Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

Whats your bombload?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

Clearly, I did a less then stellar job in ordering my air missions over the invasion... but I don't think it was that crazy off base to enjoy minimal results....and I certainly didn't expect I would need to do everything optimaly to do a reasonable job in slowing the A.I's response on difficulty settings of "Normal" and below.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

Clearly, I did a less then stellar job in ordering my air missions over the invasion... but I don't think it was that crazy off base to enjoy minimal results....and I certainly didn't expect I would need to do everything optimaly to do a reasonable job in slowing the A.I's response on difficulty settings of "Normal" and below.

here's my 2 euros worth. I've used the May 44 campaign to test out a number of options. For what its worth, the worst use of the allied airforce in WiTW is direct ground support, ground attacks based around interdiction and rail give you far better returns.

Second observation, I did one where I turned the air over to AI completely and another where I worked with the AD screen and set areas of operation but not much else. My first attempt at manual control was much worse than trusting the AI, my second attempt at manual control I had much better interdiction levels and axis combat units often just collapsed on contact.

So my advice would be if you aren't sure about what you are doing, trust the AI.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I would flip your approach around. Use P-47s, Typhoons, Spitfires etc. on interdiction while sending a few Marauders and the A-20s to ground support. Generally the most powerful weapon in the Allied arsenal is interdiction. When you have some 8-9 interdiction, then you don't need much ground support to smash the Germans. Thinking about it, this is also a more logical approach. Fighter bombers don't carry enough payload to plow through fortified defensive positions. On the other hand level bomber can't get low enough to spot and pinpoint hit the traffic going around. Fighter bombers going low have a much higher visibilty in regard to ground movement and can hit much more accurately, either dropping bombs from a lower altitude, or simply strafing the entire area.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel


That sounds like direct ground support is pretty much useless, if ground Attack Unit is better at it's core mission then it is. A little counter-intuitive to me, but ok if that's the way the game makes it. Thanks for the advice.

I had assumed that Ground Support would be better at effecting units that your ground forces were in actual contact with and engaging since you would have spotters on the ground calling in direct air support missions against targets where they were encountering heavy resistance rather then relying on luck, spotting from the air and photo recon to hit targets not in contact.

I had been using Ground Attack - Unit alot to see if I could soften up units (and fortifications but it seems not to work for that at all) prior to deciding whether I wanted to assault them since there doesn't seem to be a way to do a "If you are meeting heavy resistance call off the attack" setting for ground attacks.... so the computer can't differentiate between when a player wants to do a "take at all costs" meat-grinder frontal assault and a "probe for weakness and exploit if you can" attack.
I had also been using them to hit and weaken units behind the line or in parts of the line I didn't intend to attack that turn but might try in future. Didn't seem all that effective in Italy but the terrain is horrible there.

Thanks for the advice!

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel


That sounds like direct ground support is pretty much useless, if ground Attack Unit is better at it's core mission then it is. A little counter-intuitive to me, but ok if that's the way the game makes it. Thanks for the advice.

I had assumed that Ground Support would be better at effecting units that your ground forces were in actual contact with and engaging since you would have spotters on the ground calling in direct air support missions against targets where they were encountering heavy resistance rather then relying on luck, spotting from the air and photo recon to hit targets not in contact.

I had been using Ground Attack - Unit alot to see if I could soften up units (and fortifications but it seems not to work for that at all) prior to deciding whether I wanted to assault them since there doesn't seem to be a way to do a "If you are meeting heavy resistance call off the attack" setting for ground attacks.... so the computer can't differentiate between when a player wants to do a "take at all costs" meat-grinder frontal assault and a "probe for weakness and exploit if you can" attack.
I had also been using them to hit and weaken units behind the line or in parts of the line I didn't intend to attack that turn but might try in future. Didn't seem all that effective in Italy but the terrain is horrible there.

Thanks for the advice!

I'm not sure if this reflects the different game engines or the different strengths and weaknesses of the various airforces but with the Soviets in WiTE direct ground attack is the way to go, but supplemented with what in WiTW would be 'interdiction' (ie pre-ground attack softening up). Interdiction in WiTE is purely trying to bomb stuff on the move.

With the Western Allies in WiTW you want to plaster the space around the battlefield rather than directly support combat operations. I suspect this reflects the simple reality that most anglo-allied divisions were not much more capable than the Germans (and unlike the Soviets couldn't then bring in a lot more units and a mass of artillery), so concentrating on combat seems like a poor use. If you use the indirect approach, then by the time you attack you can have inflicted a mass of disruptions (ie elements that will not fight) and hit their supply (ie they fight less well).

As I say, I'm not sure if this is doctrine (the allies seemed to have very different approach to the design and value of fighter bombers), game engine, or plane equipment, but I've had to do quite a lot of unlearning to come to terms with the difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I'm sorry but even the Germans remarked that the Allied artillery in Normandy was fiercer and more intense than anything they experienced in the east.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I'm sorry but even the Germans remarked that the Allied artillery in Normandy was fiercer and more intense than anything they experienced in the east.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I'm sorry but even the Germans remarked that the Allied artillery in Normandy was fiercer and more intense than anything they experienced in the east.

no need to be sorry.

But I didn't say that Soviet artillery was 'better' or more intense, I said that they were able to use a relative advantage in numbers plus substantial artillery to overcome much of the quality disparity. The Anglo-Allied armies indeed bring an impressive amount of artillery to bear, and that was important in their victories, but as you find out pretty quickly in WiTW you can often get blocked, especially in more constricted terrain and you can't really outnumber the Germans that easily.