RE: Air System References and Tips (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room



Message


redrum68 -> RE: Air System References and Tips (3/29/2020 5:32:28 PM)

@Telemecus - Yes please! I've made another round of updates and pulled lots of great information from that thread around both air doctrines and NR. But as tyronec mentioned, I can't see the picture so could you list out which settings you referred to?




eskuche -> RE: Air System References and Tips (3/29/2020 5:37:06 PM)

@tyronec how airgroup supply works now is quite opaque. My gut feeling is that ammo and fuel are unlimited, but air support/airbase resupply depend on distance to railhead still and can get hit by all the regular supply penalties.




Telemecus -> RE: Air System References and Tips (3/30/2020 9:25:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: redrum68
@Telemecus - Yes please! I've made another round of updates and pulled lots of great information from that thread around both air doctrines and NR. But as tyronec mentioned, I can't see the picture so could you list out which settings you referred to?

@redrum68 @tyronec see http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4785007 now

Would Dinglir's AAR against Pelton be a good reference for use of the U2VS?

Also staging bases are an important thing that has not been mentioned




redrum68 -> RE: Air System References and Tips (3/31/2020 4:14:53 AM)

@eskuche - Yeah, it would be great to get some clarifications on how air group supply works now. That section is currently empty :)

@Telemecus - Thanks. Updated.




redrum68 -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/1/2020 10:57:43 PM)

Updated to include air type and usage for both Axis and Soviet primarily based on Dinglir's reference.




eskuche -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/3/2020 4:00:17 AM)

@Dinglir, could you please elaborate on your observation that airbases that have been in place longer will be less susceptible to bombing? Simply less fatigue on their organic AA or because less fatigued air support is able to repair more planes?




redrum68 -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/3/2020 5:35:58 AM)

Does anyone know exactly how fatigue works on air groups? Is there a certain threshold where you shouldn't fly any more missions? Seems like I see mentions of around 30-40 fatigue but not really sure what that is based on?




Dinglir -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/3/2020 5:55:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eskuche

@Dinglir, could you please elaborate on your observation that airbases that have been in place longer will be less susceptible to bombing? Simply less fatigue on their organic AA or because less fatigued air support is able to repair more planes?


It is an observation, I have made - I have yet to see a clear answer as to why it happens.

On turn two onwards playing the Axis, you should experience that your Airfield Bombing gets less and less effective. This appear not to have much to do with the fatigue levels of the aircraft themselves as bombing at the end of turn (after you have flown a myriad of other combat missions) has little impact over bombing at the beginning of turn.

Because of this, I assume it has to do with the Air Support available at the Airfield itself. I have noticed, that bombing airfields that were overrun on the previous turn and/or has moved around a lot, seem to be more effective than bombing a stationary airfield unit. My assumption is that the fatigue levels of the airfield support plays in on the attacks, but I do not know for sure.




eskuche -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/3/2020 6:03:00 AM)

Interesting, thanks. I suspect it's either 1) simply more, less-fatigued fighters defending airfields or 2) a hidden modifier for the VVS that ticks up 20% + 5% or so a turn. I've read somewhere that there are inefficiencies hard-coded till 1942 but I doubt anyone with access to the code would confirm this part of the black box.




Dinglir -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/3/2020 6:03:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: redrum68

Does anyone know exactly how fatigue works on air groups? Is there a certain threshold where you shouldn't fly any more missions? Seems like I see mentions of around 30-40 fatigue but not really sure what that is based on?


As the Air Group fatigue levels go up, their effectiveness in combat becomes less and they start to take heavier losses.

Some, like myself, like to translate this into a fatigue number that calls for a halt to Air Group actions for the turn.

What that number should be is the tricky part. It is highly dependant on the situation. If you set it to low, you will have a lot on unused potential in your Air Groups. If you set it to high, you risk losing a lot of aircraft, airgroup morale etc without having anything to show for it. Once you get really good, you should probably start having different numbers for different air groups.

Also remember that air group fatigue is lessened during your own logistics phase (based on supplies in the airfield), so you should always let your max air Group fatigue be dependant on the mileage you expect to fly in the enemy turn.




Telemecus -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/3/2020 6:42:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dinglir
Also remember that air group fatigue is lessened during your own logistics phase (based on supplies in the airfield), so you should always let your max air Group fatigue be dependant on the mileage you expect to fly in the enemy turn.


One important part of the rotation of airgroups to national reserve is that you have a set of airgroups that are completely fresh from no air missions that turn that you can deploy for action in the enemy's turn. For me the fighters who start the turn in your reserve ARE the fresh fighters you will have to defend yourself during the enemy turn.




eskuche -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/3/2020 7:58:40 AM)

@Dingler in v12.04 airfields no longer carry supply, which is instead traced on-demand. I'm not quite sure yet whether distance to railhead matters for mission supply, but I am fairly sure that distance matters for fatigue reduction for air support and then for air groups (either in a dependent fashion and/or directly). In conjunction with the now-defunct supplyKabuki, my conclusion is that it's not necessary to rotate to NR every single time, losing a turn and a half of action. Instead, you can rebase to an rear, on-rail, supplied level bomber airfield to get back ~25-35 fatigue while still functioning as a just-in-case rearguard. Heavily damaged groups I will still return, only because I'm not sure of supplied repair rate.

@Redrum68 generally I'll take Axis fighters onto defense duty somewhere between 20 and 40 fatigue, depending on the perceived threat in the sector next turn. Level bombers generally won't get enough fatigue for multiple reasons. 1) you usually can't get enough fully escorted missions to get them high enough fatigue, 2) bomber fatigue per mission is slightly lower than fighter fatigue, and 3) level bombers are usually far back enough (to avoid escorted enemy airbase bombing) such that they'll run out of miles before they run out of fatigue.

At the end of my turn I'll do some random unit bombing in unguarded Soviet sectors to make sure exp/morale are up.




eskuche -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/3/2020 8:09:11 AM)

Quick edit @Telemecus, yes, then another positive of the NR method is that you can deploy at ANY airbase that turn, so in reality for fighters is that you are trading one turn of rearguard for two transfer missions' worth of fatigue/miles (<5%). A non-trivial tactical decision still remains, then.

A quick test before I sleep. On-rail, full support on 0 fatigue after random turn 1 bombing. You'll see that the number is actually ~15 fatigue restored per turn, and 10-20 aircraft repaired. Thus, unless there are logistic issues it's probably better to keep planes on-map. Level bombers can go to very rear rested Rumanian airfields, etc.

I invite someone else to test how this is affected by air support fatigue and supply as it is way past my bedtime (move around the airbase before transferring airgroups to it).


[image]local://upfiles/59341/0146E1B621CA4A85B04CE58BFD0D2C05.jpg[/image]




Dinglir -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/3/2020 10:31:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eskuche
@Dingler in v12.04 airfields no longer carry supply, which is instead traced on-demand. I'm not quite sure yet whether distance to railhead matters for mission supply, but I am fairly sure that distance matters for fatigue reduction for air support and then for air groups (either in a dependent fashion and/or directly). In conjunction with the now-defunct supplyKabuki, my conclusion is that it's not necessary to rotate to NR every single time, losing a turn and a half of action. Instead, you can rebase to an rear, on-rail, supplied level bomber airfield to get back ~25-35 fatigue while still functioning as a just-in-case rearguard. Heavily damaged groups I will still return, only because I'm not sure of supplied repair rate.


I have no doubt you're right about this.

However, I send Air Groups to National Reserve because of low morale, not for supply issues.




redrum68 -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/3/2020 4:22:04 PM)

Yeah, I think the challenge is it doesn't seem very clear how much impact fatigue has on combat effectiveness. And for Axis turn 1 for example, given all the bonuses they get, maybe you can run fatigue much higher (40+) than most turns and still be effective? Though I realize this is a trade off of then these planes having significant fatigue turn 2.

@eskuche - Interesting test. Looks like an average of about 10 damaged aircraft were repaired per group. If you send to NR are all damaged aircraft repaired? Looking at the 36 damaged air group and wondering if its better to send that one for example to NR given the very high percentage of damaged aircraft. The fatigue almost appears to be halving as it seems the higher fatigue air groups decreased more than the lower ones. I wonder if you have a 40-50 fatigue air group if it would decrease by 20-25 fatigue. And yes, I definitely wonder if MP/distance from railhead and support fatigue impacts this much.




joelmar -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/3/2020 6:01:22 PM)

I just played thru Axis turn 1 in 1.12 and even with the destruction of 5150 aircrafts, some ground attacks and quite a lot of ground support, most of my airgroups are below 30 fatigue. I could have used them more and maybe have turned a few HELD results into Retreats, but I wanted them to be relatively fresh for a high number of interdiction missions which I think are an important feature in the Axis toolbox.

It will be interesting to see how that turns out.






eskuche -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/3/2020 6:52:21 PM)

This is just my opinion but you should absolutely use as much of your fatigue as you can turn 1, especially to reach rear modern aircraft. You have an extremely disproportional air effectiveness turn 1. Check Telemecusís brief encounters AAR for targets. I posted Stuka locations recently too. 6000 aircraft should be quite manageable with a road map provided. Also note that you donít want to ground attack because Soviet units get a one-time disruption bonus that you want to use for a normal attack.

Edit: a lot of interdiction will be wasted on pockets unless you have very good positioning.




joelmar -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/3/2020 10:00:03 PM)

I got most of his modern aircrafts within reach. Mig-3, IL-2, SU-2, IL-4, Yaks of all sorts, recon, what I could delete, I did. Used all my 33% for bombers. I might have been able to get more with an even better air plan, but mostly I-15, I-16, SB-2 and I-153. Those die like flies in air combat.

I didn't use ground attack that much, but I used ground support a lot, mostly to help herd pockets with hasty attacks once deep in enemy territory once my deep airbase attacks were done.

There is interdiction in pockets that I want, both in Courland and Byalistok. And I have a lot of units near my lines that will retreat.




Telemecus -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/6/2020 9:31:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

quote:

ORIGINAL: eskuche
@Dingler in v12.04 airfields no longer carry supply, which is instead traced on-demand. I'm not quite sure yet whether distance to railhead matters for mission supply, but I am fairly sure that distance matters for fatigue reduction for air support and then for air groups (either in a dependent fashion and/or directly). In conjunction with the now-defunct supplyKabuki, my conclusion is that it's not necessary to rotate to NR every single time, losing a turn and a half of action. Instead, you can rebase to an rear, on-rail, supplied level bomber airfield to get back ~25-35 fatigue while still functioning as a just-in-case rearguard. Heavily damaged groups I will still return, only because I'm not sure of supplied repair rate.


I have no doubt you're right about this.

However, I send Air Groups to National Reserve because of low morale, not for supply issues.



It looks like international kabuki dancing is about to be banned. see https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4790319

If so minor allied nations will only have two airbases to do the Kabuki dance with - so you will definitely need to send them to NR sometimes now! [:D]




Dinglir -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/7/2020 9:56:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
It looks like international kabuki dancing is about to be banned. see https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4790319


The real question is wether Kabuki dancing should be banned alltogether...

Historically, the idea of simply flying an Air Group to a new airfield and operating from it immidiately is complete nonsense.

An airgroup contains a lot of support personel, fuel carriers, spare parts, mechanics tools etc that would need to pack up, move from A to B and set up shop every time an airgroup changed its operating base. Changing bases should cost something like 10-20MP plus the cost of motorized movement between the two bases. Not 1 or 2% of flying mileage.

The idea that an airbase with (for instance) a couple of Ju-88 bombers could simply have a group of Bf 109's land and commence operating is ridiculous.




Telemecus -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/7/2020 10:06:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dinglir


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
It looks like international kabuki dancing is about to be banned. see https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4790319


The real question is wether Kabuki dancing should be banned alltogether...

Historically, the idea of simply flying an Air Group to a new airfield and operating from it immidiately is complete nonsense.

An airgroup contains a lot of support personnel, fuel carriers, spare parts, mechanics tools etc that would need to pack up, move from A to B and set up shop every time an airgroup changed its operating base. Changing bases should cost something like 10-20MP plus the cost of motorized movement between the two bases. Not 1 or 2% of flying mileage.

The idea that an airbase with (for instance) a couple of Ju-88 bombers could simply have a group of Bf 109's land and commence operating is ridiculous.


Although there may be good reasons to design out or have house rules against kabuki dancing I think this rationale for it is completely wrong.

Flying aircraft forward to bases with the equipment and personnel already there is precisely what happened during the war. There was never a case when they moved the equipment and personnel from a rear base to a forward base - they simply had both bases already tooled up. So it is completely wrong that aircraft had to wait for the same equipment or personnel to be moved from the rear to the front.

My knowledge is greater on the RAF and I know they specifically banned aircraft being moved overground. They had to be flown from airbase to airbase. And there was no expectation that if your aircraft mechanic in the rear airbase was Tom, he would have to be driven up to the forward airbase and be the same Tom mechanic there. Quite simply they had another mechanic called Harry or something else that took over. The aircraft did not wait.

There may be a separate argument that airbase counters should not have 50 MPs or have a great nerf to supply and replacements at the front. But no argument they have to be the same people as in the rear.




Dinglir -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/7/2020 12:39:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
Flying aircraft forward to bases with the equipment and personnel already there is precisely what happened during the war. There was never a case when they moved the equipment and personnel from a rear base to a forward base - they simply had both bases already tooled up. So it is completely wrong that aircraft had to wait for the same equipment or personnel to be moved from the rear to the front.


At least we are very clear on the fact that operating an Air Group would wrequire a fair deal of specialized equipment - spare parts etc. I agree completely that the aircraft themselves would eb flown from airbase to airbase, but the entire logistics system supporting the aircraft would have to be moved by land.

So the disagreement seems to lie in the question of wether every airbase was automatically stocked to support every single type of aircraft that could conceivably land there or wether the support organisation was assigned to the specific air group.

In Ingo Moebius book recounting thememoirs of Erich Sholz (Luftwaffe ace pilot) I remember reading a passage where during Barbarossa Erich was sent flying to an airfield to see if it was operable. He landed successfully and then reported back before the support units were sent overland by his Air Gruppe. It is quite clear that the support units for a sp+ecific Air Groups was assigned to the unit itself.

When reading of the first encoutner the British had with the Me-262, a Mosquito was attacked but survived by hiding in some cloud. It was to battered up to fly home to England, but instead made it to an airbase in Northern Italy. Again, it seems clear that this was not the first choice, as it entailed a series of (minor) problems.

Finally, there is the logical argument: It is poor economy having every airfield stocked up for aircraft types it is not supposed to ever see.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
My knowledge is greater on the RAF and I know they specifically banned aircraft being moved overground. They had to be flown from airbase to airbase. And there was no expectation that if your aircraft mechanic in the rear airbase was Tom, he would have to be driven up to the forward airbase and be the same Tom mechanic there. Quite simply they had another mechanic called Harry or something else that took over. The aircraft did not wait.


Apparently, the British and the Luftwaffe might have used different models. I remember reading of Erich Hartmann (highest scoring ace ever - more than 300 wins). He often had to make emergency landings, due to being hit by debris from the aircraft he shot down. On one occassion his mechanic and close friend, grapped a rifle and a Kubelwagen and went out to look for him. I am no expert on this though, and will not conclude anything final on Luftwaffe organisational structure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
There may be a separate argument that airbase counters should not have 50 MPs or have a great nerf to supply and replacements at the front. But no argument they have to be the same people as in the rear.


Another logical argument as to nerf the kubaki dance is that if it was so easy, then why was it often possible for one side to achieve local air superiority over a given battlefield? If a new air Group could be flown in and set up to be battle worthy in less than a day, then what was the problem?

I do not think there is anything to do about this at the present stage (with WitE2 coming out sooner or later). But if I were to design WitE 1 from scratch, this would be one place I would rethink.




joelmar -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/7/2020 12:58:36 PM)

Funny, I have searched Google quite intensively on this subject but couldn't find much. It seems people prefer to talk about the aircrafts and the battles than about logistics... ;-)

Anyway, I agree that logically, mecanics and close support teams would be assigned to a wing. High tech team work is usually done best by people who know (and hopefully) thrust each other. But the equipement doesn't need to be always the same, even though it's better if it is.

That said, I don't think there were only 24 airfields Axis teams on the Soviet theater. There were probably hundreds of airfields, most of them quite small, very limited, being normally able to service only 1 airgroup or type of aircraft, or maybe only a few wings. And so moving what we see as 1 airfield in the game would be more like moving 10 or 20.

Seen in that light, I think it is quite possible to have teams setting up advanced airfields while the airgroups still operated from the rear, and then it would be a simple matter of bringing forward only the specialized men assigned to their airwing. It could even be done progressively.

The same was true for pz divisions. One example I have of this was when Italy surrendered and suddenly there was a crisis. Hitler ordered that only the men from LAH should be brought by any conceivable means from the eastern front and they were given equipment from depots in that area.

That kind of kabuki is not rocket science, and is seen often in F1, or with the big rock band on tour, with a team setting up the stage in one city while the other is doing the gig in another.




joelmar -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/7/2020 2:13:14 PM)

At long last, I have finally found an interesting document on German airfields in Russia: https://www.ww2.dk/Airfields%20-%20Russia%20and%20Ukraine.pdf

That document lists 1917 airfields that were or could have been used by the Germans in European Russia during the time and in the territories they occupied. But it must be noted that the Soviets themselves built many thousand more during their own advance in the later stages of the war, and those that the Germans abandonned were usually so thoroughly destroyed that the Soviets could not use them again. But the German advances were usually so fast that they could lay hands on usable abandonned Soviet airfields after some light repairs.

Here is the introduction, which explains both the extensive use of existing Soviet airfields and the capacity to create new ones on the fly:

The story of German-built airfields in Russia is really the story of Russian built
airfields in western Russia, at least for the most part. As the German
forces advanced into Russia, they captured, repaired, refurbished and
improved existing Russian airfields the Luftwaffe believed to be usable and
also used undeveloped grass fields which required very little construction
work for their light weight, single-engine aircraft. These grass airstrips
were used for a few days or weeks and then abandoned as the front moved
forward. The main exception to this rule would be forward airstrips built
just before a German ground offensive was scheduled to begin, such as in
eastern Poland in early 1941 prior to the 22 June 1941 invasion of the USSR.
Large numbers of Luftwaffe construction troops were ordered to Poland and
more than 100 airfields, field airstrips, landing grounds, and satellite strips
were hastily built in the eastern part of the country. Other notable
exceptions were in May-June 1942 for the German advance toward
Stalingrad on the Volga, in the Orel-Kharkov area in spring 1943 in
preparation for the Kursk offensive that began on 5 July of that year and
finally, to a lesser extent, in late 1943/early 1944 in Ukraine to
accommodate Luftwaffe units withdrawing west of the Dnieper River and
transport units operating cargo flights from Ukraine into Crimea.
Otherwise, probably 85% of the German airfield construction work in the
East was to repair, refurbish and improve existing Russian airfields and
airstrips as needed.




Dinglir -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/7/2020 6:11:37 PM)

I am not after the movement of air bases but rather the transfer of Air Groups between air bases. If you know what you are doing, you can exploit this a lot, especially as you have an entire turn before the opponent can do anything to counter his mistakes.




joelmar -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/7/2020 6:51:09 PM)

To me, mistakes that can be corrected sound more like tactics and strategy than exploits?

In my experience, even with an intense kabuki done by someone who knows his business, it can easily lead to some serious bloody noses against a competent opponent if played too aggressively.

Also, it already has been nerfed a lot in 1.12.04, by example, if you kabuki forward very near the Soviet lines to do more bombing or at some extended spot to bomb an objective far beyond the lines, it's not possible to pull back your airbase anymore at the end of your turn because the airgroups traveled miles impact the airbase MP's. That's when a competent opponent might make you pay big time.

But you mean that you would ban transfer of air groups between air bases altogether? Then it would have to be done only through the NR?




Dinglir -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/8/2020 5:04:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joelmar
But you mean that you would ban transfer of air groups between air bases altogether? Then it would have to be done only through the NR?


I mean that transferring an air group should cost something like 20% of mileage plus 5% for each hex transferred (maximum of 100%). At least, this would be the "historical" price as I see it.

It would force the player to think a lot about what airforces goes where.

But it would depend a lot on the status of WitE 2.





Dinglir -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/8/2020 5:05:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dinglir


quote:

ORIGINAL: joelmar
But you mean that you would ban transfer of air groups between air bases altogether? Then it would have to be done only through the NR?


I mean that transferring an air group should cost something like 20% of mileage plus the price you pay today. At least, this would be the "historical" price as I see it.

It would force the player to think a lot about what airforces goes where.

But it would depend a lot on the status of WitE 2.







joelmar -> RE: Air System References and Tips (4/8/2020 4:29:26 PM)

I'm really not sure that would make the air war better, more intuitive and easier to manage, which I think was one very good goal achieved in patch 1.12. IMO what you propose would bring back much of the headaches of 1.11.03 and put off further those who don't really have the will and interest in learning it. Which would still lead to those investing time on it having an advantage.

It's a very abstracted game mechanic in which 1 airbase represents in reality many airbases of all kinds, from big asphalted strips to makeshift weed fields installations, and it can be used by both sides to good or bad results... I don't really see a problem with it as it is. But everyone is entitled to his opinion, that's the beauty of a free world :-)




Telemecus -> RE: Air System References and Tips (v1.12.04) (4/10/2020 8:55:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: redrum68
Fighters
- Bf 109E: Bomber destroyer. Pretty heavily armed so good against enemy bombers. Use it for protecting your airfields. It also has an upgrade path going Bf 109E-3 to B9 109E-4B to Bf 109E- 7/U1, the last being a tactical bomber with brilliant fighter capabilities. If fighter losses allow, consider changing out all Bf 109E-3ís so that you can get the other aircraft into your pool.


I have had real difficulty with understanding this. The Bf 109E- 7/U1 is a tactical bomber and cannot be used in fighter groups - so cannot be used as a fighter.

Is the meaning of this sentence that it is a bomber with the ability to outmaneuver or race away from a fighter - which would mean you are saying it has fighter bomber capabilities?




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0390625