline

I too found it quite difficult to attack enemy bombers on their airfields. However as the game progresses I think it becomes easier. That's because if you handle your fighters correctly, they will gain experience and your AI opponents planes will not. In order to have that happen, go for complete kills on enemy squadrons rather than weakening many of them. Also, when attacking an enemy squadron that is at full health (or near full health), do so with your best squadron (taking account strength, leadership and experience) first. After the enemy squadron's strength is whittled down, you can use your less powerful squadrons to finish it off.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 2

RE: Air War - 12/13/2011 7:40:36 PM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2247
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

Thanks for the info, but I am still confused that I can wipe out fighters, with what I have, but not bombers, which should be easier.

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to macroeconomics)

Post #: 3

RE: Air War - 12/13/2011 7:54:29 PM

freeboy

Posts: 8981
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

fighters will engage.. and bombers will run

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 4

RE: Air War - 12/13/2011 8:54:51 PM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2247
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy
fighters will engage.. and bombers will run

Yes, but that's what fighters are for, they chase bombers and shot them down, 1940 bombers had weak defences and you should not be losing fighters without something to show for it. You should be able to attack the airfields, it was a major part of the air war in 1939-41, only with the wide use of radar and strong AAA defence did it become more difficult.

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 5

RE: Air War - 12/13/2011 11:51:31 PM

brucesim2003

Posts: 48
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

The air war is to lopsided in favour of bombers imho.

Cheers

Bruce

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 6

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 12:56:08 AM

gwgardner

Posts: 4174
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

Have no idea what you guys are saying.

In this game there are three types of air units. Strategic bombers, primarily for attacking cities/resources; tactical bombers primarily for attacking land and sea targets; fighters for attacking air targets (including air targets at base) and intercepting all other air actions.

In addition, all three types can do recon.

Don't attack enemy air units with bombers. Attack them with fighters.

(in reply to brucesim2003)

Post #: 7

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 1:06:26 AM

dlazov66

Posts: 2541
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline

I did not know that Tac Air could recon as well...thanks for the tip

_____________________________

War in the East/War in the West - Alpha Test Team

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 8

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 2:06:09 AM

Barthheart

Posts: 3164
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Have no idea what you guys are saying.

In this game there are three types of air units. Strategic bombers, primarily for attacking cities/resources; tactical bombers primarily for attacking land and sea targets; fighters for attacking air targets (including air targets at base) and intercepting all other air actions.

In addition, all three types can do recon.

Don't attack enemy air units with bombers. Attack them with fighters.

I attacked a British tac air unit n France with three different german fighter units. I lost 8 fighters over three units and did not kill one tac air. That seems like Tac air is over powered to me.

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 9

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 3:07:42 AM

gwgardner

Posts: 4174
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

I've had something like that happen. Even reported it in the beta tests as air attacks being broken, but as I kept playing, I saw that it was just a string of bad luck. Chalk it up to bad intelligence, bad weather, whatever. In the end, in this game, the randomness evens out, within the constraints of tech level.

(in reply to Barthheart)

Post #: 10

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 3:09:45 AM

gwgardner

Posts: 4174
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline

One thing I caution you guys on: if you position fighters to do interceptions, make sure you keep their strength up. Below a certain minimum strength, like four or so, fighters will not intercept.

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 11

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 3:34:13 AM

Razz

Posts: 2557
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline

Excellent! Listen to this man. He is picking up the game very quickly.

Bombers are allot harder to kill at their base. This is WAD and makes the game balanced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: macroeconomics

I too found it quite difficult to attack enemy bombers on their airfields. However as the game progresses I think it becomes easier. That's because if you handle your fighters correctly, they will gain experience and your AI opponents planes will not. In order to have that happen, go for complete kills on enemy squadrons rather than weakening many of them. Also, when attacking an enemy squadron that is at full health (or near full health), do so with your best squadron (taking account strength, leadership and experience) first. After the enemy squadron's strength is whittled down, you can use your less powerful squadrons to finish it off.

(in reply to macroeconomics)

Post #: 12

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 3:37:12 AM

Barthheart

Posts: 3164
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz

Excellent! Listen to this man. He is picking up the game very quickly.

Bombers are allot harder to kill at their base. This is WAD and makes the game balanced.

This makes no sense...

I can wipe out a fighter group at their home base in 2 maybe three attacks but I can't kill a tac air unit in 5 attacks.. no damage at all... and you say this is for balance....

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to Razz)

Post #: 13

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 3:39:02 AM

dlazov66

Posts: 2541
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline

I just discovered I could do long range air recon and then I finally found a French Tac Air it took 3 of my Fighters to kill it.

_____________________________

War in the East/War in the West - Alpha Test Team

(in reply to Razz)

Post #: 14

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 3:40:58 AM

Barthheart

Posts: 3164
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

I just discovered I could do long range air recon and then I finally found a French Tac Air it took 3 of my Fighters to kill it.

With 3 attacks each right? How many fighters did you loose?

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to dlazov66)

Post #: 15

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 5:03:33 AM

jjdenver

Posts: 1262
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline

Yes, this does not seem to be working correctly. I have another question. Macro, in your game to use TAC v ships - do you fly them in the face of CV's - I mean directly into the CV sea zone? And do you fly them while enemy land air can intercept into that sea zone? Or do you do some sort of air superiority with your FTRs first?

_____________________________

AARS:
CEAW-BJR Mod 2009:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2101447
AT-WW1:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1705427
AT-GPW:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1735661

(in reply to Barthheart)

Post #: 16

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 5:46:22 AM

macroeconomics

Posts: 126
Joined: 7/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

Yes, this does not seem to be working correctly. I have another question. Macro, in your game to use TAC v ships - do you fly them in the face of CV's - I mean directly into the CV sea zone? And do you fly them while enemy land air can intercept into that sea zone? Or do you do some sort of air superiority with your FTRs first?

I have never seen a land based fighter intercept an enemy land based bomber over a sea zone. That's not to say it can't be done. I just haven't seen it because a) it's probably a tight range restriction and b) you can fly air superiority over the enemy land fighter's air base to suppress it.

You can not fly air superiority with your fighters in a sea zone. Thus enemy fighters on carriers can not be suppressed. Your bombers must fly straight into them. It is nasty. If your bombers are just generic (0 experience, no leader), they have maybe a 1-4% chance of getting through. You can literally lose 15 steps of tac air this way and get no result. Instead you want a lead bomber unit with a lot of experience and a great air leader. Send that unit in first and hope that it gets an exchange result in the air battle with carrier fighters. An exchange result (one step loss to both fighter and bomber) will let your bomber continue on to drop its payload on the ships. If you get enough results like that you will attrition the carrier fighters enough to let pedestrian bombers with no special traits have a chance.

(in reply to jjdenver)

Post #: 17

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 6:42:34 AM

macroeconomics

Posts: 126
Joined: 7/28/2004
Status: offline

jjdenver: correction - I just saw an enemy land based fighter intercept one of my bombers over a sea zone. So I can confirm that can happen.

(in reply to macroeconomics)

Post #: 18

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 10:30:27 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2247
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner
Have no idea what you guys are saying.
In this game there are three types of air units. Strategic bombers, primarily for attacking cities/resources; tactical bombers primarily for attacking land and sea targets; fighters for attacking air targets (including air targets at base) and intercepting all other air actions.
In addition, all three types can do recon.
Don't attack enemy air units with bombers. Attack them with fighters.

All attacks on enemy airfields were with fighters, the attacks usually resulted in the destruction of an enemy fighter unit in 3-4 strikes. Then moving to attacking enemy bomber airfields (many enemy fighters now wrecked), rarely resulted in any losses at all to the bombers, but regular casualties to the attacking fighters.

I accept all that has been said about gaining experience and things will get better, but this works both ways, the enemy is no better off in 1940. It is still unbalanced that fighters can be destroyed and bombers can not. I may be taking casualties from fighter units that recon didn't find, but they didn't try to stop me attacking the fighter airfields.

The UK was the only country in 1940 that had an integrated air defence system, therefore, as the Battle of Britain showed, attacking British airfields was going to cost. However in France 1940, Russia 1941, etc., attacking airfields was the chosen strategy and it was very difficult for the defender to react.

The Strategic bombing of Innsbruck is no big deal, but it is an odd target for the AI to choose.

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to gwgardner)

Post #: 19

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 10:39:07 AM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2247
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz

Excellent! Listen to this man. He is picking up the game very quickly.
Bombers are allot harder to kill at their base. This is WAD and makes the game balanced.

This makes no sense...

I can wipe out a fighter group at their home base in 2 maybe three attacks but I can't kill a tac air unit in 5 attacks.. no damage at all... and you say this is for balance....

This is my experience, but I see dlazov66 has had better success, so something to watch as more games go through.

Why would bombers be harder to kill at their bases, they are harder to hide and bigger targets.

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Barthheart)

Post #: 20

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 11:41:36 AM

dlazov66

Posts: 2541
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline

Against early Polish and even French aircraft I can kill them with German fighters in 2-3 attacks. With the lone French tac air I knocked it out in 3 or 4 attacks (in all case with more then one of my units involved). As far as planes lost I did not pay to much attention, I do monitor the strength point loss though. I watched (the last one I remember) the French tac air going down from 6 to 0 over those 4 attacks and my tac air went from a 8 to a 7, a 7 to a 6 and the other did not lose any points.

I have hit the HMS Ark Royal out at sea with my 3 tac airs I had up there and sunk it.

_____________________________

War in the East/War in the West - Alpha Test Team

(in reply to Rasputitsa)

Post #: 21

RE: Air War - 12/14/2011 12:59:15 PM

Rasputitsa

Posts: 2247
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dlazov66
Against early Polish and even French aircraft I can kill them with German fighters in 2-3 attacks. With the lone French tac air I knocked it out in 3 or 4 attacks (in all case with more then one of my units involved). As far as planes lost I did not pay to much attention, I do monitor the strength point loss though. I watched (the last one I remember) the French tac air going down from 6 to 0 over those 4 attacks and my tac air went from a 8 to a 7, a 7 to a 6 and the other did not lose any points.

I have hit the HMS Ark Royal out at sea with my 3 tac airs I had up there and sunk it.

OK thanks, it's early days yet and I'll keep at it. Through several turns of two games of 'Fall Gelb' I destroyed several fighter units with airfield attack with almost no loss, but I failed to inflict any significant damage on any of the TAC, or SAC units, whilst losing a lot of strength points from my fighters, such that I gave up attacking.

Just have to keep trying and get a longer term view.

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to dlazov66)

Post #: 22