Fighter alt

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Fighter alt

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Fighter alt - 11/9/2009 9:31:06 AM

Valgua
Matrix Trooper

Posts: 218
Joined: 11/10/2006
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline

Hi!

Should I always set my fighters altitude at their altitude ceiling? Any disadvantage?

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Fighter alt - 11/9/2009 9:50:15 AM

Sardaukar
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

IMHO,you should set them to highest altitude where they do not yet experience Maneuverability drop. For example, for P-40E this is 15k.

It is trade off, if your P-40E is in 15k and Zeroes come in at 20k, Zeroes will have initially considerable advantage diving from above, but you'll be drawing enemy to altitude band where your planes are competitive. On the other hand, if you set your P-40Es to 20k and Zeros are coming also at 20k, check the comparable MVR ratings for that altitude. Performance drop for many planes is quite big. I use rule of thumb, 1k = 1 point of MVR. So if my plane has MVR 20 at 15k and MVR 13 at 20k, I am better off flying 15k.

High altitude combat is bit different from medium/low altitude and favours raw power. It is not mere coincidence, that best high-altitude fighters of WWII was considered to be P-47. Plane that you'd rarely consider "maneuverable". But at 25-30k it outperformed most fighters in most criterias.

Also, if you fly max altitude, your planes have difficulty spotting low-flying attacks.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

(in reply to Valgua)

Post #: 2

RE: Fighter alt - 11/9/2009 11:55:45 AM

moose1999
Matrix Hero

Posts: 788
Joined: 10/26/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Also, if you fly max altitude, your planes have difficulty spotting low-flying attacks.

Are you sure this is true?
I think I asked about it at some point during development and got a negative answer, but I would love to be wrong as it opens up another tactical layer in the air combat game.
It would mean that I would have to completely rethink my CAP strategies...

Any idea how big a difference in height between CAP and incoming raids there have to be before it starts to get problematic for the defenders...?

_____________________________

regards,

Briny

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 3

RE: Fighter alt - 11/9/2009 12:46:18 PM

m10bob
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

I agree with Sardauker that you don't want to fly so high your maneuverability suffers *unless* you are flying an escort mission. Then, fly at of slighly above whatever you are escorting..

I have no idea what the loss of vision distance is, but within 5000 feet was normal distance for escort duties for planes of that speed, that era..

_____________________________

(in reply to moose1999)

Post #: 4

RE: Fighter alt - 11/9/2009 1:38:33 PM

rhohltjr
Matrix Hero

Posts: 536
Joined: 4/27/2000
From: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.
Status: offline

Fighter mnvr ratings have forced me to place my bombers and torp'ers at an altitude more compatible with my escorts!!!!!

_____________________________

My e-troops don't unload OVER THE BEACH anymore, see:
Amphibious Assault at Kota Bharu
TF 85 troops securing a beachhead at Kota Bharu, 51,75
whew! I still feel better.

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 5

RE: Fighter alt - 11/10/2009 4:50:54 AM

TheElf
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I agree with Sardauker that you don't want to fly so high your maneuverability suffers *unless* you are flying an escort mission. Then, fly at of slighly above whatever you are escorting..

I have no idea what the loss of vision distance is, but within 5000 feet was normal distance for escort duties for planes of that speed, that era..

For coordination purposes the Code likes to see Fighters set to the SAME altitude as the bombers. It is assumed that they will then fly 3-5k' above the bombers. It has always been thus in AE....

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 6

RE: Fighter alt - 11/10/2009 5:12:41 AM

1EyedJacks
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I agree with Sardauker that you don't want to fly so high your maneuverability suffers *unless* you are flying an escort mission. Then, fly at of slighly above whatever you are escorting..

I have no idea what the loss of vision distance is, but within 5000 feet was normal distance for escort duties for planes of that speed, that era..

For coordination purposes the Code likes to see Fighters set to the SAME altitude as the bombers. It is assumed that they will then fly 3-5k' above the bombers. It has always been thus in AE....

Really? I thought fighters automagically flew 3-5k above bombers when escorting and that setting the ALT for the fighter group was to establish the base CAP ALT - right?

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 7

RE: Fighter alt - 11/10/2009 6:59:00 AM

Sardaukar
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I agree with Sardauker that you don't want to fly so high your maneuverability suffers *unless* you are flying an escort mission. Then, fly at of slighly above whatever you are escorting..

I have no idea what the loss of vision distance is, but within 5000 feet was normal distance for escort duties for planes of that speed, that era..

For coordination purposes the Code likes to see Fighters set to the SAME altitude as the bombers. It is assumed that they will then fly 3-5k' above the bombers. It has always been thus in AE....

Really? I thought fighters automagically flew 3-5k above bombers when escorting and that setting the ALT for the fighter group was to establish the base CAP ALT - right?

That's what he basically said.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)

Post #: 8

RE: Fighter alt - 11/10/2009 9:36:30 AM

m10bob
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I agree with Sardauker that you don't want to fly so high your maneuverability suffers *unless* you are flying an escort mission. Then, fly at of slighly above whatever you are escorting..

I have no idea what the loss of vision distance is, but within 5000 feet was normal distance for escort duties for planes of that speed, that era..

For coordination purposes the Code likes to see Fighters set to the SAME altitude as the bombers. It is assumed that they will then fly 3-5k' above the bombers. It has always been thus in AE....

Thank you Elf...This info is very important!!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 9

RE: Fighter alt - 11/10/2009 10:18:09 AM

modrow
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/27/2006
Status: offline

Sardaukar,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I agree with Sardauker that you don't want to fly so high your maneuverability suffers *unless* you are flying an escort mission. Then, fly at of slighly above whatever you are escorting..

I have no idea what the loss of vision distance is, but within 5000 feet was normal distance for escort duties for planes of that speed, that era..

For coordination purposes the Code likes to see Fighters set to the SAME altitude as the bombers. It is assumed that they will then fly 3-5k' above the bombers. It has always been thus in AE....

Really? I thought fighters automagically flew 3-5k above bombers when escorting and that setting the ALT for the fighter group was to establish the base CAP ALT - right?

That's what he basically said.

Not sure. As I understand TheElf's statement, it contains two parts:

a) set your fighters to the same altitude as the bomber raid, thus coordination will be improved
b) even though they are set to be at the same altitude, they will be assumed to be flying above the bombers.

What 1eyedjacks said (corresponding to what I had previously believed) was basically the statement the altitude setting does not matter for the escorting planes (but potentially to those planes of the group which fly CAP), they will always fly above the bombers.

The new part of TheElf's statement for me was that you can improve coordination between fighters and bombers by settting them to the same altitude. Important bit of info TheElf, thanks for sharing.

Hartwig

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 10

RE: Fighter alt - 11/10/2009 2:26:24 PM

Bullwinkle58
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I agree with Sardauker that you don't want to fly so high your maneuverability suffers *unless* you are flying an escort mission. Then, fly at of slighly above whatever you are escorting..

I have no idea what the loss of vision distance is, but within 5000 feet was normal distance for escort duties for planes of that speed, that era..

For coordination purposes the Code likes to see Fighters set to the SAME altitude as the bombers. It is assumed that they will then fly 3-5k' above the bombers. It has always been thus in AE....

Thank you Elf...This info is very important!!!!

I agree. I haven't been doing this AT ALL. Time for a change.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 11

RE: Fighter alt - 11/10/2009 2:41:05 PM

1EyedJacks
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline

Right - two parts.

TheElf is saying (I think) that if I set my fighters to the same ALT as my Bombers it'll improve the number of fighters that join my bombers over their assigned target.

Here is supporting documentation from the manual:
The Current Altitude displays the altitude that the aircraft will fly at when flying to and from the
target hex. The arrows next to the title correspond with fine-tuning this altitude; the arrows
closest to the title move the numbers slowly while the arrows farthest from will move the
numbers to their maximums and minimums. The arrows in between will move the numbers
in large increments.

I was remembering 7.2.2.10 Impact of Altitude Selection from the WiTP on pages 129-130. But CAP and Air Combat are played very different in this game... The effects of Altitude are more pronounced in the AE version according to the manual. This is a whole new ball game and I need to unlearn my evil ways from WiTP - lol.

7.2.1.11 COORDINATING STRIKES
Each base or ship containing an air unit is considered a unique entity for purposes of determining
offensive Missions and Escorts. Under certain circumstances planes flying different Missions
and planes flying from different starting points will coordinate their attacks. Coordination of
attack is determined by several factors. Type of Aircraft, altitude selection, and point of origin all
help discriminate coordination such that it is more difficult to mount massive raids of several
different types of aircraft. The result is a smaller, more selective raid formation.

7.4.1 COMBAT AIR PATROL (CAP)
When enemy aircraft are spotted by those aircraft that are airborne or by radar or ground forces
assigned to watch for enemy aircraft, all planes available for CAP are scrambled. CAP Aircraft
are assigned, but they do not all fly at the same time. They are divided into varying levels of
readiness in order to maintain a standing CAP over an assigned target hex. There are three
levels of CAP.

Airborne CAP is the most prepared, and can be considered that portion of a group of Aircraft
Assigned to CAP that are currently flying at the assigned altitude. There is no delay in this
portion of the CAP being in position to intercept an incoming raid.

This was a good thread for me - it made me go back and read the book - lol.

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to modrow)

Post #: 12

RE: Fighter alt - 11/10/2009 9:49:02 PM

Gresbeck
Matrix Trooper

Posts: 106
Joined: 7/13/2004
From: Ferrara - Florence
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

The new part of TheElf's statement for me was that you can improve coordination between fighters and bombers by settting them to the same altitude. Important bit of info TheElf, thanks for sharing.

Hartwig

For me too. That means that if I want my fighter group to escort torpedo bombers flying at 6.000 altitude, and I set 30% of the same group to fly CAP, there is no way to have escort and CAP at different altitudes (for example, 6.000 for escorts and 20.000 for CAP). Am I wrong?

(in reply to modrow)

Post #: 13

RE: Fighter alt - 11/11/2009 12:10:12 AM

TheElf
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gresbeck

quote:

ORIGINAL: hartwig.modrow

The new part of TheElf's statement for me was that you can improve coordination between fighters and bombers by settting them to the same altitude. Important bit of info TheElf, thanks for sharing.

Hartwig

For me too. That means that if I want my fighter group to escort torpedo bombers flying at 6.000 altitude, and I set 30% of the same group to fly CAP, there is no way to have escort and CAP at different altitudes (for example, 6.000 for escorts and 20.000 for CAP). Am I wrong?

Correct. This will mean you need to detail units specifically to Escort and either rest or train the Balance, or be happy with them Capping and 6k'. If you have radar spporting them that is still better than nothing.

Alternatively a second group whose PRIMARY mission is a High Altitude CAP would be in order if you desire coverage there. Often this decision can be a simple one based on different performance capes. Fx., a P-39 unit might make a better Low Alt Escort while P-38s might be you high alt CAP...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Gresbeck)

Post #: 14

RE: Fighter alt - 11/11/2009 4:08:17 PM

rhohltjr
Matrix Hero

Posts: 536
Joined: 4/27/2000
From: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.
Status: offline

Is there a rule anywhere that says you can't fly your SDBs and TBFs at 20k with your Wildcat escort?

High altitude oxygen asphyixiation is NOT a problem for my TOUGH pilots and gunners. We ain't got no time for
no steenkin oxygen asphyixiation!!!

< Message edited by rhohltjr -- 11/11/2009 4:24:12 PM >

_____________________________

My e-troops don't unload OVER THE BEACH anymore, see:
Amphibious Assault at Kota Bharu
TF 85 troops securing a beachhead at Kota Bharu, 51,75
whew! I still feel better.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 15

RE: Fighter alt - 11/11/2009 9:19:08 PM

Icedawg
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 1610
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline

[/quote]

Really? I thought fighters automagically flew 3-5k above bombers when escorting and that setting the ALT for the fighter group was to establish the base CAP ALT - right?

[/quote]

Has anyone thought of just splitting your escorting squadron into smaller groups (divide unit function). Use one group only for escort (CAP set to 0) and use the other group (or groups) for CAP.

I've been considering this strategy to get more mileage out of my fighter squadrons. With the AF overstacking rule, you have to use your squadrons to max efficiency. By splitting a squadron into three groups, you can get all three functions out of the unit (sweep, escort and CAP) while only using up one airgroup for stacking restrictions. (ie - An AF of size two can support a bomber squadron, a sweep group, an escort group and a CAP group with no overstacking penalties.)

I've thought about it, and it seems like a nice way to use small AF's for local offensive missions without compromising air defense (ie - An AF of size 2 can support a bomber squadron, a sweep group, an escort group and a CAP group with no overstacking penalties.)

Does this sound like a viable strategy to anyone?

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)

Post #: 16

RE: Fighter alt - 11/12/2009 1:41:24 PM

rhohltjr
Matrix Hero

Posts: 536
Joined: 4/27/2000
From: When I play pacific wargames, I expect smarter AI.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

Has anyone thought of just splitting your escorting squadron into smaller groups (divide unit function). Use one group only for escort (CAP set to 0) and use the other group (or groups) for CAP.

I've been considering this strategy to get more mileage out of my fighter squadrons. With the AF overstacking rule, you have to use your squadrons to max efficiency. By splitting a squadron into three groups, you can get all three functions out of the unit (sweep, escort and CAP) while only using up one airgroup for stacking restrictions. (ie - An AF of size two can support a bomber squadron, a sweep group, an escort group and a CAP group with no overstacking penalties.)

I've thought about it, and it seems like a nice way to use small AF's for local offensive missions without compromising air defense (ie - An AF of size 2 can support a bomber squadron, a sweep group, an escort group and a CAP group with no overstacking penalties.)

Does this sound like a viable strategy to anyone?

Not a bad idea I suppose. It is a little more micromanagement, which you have to keep track of.
Some players seem to like that. It seems doable. Wonder if anyone else will comment.

(in reply to Icedawg)

Post #: 17

RE: Fighter alt - 11/12/2009 1:48:08 PM

xj900uk
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline

You can always have a higher-altitude LRCAP over the target by a 2nd squadron. Mind you they might not be able to co-ordinate properly with the escorted bomber strike
Right now my Zero's are escorting Nells & Beatties to the Phillipines at 6k' and being carved up by the remaining P40's & P36's, last raid they lost 6 Zero's for 1 P36, although all the bombers survived

(in reply to rhohltjr)

Post #: 18

RE: Fighter alt - 11/12/2009 2:28:00 PM

Dobey455
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 445
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

I do shake my head and laugh and the number of dogfights I see in AAR's where they are up in the stratosphere because everyone is obseessed with getting above everyone else. Oscars and Wildcats battling it out at 35,000 ft plus!

Even an eigth airforce P-47 pilot's head would spin at the thought of that.
Not to mention there is a BIG difference between service ceiling and combat ceiling. by the time you are close to the service ceiling a plane is doing all it can just to maintain altitude.....forget combat.

(in reply to xj900uk)

Post #: 19

RE: Fighter alt - 11/12/2009 5:28:51 PM

Anthropoid
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

Cool thread; good stuff. Mind if I expand on the theme a bit? Obviously the issue of CAP/Escort alt is one that is context dependent (well I guess all are to a consdierable extent eh?), but what about other roles? My old rules of thumb from WiTP:

ASW & Nav Search: 4K or even 3K seemed to get better results, althoughh will be more prone to get shot down too!
Bombing: min 5K; somewhere b/w 5K and 15K depending on tradeoffs between local AA, need to preserve the unit, etc.
Skipbombing (100ft): needed high exp FB or F pilots (80 or higher IIRC?)
Transport: I tended to fly these at about 6K on the premise that not going to ceiling would save gas? and maybe also avoid high enemy fighters
Sweep: more like CAP than anything else

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

(in reply to Dobey455)

Post #: 20

RE: Fighter alt - 11/13/2009 1:57:25 PM

xj900uk
Matrix Elite Guard

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline

Both the Zero & Oscar were designed to fight up to 30,000' with no appreciable loss of performance (which is a bit of a minor miracle, considering the low HP of their engines. However having low wing-loading helps)

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 21

RE: Fighter alt - 11/13/2009 6:43:05 PM

Mike Scholl
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey

I do shake my head and laugh and the number of dogfights I see in AAR's where they are up in the stratosphere because everyone is obseessed with getting above everyone else. Oscars and Wildcats battling it out at 35,000 ft plus!

Definitely agree. The height advantage (bounce) should start to diminish as it exceeds 5,000 feet...., and become a negative when it exceeds 10,000 feet. What we have in the game MIGHT be accurate for a summer day in West Texas (not a cloud in the sky), but is just wrong in the Pacific Theatre with all that moisture around. Clouds are a "fact of life" there, and A/C are generally given paint jobs to blend in to their usual backgrounds.

Height advantage is an overrated factor in WITP...., and leads to a lot of absurdities in play.

(in reply to Dobey455)

Post #: 22