Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Doctrine

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> Doctrine Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Doctrine - 12/11/2009 9:32:18 AM   
Tuk

 

Posts: 117
Joined: 10/20/2009
Status: offline 		I know this has been mentioned before but I can't find the thread and don't know what came of it.

Setting German interceptors to 'Bounce Fighter' is meaningless. If there's a bomber in sight they invariably go for it. I recall someone suggested using patrols instead of targeting raids directly but this still doesn't resolve the issue and adds the new one of patrols not intercepting and losing their targets when the game suddenly speeds up. Try managing that on a busy map and its not viable.

Which leads me to ask again, is this intentional, to reflect historical behaviour and lack of omnipotence in ground control, or not? If not, it's badly in need of a fix.
Post #: 1
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 2:40:31 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		I think you are missing the point of Doc

that is what is the plan, if everything goes according to plan

so, Defending fighters set to bounce fighters, will try and set up a bounce, but if they can not, or if something else comes along, they will go for it

so, a BF setting, if they see what they think is a good attack chance, are still going to take it

(real world, the High Command had to ask Downing, why in the daily reports, Spitfires were shooting down bombers and Hurricanes were shooting down fighters, don't the pilots understand we told them to do it the other way around ? the first time Downing tried to explain how things work in combat, the 2nd time, he got up and left the meeting (muttering something to the effect, he wasn't going to waste his time, explaining something to morons)

the idea with Patrol, you can set up a (ahhh, drawing a blank right now, on what the LW called it) but you can form a mass of attackers, and then, assign them to hit all at once (with in reason) instead of one unit 100 miles away coming in, another 150 miles away following and so on (one unit hitting a raid, by itself, can be hurt and not do much, 5 or 6 units hitting at the same time, got a better chance of getting though and doing major damage)

(that said, I do both, so not one way is best, or better then the other, just based on what is going on at the time)



_____________________________


(in reply to Tuk)
Post #: 2
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 3:20:45 PM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

the idea with Patrol, you can set up a (ahhh, drawing a blank right now, on what the LW called it) but you can form a mass of attackers


Gefechtsverbände

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 3
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 3:42:51 PM   
Tuk

 

Posts: 117
Joined: 10/20/2009
Status: offline 		That all sounds reasonable, the way the game should work. But my experience is that it doesn't. I've had a close look at what's happening and this is what I see. The only way I can get interceptors to take on an escort, either by direct assignment to a raid or masssed patrol, is

1. if there are no bombers near the escorts, ie.the escorts haven't yet caught up with their bombers or they're heading home.
2. once the escorts have attacked my interceptors.

I do not exagerate. My single engine interceptors fly down from above through several layers of escorts they are supposed to strip off to make way for my twin engined planes. They ignore the the escorts every time and instead go for the bombers below. I really mean quite literally EVERY TIME. This is not for lack of fighter targets, inability to gain hight or use of poor quality units.




(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 4
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 4:08:00 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		if that is the case, you are doing something wrong




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Tuk)
Post #: 5
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 4:08:21 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		and




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 6
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 4:08:40 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		and




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 7
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 4:12:53 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		and

you can see, I have burned out the escorts fuel, most are headed for home

hassle has been, poor attacks, with a lot of US fighters in the area, that are counter attacking the bounces or attacks

this run, had about 13 bounces, 3 attacks on the fighters, and 1 bounce on the bombers (and that was a 3 plane unit, so a group that broke off from the main unit, they seen a opening and went for it)

everything was targeted on fighters, nothing was targeted on bombers (I didn't bring up anything that wants to attack bombers to confuse things)

so over all, if this is not what you are seeing, we need to figure out what you are doing, that I am not doing (or what I am doing that you are not doing ?)






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 8
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 4:49:29 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		I am not that great a LW player, but in that run, I think I did okay, if a real battle, I would of waiting another 50 miles or so, before trying to hit the raid (that is part of the trick, would the raid of went another 50 miles or more)

got hurt pretty good by the Yanks, but I burned out there fuel, and ended up leaving the Raid wide open




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 9
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 4:51:11 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		the heavies cleaned house

had a pretty good rocket run, 6 damaged and 5 kills, some of my 109s got 5 and 6 damaged

(got to break up the box)

(think my best ever rocket run was 11 damage and 0 kills)




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 10
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 4:52:24 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		just in case, raid was only to the top of the Ruhr, away from any Flak, so Flak damage wouldn't mess up the numbers

_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 11
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 5:04:59 PM   
MajorDude


Posts: 199
Joined: 1/20/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell


quote:

the idea with Patrol, you can set up a (ahhh, drawing a blank right now, on what the LW called it) but you can form a mass of attackers


Gefechtsverbände


Maybe it was:

Schwarm or Jagdflugzeug

It would seem that Gefechtsverbände translates into geezer

< Message edited by MajorDude -- 12/11/2009 5:06:56 PM >

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 12
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 5:34:41 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		As a consequence, the Luftwaffe was instructed to operate in "Gefechtsverbände" - intended to consist 40 or more fighters, but in reality, due to circumstances often composed of rather only half that number. These became subject to repeated Allied fighter attacks from several units.

_____________________________


(in reply to MajorDude)
Post #: 13
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 5:36:48 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		but no, none of those were the term I was thinking of (LOL, I was even thinking of it in English :)



_____________________________


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 14
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 7:00:50 PM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

Gefechtsverbände
Maybe it was:
Schwarm or Jagdflugzeug
It would seem that Gefechtsverbände translates into geezer


Well I don't know what translator you're using




Attachment (1)

(in reply to MajorDude)
Post #: 15
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 7:07:46 PM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
but no, none of those were the term I was thinking of (LOL, I was even thinking of it in English :)


Seemed this is what you were talking about






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 16
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 8:51:27 PM   
MajorDude


Posts: 199
Joined: 1/20/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

quote:


It would seem that Gefechtsverbände translates into geezer


Well I don't know what translator you're using


I just googled Gefechtsverbände

and this is the first thing that popped up:

http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-german/Gefechtsverb%C3%A4nde

which I found rather funny since it couldn't find a match, so it suggested geezer.

It also suggested: Geiger counter, geisha (girl), gel, and gelatin(e).

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 17
RE: Doctrine - 12/11/2009 10:49:26 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		I did also get a Geezer reply, but I kept looking

_____________________________


(in reply to MajorDude)
Post #: 18
RE: Doctrine - 12/12/2009 8:23:41 AM   
TechSgt

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 9/19/2008
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tuk

...

I do not exagerate. My single engine interceptors fly down from above through several layers of escorts they are supposed to strip off to make way for my twin engined planes. They ignore the the escorts every time and instead go for the bombers below. I really mean quite literally EVERY TIME. This is not for lack of fighter targets, inability to gain hight or use of poor quality units.


Tuk;

Compared to TOH...
My gut feeling is -- in BtR -- the Axis AI is going more for my escorts than the bombers.

TS

(in reply to Tuk)
Post #: 19
RE: Doctrine - 1/21/2010 4:06:44 PM   
Tuk

 

Posts: 117
Joined: 10/20/2009
Status: offline 		OK, returning to this after examining the game for a while, I'm now officially wondering whether we're playing the same game. The issue is not whether or not the LW can knock allied planes out, clearly they can, but whether or not the doctrine has any meaning in the game.

What I've found is that while 'direct' and 'bounce' MAY impact on a unit's tactics, selecting 'bomber' or 'fighter' most definitely and categorically does not. More than that, if my assertion that it was 100% inevitable exaggerates, it does so only a little. The way the game works, a fighter will chose a bomber target over the fighters it was sent to intercept almost every time. The fighters will latch on to bomber targets at the soonest opportunity even if the fighters they were sent to intercept are close by.

Here's how it seems to be working-

Case 1
Take a raid with bombers at 20 000 and escorts at 18 000. Fighters set to 'bounce-fighter' arrive and 2 000 above their target they find the bombers. They then change target and will not engage the escort until the escort gains hight and generally bounces them.

Case 2
Another raid has the opposite composition with escorts flying 2 000 above the bombers. Maybe there are multi-layered escorts above the bombers, it makes no difference.  The same interceptors approach, trying to bounce the top most escort. What happens? The escorts fly below the level of the bombers, the interceptors  again latch onto the bombers like a baby on a tit and wait for the escorts to gain elevation and bounce them.

Case 3
Any bomber/escort combination you care to mention approaches a LW patrol 10 000 feet higher than the highest escort. Whether you let the patrol decide to intercept or directly instruct it to intercept the escort, as per case 2, the escorts will fly below the bombers and that tit comes out again. They just can't resist.

I cannot explain the handful of cases I've seen in which the interceptors attack their intended targets. I suspect it is down to the escorts manouvreing or not.



< Message edited by Tuk -- 1/21/2010 5:10:00 PM >

(in reply to TechSgt)
Post #: 20
RE: Doctrine - 1/27/2010 12:01:52 AM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline 		Tuk: let me try

Playing BTR, no hard numbers recorded, so this is anecdotal from memory

Doc setting: 109s and 190s set to bounce fighter, 410s set to bounce bomber, 110s set to direct bomber
Setup: 109s and 190s near Channel, 410s and 110s north of Ruhr

Raid progression:
As raids put up over the channel, I guesstimate which are bombers, which are escort, which are sweep. I allocate fighters to escort (half to three quarters of raid strength per raid) and try to ignore sweeps unless they look dangerous (which they usually do). This creates a rolling battle moving slowly inland with many, many raids countered by many interceptor groups. During this portion of the battle I NEVER have fighters attacking bombers unless I have mistakenly assigned someone to a bomber group.

As the raids move inlands, I allocate four fighters per possible bomber group unless someone has already IDed them by attacking (see above). Usually these fighters will try to attack who I told them to, but sometimes doctrine strikes that they go for a fighter instead. It mostly seems to depend on how close the escorts remain to the bombers at that point.

As the raids begin to shake out and I can identify deep penetration raids and the escort and I still have fighters assigned to attack those escorts, I allocate the destroyers to the bombers (but only after someone has actually identified a bomber by attacking it.)

During the late portions of the raid, the 109s and 190s will begin to target bombers to a limited extent (less than 10% by guestimate). The 410s and 110s will virtually NEVER attack a fighter (although there are rare exceptions, probably less than 1%).

Occasionally I will make a boo-boo and target a destroyer group on a fighter (and usually this is in the withdrawal phase where I get a little confused about who is whom). Even then the destroyers will tend to go for a bomber if they can find one; the only place I see repeated attacks by 410s against escort are when I have assigned them an isolated escort group as a target and they can't find anyone else (and yes I will grab for the recall button if I see it happen).

So from my standpoint, it looks like doctrine works very well indeed.


(in reply to Tuk)
Post #: 21
RE: Doctrine - 1/27/2010 1:43:47 PM   
Tuk

 

Posts: 117
Joined: 10/20/2009
Status: offline 		Pompack, thanks for addressing this issue, I'm not the only person to have noticed it. If we are indeed playing the same game, I can only assume that more people haven't raised it because you can still get a good kill ratio in spite of the problem. I cannot believe, however, that this is working as designed. Here is an example of what happens-



I have about 120-130 interceptors, all on bounce -fighter doctrine and all moving on an incoming group of 50 escorts which are to rendezvous with returning bombers. I think to myself, surely this time I get them!





Attachment (1)

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 22
RE: Doctrine - 1/27/2010 1:47:23 PM   
Tuk

 

Posts: 117
Joined: 10/20/2009
Status: offline 		See how the interceptors have climbed to 30 000, yet the escorts have lowered to just under 16000...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Tuk)
Post #: 23
RE: Doctrine - 1/27/2010 1:50:45 PM   
Tuk

 

Posts: 117
Joined: 10/20/2009
Status: offline 		So, all but two attacks are made on the bombers. The Thunderbolts have one plane damaged and it later crashes. One plane hit wihen 120+ interceptors were assigned to hit them.

This is not the exception, it's the rule. How do you explain this?

(in reply to Tuk)
Post #: 24
RE: Doctrine - 1/27/2010 2:41:13 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		to be honest, based on the screen shot, would say it is working as it is suppost to

the LW are high, the bombers are closer to the LW fighters then the preferred targets so, so they will attack what is there

I don't know, when I target fighters, I attack fighters

I just ran a turn, set up one of the Honens to attack some late Spits coming in, they made a number of attacks on the Spits as they joined up with the bombers, then seen one of them break off and chase a damaged bomber, looks right to me

_____________________________


(in reply to Tuk)
Post #: 25
RE: Doctrine - 1/27/2010 3:13:21 PM   
Tuk

 

Posts: 117
Joined: 10/20/2009
Status: offline 		The question is, why are the fighters high when the escorts they are set to target are low? This is not patrols at a set hight diverted to target escorts, they took off tasked to attack escorts. I didn't check, but presume the escorts dived rather than came in low, but it makes no difference here. They were picked up by one interceptor group on the way in, and followed, so their altitude and approx whereabouts should have been known to everyone.


Clearly and demonstrably, whatever example you cite to the contrary- and I'm not disbelieving you- all fighters like to go for bombers given the choice. Please, will you look into the code, I know its not working as designed.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 26
RE: Doctrine - 1/27/2010 3:24:03 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline 		Tuk

the LW didn't care how many Allied fighters got shot down, they didn't mean anyting (other then in helping the main goal)

everything is geared to knocking down the bomber

you could be the best dogfighter in the world, it didn't mean anything if you didn't knock down bombers too

now in the case you show, I would agree, I think the fighters dropped down on something they seen, leaving the LW to still be tracking and coming in high, but once there, the Bombers would become the main target, as the fighters are out of range

if you watch enough raids, you see during combat, there may be planes between 2000 and 30000, the dive, climb and any other thing you can think of

all I can think of, is you got to hit the fighters before they join up with the bombers ?

(if there is nothing else in the area, they got to fight the fighters, but once they get into the mix, they going to attack what they got the best chance to hit)

oddly, playing from the Allied side, vs the AI, I think the AI goes too heavy vs the fighters to start with, so not sure if what we are seeing is play style vs programming



_____________________________


(in reply to Tuk)
Post #: 27
RE: Doctrine - 1/27/2010 3:48:23 PM   
Tuk

 

Posts: 117
Joined: 10/20/2009
Status: offline 		the LW didn't care how many Allied fighters got shot down, they didn't mean anyting (other then in helping the main goal)

everything is geared to knocking down the bomber... ...all I can think of, is you got to hit the fighters before they join up with the bombers ?
(if there is nothing else in the area, they got to fight the fighters, but once they get into the mix, they going to attack what they got the best chance to hit)

 
If interceptors only attack fighters when they have no choice, or can see no bombers, I think that makes my point. So why beat about the bush? Shouldn't the game state it clearly and not mislead players into unachievable strategies with doctrines which are not actually programmed into the game?

The escorts didn't see anything lower than them, they just dived when they saw the interceptors. I see it all the time as I noted in post #20, and the interceptors then go for the bombers.

As regards play style, I can't see much room for it, except for having patrols in the air and ready to hit return escorts before they reach their bomber formation.


(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 28
RE: Doctrine - 1/27/2010 7:43:16 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		Health warning: advice based on Talonsoft version, but unlikely to have changed I think.

I am not sure, but I think there is a targeting issue here. If you select to intercept a bomber raid, you are (in effect) telling the unit to do just that - attack the bombers you targeted. They will not attack another group (even fighters), unless they attack first. If you tell an interceptor to attack a fighter escort, they will tend to do that. You cannot attack a bomber group with an interceptor on 'bounce fighters', and expect them to do anything other than atteck the bombers.

To strip off escorts you must target the escort groups explicitly, and hope your attackers dont see something else first. I have never worked out what happens with close escort fighters, but the majority of fighters will be on high cover anyway, so it is academic...


Does this help?



_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Tuk)
Post #: 29
RE: Doctrine - 1/27/2010 8:21:03 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Health warning: advice based on Talonsoft version, but unlikely to have changed I think.

I am not sure, but I think there is a targeting issue here. If you select to intercept a bomber raid, you are (in effect) telling the unit to do just that - attack the bombers you targeted. They will not attack another group (even fighters), unless they attack first. If you tell an interceptor to attack a fighter escort, they will tend to do that. You cannot attack a bomber group with an interceptor on 'bounce fighters', and expect them to do anything other than atteck the bombers.

To strip off escorts you must target the escort groups explicitly, and hope your attackers dont see something else first. I have never worked out what happens with close escort fighters, but the majority of fighters will be on high cover anyway, so it is academic...


Absolutely agree Warspite. This is exactly the way I see it working today as I posted above. Unless I target a bomber group explicitly, I never see fighters with Bounce Fighter doctrine attack bombers. If the targeted escorts stay high or go low the fighters follow them.

EDIT: and that is the reason it is so critical to try and identify the bombers as early as possible. Against the AI it is easy, but against a human opponent you need to look for patterns in his deployment and NEVER commit too many interceptors to the battle until you have sorted out which are wolves and which are sheep (and Hermann was wrong: go for the wolves first if you want to live to fight another day)

And relating to some posts on another thread, that is a good reason for the LW to use patrols: sometimes you have to hold your people just outside the battle zone while the first responders sort out where the escorts are. On occasion I even have to move the patrols to stay outside that battle zone (and a royal pain it is to move twenty or thirty groups from one patrol location to another)

DISCLAIMER:While I have never played PBEM in this game I am basing the comments about human opponents on the old BTR experience. The results against the AI are current with v1.02


< Message edited by pompack -- 1/27/2010 8:28:51 PM >

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> Doctrine Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.078