In game terms, what is the difference between those types of artillery: Howitzers, Guns and Mortars? Is it that guns are less good at pre-battle bombardment but on the other hand can double-up as anti-tank guns? If so, what would be the advantage, in game terms, of a similar calibers mortar vs. Howitzer and vice-versa? And what about rockets? Any unique ability in game terms?
I find this question difficult myself. First, in combat the gun with the longer range fires first, so if it destroys the other gun it is the best. However, I often find that very few guns are actually destroyed this way, and they all get to fire anyway, so I tend to ddisregard range as an important factor.
Then there is caliber and ROF. If a gun is high in one of these, it is probably low in the other. Generally, I think that having a high ROF is better versus enemies with low fortification modifiers and high caliber is better against enemies with high fortification. So on the defense, I would probably go for mortars most of the time (attacking units have no fortification bonus), but if you are preparing an offensive, go for heavier guns.
If an HQ provides only artillery divisions to a battle (firing at 2 hexes range), does that mean that any SU unit attached to that HQ (for example a tank REG) could also be committed to battle?
In game term, what is the difference between tactical, ground attack and level bombers? For equal payload etc. are tactical bombers always better? Or is there a difference where one is inherently better than the other at some types of target (i.e.: vehicles vs. squads) or missions (airfield bombing vs. ground support) or fragility? In other words, for what type of mission is it best, respectively, to send, for example, an Il-2, a Pe-2 and an Il-4 (other than transport!).
Before the last patch, there were only tactical and level bombers. Tactical bombers got a to hit modifier, so that they were more likely to hit their targets. Level bombers do not get any bonus. For ground support during combat use the Il-2, for bombing units prior to combat use the Pe-2 and for attacks deep in the enemy rear use the Il-4.
Are fighter bombers more or less like tactical bombers in game terms? Also, are in general the ones with rockets better at the bomber job?
I have never really noticed any positive results from using rockets in combat, as they are very inaccurate (at least during the early war). historically, the Il-2 pilots soon began to rely more on thier cannon than their rockets.
Are the different size AA guns important for the different altitudes? For example, should we ideally have a mixture of light, medium and heavy AA to fire respectively at bombers attacking at low, medium and high altitudes?
Do level bombers always bomb at the highest possible altitude? Also, if we send a mixture of bombers, are they all at their respective altitudes (implying waves?) or at the lowest common altitude? Also, are some fighters better when fighting at some altitudes?
Level bombers fly at whatever altitude they are capable of. So don't use AA guns without the proper ceiling against them. Against dive bombers and tacticals use something with a high rate of fire. I have no ides what altitude the level bombers fly at, if they are in a mixed force (I prefer not to do so).
To the best of my knowledge altitude means nothing to a dogfight. This will chance come WitE2.
And last but not least, how to know the relative value of fighters? What characteristic is better? Is there a rule of thumbs that anybody has? For example, between the Mig-3, Yak-3 and Lagg-3, not easy for me to determine which one is the better. Each seems to have an advantage the other two do not! Is speed more important than manoeuvrability or manoeuvrability more so than armament? Also, how to determine what is the best armament when comparing? Is it better to have 12 MG (spitfire) or two heavy MG and a canon (Yak)? Any general feeling just to more or less orient myself would be appreciated 😊
In a dogfight, every fighter will first try to get position on the enemy. If this succeeds then he will fire and try to hit. If he hits the damage of the shot is then calculated. As a result, against enemy fighters I believe the aircraft with the best performance are the better choice, while against enemy bombers go for the biggest guns (as the bombers will be outperformed by virtually all fighters).
I believe the better dogfighter is the Yak-1, due to its mix of firepower and maneuverability. The best interceptor is the LaGG-3, due to its haveier guns. The MiG-3 is the fastest and probably have the best overall survivability, but it is armed with a pea shooter and will kill very little.
But those are just guess and estimates, as I have not got the formulas used by the game enigine to calculate dog fights.
However, as HardLuck states, more numbers are always a winner (if you are not fatigued to much). Also, Morale, experience, fuel, ammo and other factors are all playing vital roles.
I recommend you to "dive in", watch and learn, and build your own "fingerspitzgefühl" (Erwin Rommel quote).
We need only to kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.
Adolf Hitler, on the eve of Barbarossa.
There are only 10 kinds of people. Those that use binary numbers and those that do not.