GA

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

GA

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 War in the East 2 >> GA

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

GA - 9/14/2021 9:23:06 AM

tyronec
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline

Between the two games I am playing I have seen some 200 or so GA missions going through and not one has been intercepted by enemy fighters.
I know HLYA showed one mission in one of his games being intercepted but it seems rare.

It also seems that AS does not work to intercept GA, or if so very rarely.

So the only effective counter to GA looks to be AA.

Any thoughts, what are other players seeing ?
Are your opponents using GA, which looks to be a far more effective use of the VVS than GS as the Luftwaffe are little or no danger ?

< Message edited by tyronec -- 9/14/2021 9:26:40 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: GA - 9/14/2021 9:40:34 AM

loki100
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

I'm getting them fairly often, the AI is now doing more GA than before and auto-intercept works fine. Note the poor weather conditions, in good weather I get a lot:

edit: which takes me back to the point often made, from experience of WiTW AS is an esoteric mission with 2 key roles:

a) put your fighters over enemy airspace to create combat
b) bind your defensive fighters into a defined box

for pretty much anything else, esp defensive missions such as above, auto-intercept is the best approach

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by loki100 -- 9/14/2021 9:43:13 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 2

RE: GA - 9/14/2021 9:42:09 AM

carlkay58
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 8650
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline

It depends on where your fighters are based and your supply net. I have no problems with my fighters intercepting Soviet aircraft as long as I pay attention to thse two things.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 3

RE: GA - 9/14/2021 9:45:19 AM

loki100
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

...

Are your opponents using GA, which looks to be a far more effective use of the VVS than GS as the Luftwaffe are little or no danger ?

if you've pushed the VVS to GA as its mission of choice, you've won the most effective part of the air war. In the end they gain little from low level interdiction that the partisan events don't give them, GA-unit is only useful if teamed with GS and I'm really not convinced about railyard bombing

_____________________________

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 4

RE: GA - 9/14/2021 9:59:59 AM

tyronec
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline

quote:

if you've pushed the VVS to GA as its mission of choice, you've won the most effective part of the air war. In the end they gain little from low level interdiction that the partisan events don't give them, GA-unit is only useful if teamed with GS and I'm really not convinced about railyard bombing

My experience is that GA-Unit is highly effective for the VVS. You can seriously damage a few units every turn and then follow up with ground combat. While if they are used for GS they get intercepted en mass, even if GS is OFF for the Axis player.

quote:

I'm getting them fairly often, the AI is now doing more GA than before and auto-intercept works fine.

I am not seeing them at all in either of my games, one is playing as Soviets and the other playing Axis.
Does the range matter ? Perhaps the fighters have to be closer than the range circle ?

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 5

RE: GA - 9/14/2021 10:09:19 AM

loki100
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

in that eg half the fighters came from a base 3 hexes away, the rest were 8 hexes distant. So that is 80 miles for a formation with a notional radius of 154 and range of 463.

On that broad sector I intercepted 3 out of 6 GA missions - given the weather I'm content with that, esp as I'm not spending an age fussing over the airbase deployments and simply have each JG strung out across a wide sector - still at the stage where I easily win A2A so no real need to concentrate.

This is why the posts about can't intercept leave me unsure what is going on - or why people are seeing it. Realise they are, and as I do, are reporting what they see, but for little effort I can get pretty much what I want

edit - in the 3 interceptions I shot down 48 bombers, the interceptions are the black battle and the 2 bombing missions with #2 shown (one is the ground bomb, the other the A2A)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by loki100 -- 9/14/2021 10:11:30 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 6

RE: GA - 9/14/2021 10:30:15 AM

Iam5not8
Matrix Hero

Posts: 578
Joined: 6/9/2020
Status: offline

In my (limited) experience, those interceptions are logically linked to the position of the fighters versus the path taken by the ennemy GA.
They do happen as playing GER vs SOV. For example, T4 of a 41 GC versus AI SOV, Luftwaffe intercepted a SOV raid on Koenigsberg on all the way.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Iam5not8 -- 9/14/2021 10:32:18 AM >

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 7

RE: GA - 9/14/2021 10:36:49 AM

loki100
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iam5not8

In my (limited) experience, those interceptions are logically linked to the position of the fighters versus the path taken by the ennemy GA.
...

certainly flying over bases is an easy way to get caught but one of my intercepting groups in the eg I gave came from a base 8 hexes pretty much due south of the battle site

so its more than just working on a narrow circle around the airbase location and interception being triggered by that.

I'd agree with Carlkay, I team my fighter airbases with level 4 depots (ideally same hex, at worst 2-3 distant) so I know I have the resources needed to avoid the problem of cancelled missions

_____________________________

(in reply to Iam5not8)

Post #: 8

RE: GA - 9/14/2021 12:09:32 PM

tyronec
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline

I am on 1.01.07, maybe that makes a difference.
When I started the '41 game there were Soviet intercepts of T1 bombing missions but think that was the previous patch.

I tried some GA using my test bed, which is T2 of RTL. Soviets doing 20 bombing of 100 aircraft each.

Range 7 - 0 intercepts.
Range 5 - 0 intercepts
Range 3 - 0 intercepts.
Range 0, airbase bombing - 0 intercepts. This time they got 51 Axis aircraft (mostly 109s) for 64 Soviet.

I can't see what is wrong with the Axis set up, they have no ADs and have not flown any on T1 and the airbase has supplies. There are a couple of fighter groups in Memel.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 9

RE: GA - 9/14/2021 12:13:33 PM

PeteJC
Matrix Trooper

Posts: 105
Joined: 4/4/2021
Status: offline

Sorry for the ignorant question but is "VVS" referring to the Soviet air force?

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 10

RE: GA - 9/14/2021 12:36:56 PM

AlbertN
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

In the games I've had - I had both Railyard bombing, and Ground Attacks on units.

The Ground Attacks were often used to 'fatigue' units fated to be attacked. They can destroy some elements but what is disrupted is 'fine', yet converted in Fatigue if I got it right. I do not know in which measure.

On the other hand, I've seen Il2 Ground Attacks in a few occasions, and these seems to be doped. Quite sure I've lost 20ish panzers in the same unit being bombed 8ish times by enemy formations.

(in reply to PeteJC)

Post #: 11

RE: GA - 9/14/2021 12:38:40 PM

tyronec
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline

quote:

Sorry for the ignorant question but is "VVS" referring to the Soviet air force?

Yes, that's it.

quote:

In the games I've had - I had both Railyard bombing, and Ground Attacks on units.

The Ground Attacks were often used to 'fatigue' units fated to be attacked. They can destroy some elements but what is disrupted is 'fine', yet converted in Fatigue if I got it right. I do not know in which measure.

On the other hand, I've seen Il2 Ground Attacks in a few occasions, and these seems to be doped. Quite sure I've lost 20ish panzers in the same unit being bombed 8ish times by enemy formations.

Yes, my experience of the game is that very heavy bombing of ground units has a serious detrimental effect on their combat power. Am not quite sure why this works but it does.
It could also be that if you damage elements and then force a retreat it will cause further losses.

< Message edited by tyronec -- 9/14/2021 12:44:10 PM >

(in reply to AlbertN)

Post #: 12

RE: GA - 9/14/2021 1:03:35 PM

loki100
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

disrupt converts to fatigue after any battle (air or ground), so feasibly the same element can disrupt - fatigue several times

fatigued elements are more liable to damage

damaged elements are more liable to be destroyed, they are especially vunerable if the unit is forced to retreat. Hence the advice re the 1941-2 winter that if you use your Pzrs don't let them get pushed back (easier said that done) later in the turn

all disrupted elements pick up fatigue instead - guess as ever there is a leadership aspect here (prob morale as that is usually used for 'rally' type instances) and die rolls to determine how much

_____________________________

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 13

RE: GA - 9/14/2021 3:20:49 PM

HardLuckYetAgain
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

I have noticed, and mentioned in my AAR's, the lack of auto intercept for the Germans. Mine looked to be because of supply since I had not flown them on any missions and my settings for interception is correct but was a bit low on supplies. Maybe it is because the Soviets only come in a few hexes of enemy territory, bomb, then fly back into their own territory before interception can get to them. Over water the Germans will auto intercept a bazillion miles away. So I chalked my misses up to supply and quick bombing.

Also of note is the Soviets doing 60+ losses to Germans on Airfield bombing. I have practice later turns with Germans doing mass bombing on Soviet fighter bases and I can 100% say the Germans can't even touch that number from my tests. I even tested bombing with the Germans after using the Soviets to do mass bombings for fatigue losses and maybe got a few extra aircraft. So I find the bombings interesting to say the least.

Also Fatigue has not been a problem in WITE2, mainly because I personally don't use the airforce much and already have a rotation set up.

I am sure the powers to be will figure it out.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 14

RE: GA - 9/14/2021 3:26:01 PM

HardLuckYetAgain
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

Just I note that I would use Air Superiority but like Tyronec said and I paraphrase, "Air Superiority flies around may or may not intercept the enemy only to lose a great many planes to Operational losses". Something on that line but is the truth. Of course OPS losses are tied to how far you fly, how often, supply state, and other items so why subjugate yourself as a German player to such action in 41. Most of the photos I have seen in response of Germans are not Auto intercepting is from either late 41 or 42 when supply is better. To me at this point, and probably in my next game, I am just going to put the Luftwaffe in Reserve and leave it there except for the Ju-52's for all of 1941. Historical, NO. Practical, Hell Yes and I don't have to deal with the BS.

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 9/14/2021 3:27:46 PM >

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 15

RE: GA - 9/15/2021 9:02:08 AM

tyronec
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline

Here are a couple of reports from recent games.
The top on is on T7 of my live game with Gundam. It is T07 and there are 71 Soviet GA attacks against troops. All are within Axis fighter range and none are intercepted.

The second pic is from my game with Dodo which was in May. It is T06 and the front line was in roughly the same place. Ignoring Recon, Combat aircraft losses are roughly 10:1.

Am not entirely sure but I think the Dodo game losses were from Soviet GS. So Axis fighters fly against GS but not GA ?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 16

RE: GA - 9/15/2021 7:27:04 PM

Isokron
Matrix Trooper

Posts: 178
Joined: 7/31/2012
Status: offline

Im no expert but my understanding was that GAs wasnt detected until entering enemy territory (air supply missions on the other hand seems to be detected far into friendly territory...). So i guess the difference might be that in Lokis AI game the AI often bomb stuff further into his territory while humans in a MP game will only bomb the spearheads with no territory buffer in front. Perhaps if Tyronec reran his experiment while taking a few hexes around Memel it would end up different?

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 17

RE: GA - 9/15/2021 8:22:10 PM

DesertedFox
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 314
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Am not entirely sure but I think the Dodo game losses were from Soviet GS. So Axis fighters fly against GS but not GA ?

I just lost 370 bombers on a daylight GA mission. So interception does work against GA.

(in reply to Isokron)

Post #: 18

RE: GA - 9/15/2021 8:46:39 PM

HardLuckYetAgain
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Isokron

Im no expert but my understanding was that GAs wasnt detected until entering enemy territory (air supply missions on the other hand seems to be detected far into friendly territory...). So i guess the difference might be that in Lokis AI game the AI often bomb stuff further into his territory while humans in a MP game will only bomb the spearheads with no territory buffer in front. Perhaps if Tyronec reran his experiment while taking a few hexes around Memel it would end up different?

That is exactly what I am figuring too. But will watch it play out just the same.

(in reply to Isokron)

Post #: 19

RE: GA - 9/15/2021 10:36:07 PM

tyronec
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline

quote:

Im no expert but my understanding was that GAs wasnt detected until entering enemy territory (air supply missions on the other hand seems to be detected far into friendly territory...). So i guess the difference might be that in Lokis AI game the AI often bomb stuff further into his territory while humans in a MP game will only bomb the spearheads with no territory buffer in front. Perhaps if Tyronec reran his experiment while taking a few hexes around Memel it would end up different?

Could be that is the reason. I suspect that the combat Loki posted was a GS rather than a GA because the combat result is 'Held', but that is not to say that he isn't getting some GA intercepts.

In the game the most effective use of GA, in my opinion, is to heavily bomb a small number of units that are going to be subject to critical combats during the ground phase. If you bomb them enough you can reduce them to a fraction of their starting CV, in some cases down to zero (specifically at the start of the VtB scenario if anyone wants to confirm this).
For Axis early war this is not good tactics because you can get better results using GS.

However with the early Soviets their GS will generally get intercepted and so is far less effective.
If the Soviets can win say 1 or 2 combats a turn that they wouldn't otherwise have won, say from T5 onwards in the '41 Campaign, then that is going to have a significant effect on game balance. Especially if you are thereby opening up a pocket or two.

My experience in the two games I am playing, StB as Soviets and the '41 Campaign as Axis, is that this kind of GA on the front line is immune to 'default' interception. The AS test bed didn't get any interception either, I did manage to get some 'default' interception from it but am not sure exactly what the conditions are to trigger it. Maybe a hex adjacent to an airfield with a glut of supplies on it.

I have asked Gundam to stop using GA in our '41 game and I will stop using it in the StB game (though we are waiting for the next patch to continue with that game).
Actually I think at present that 'no GA' would be a good house rule for any game, excepting maybe Barbarossa T1 but it seems that GA is not really necessary even for that.

< Message edited by tyronec -- 9/15/2021 10:44:25 PM >

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 20

RE: GA - 9/15/2021 11:11:26 PM

AlbertN
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

Well there are many targets for GA - though I've only seen railyards and unit.
And rarely Interdiction.

I've thought of another way to use Interdiction if I've well studied the rules - but it will have to wait time before I can practice it.

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 21

RE: GA - 9/16/2021 1:20:46 AM

metaphore
Matrix Trooper

Posts: 238
Joined: 9/4/2021
Status: offline

I have noticed something changed with auto interception since the last patch. Now, I can't cause half the losses I was used to inflict during the GC41 first turn with all the Bf109 groups set to auto intercept soviet missions (while nothing else flying). Not sure if it's GA the issue.

(in reply to AlbertN)

Post #: 22

RE: GA - 9/16/2021 1:26:32 AM

HardLuckYetAgain
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

quote:

Im no expert but my understanding was that GAs wasnt detected until entering enemy territory (air supply missions on the other hand seems to be detected far into friendly territory...). So i guess the difference might be that in Lokis AI game the AI often bomb stuff further into his territory while humans in a MP game will only bomb the spearheads with no territory buffer in front. Perhaps if Tyronec reran his experiment while taking a few hexes around Memel it would end up different?

Could be that is the reason. I suspect that the combat Loki posted was a GS rather than a GA because the combat result is 'Held', but that is not to say that he isn't getting some GA intercepts.

In the game the most effective use of GA, in my opinion, is to heavily bomb a small number of units that are going to be subject to critical combats during the ground phase. If you bomb them enough you can reduce them to a fraction of their starting CV, in some cases down to zero (specifically at the start of the VtB scenario if anyone wants to confirm this).
For Axis early war this is not good tactics because you can get better results using GS.

However with the early Soviets their GS will generally get intercepted and so is far less effective.
If the Soviets can win say 1 or 2 combats a turn that they wouldn't otherwise have won, say from T5 onwards in the '41 Campaign, then that is going to have a significant effect on game balance. Especially if you are thereby opening up a pocket or two.

My experience in the two games I am playing, StB as Soviets and the '41 Campaign as Axis, is that this kind of GA on the front line is immune to 'default' interception. The AS test bed didn't get any interception either, I did manage to get some 'default' interception from it but am not sure exactly what the conditions are to trigger it. Maybe a hex adjacent to an airfield with a glut of supplies on it.

I have asked Gundam to stop using GA in our '41 game and I will stop using it in the StB game (though we are waiting for the next patch to continue with that game).
Actually I think at present that 'no GA' would be a good house rule for any game, excepting maybe Barbarossa T1 but it seems that GA is not really necessary even for that.

I have auto intercepted everything but Jubjub's Ground Attack's in my current game and we are on Turn 9 and he has been GA'ing since turn 3 or 4(don't remember which turn it was for sure).

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 23

RE: GA - 9/16/2021 3:36:56 AM

metaphore
Matrix Trooper

Posts: 238
Joined: 9/4/2021
Status: offline

I can only compare one save from 01.03beta vs another from 01.09beta (but I've made plenty).

Air Losses of Turn 1, GC41 -> the opening move is roughly the same and I have obtained consistant results accross several tests

103b vs 109b

***** AXIS Losses *****
97_____45_____Pilots KIA
95_____49_____Fighter Bomber
17_____11_____Transport

_89_____41_____Air Combat Losses
__7______1_____Flak Losses
_16_____18_____Operational Losses
112_____60_____TOTAL Losses

***** SOVIET Losses *****
2,210_____1,062_____Pilots KIA
__446_______305_____Fighter
1,270_______731_____Fighter Bomber
__251_______299_____Tactical Bomber
1,083_______940_____Level Bomber
____4_______37_____Recon

2,797_____1,363_____Air Combat Losses
____0________6______Flak Losses
_187_______719______Lost On The Ground
__70_______224______Operational Losses
3,054_____2,312_____TOTAL Losses

What matter here is not the total of airframes destroyed -in excess of 500+ were due to airfields being overun in the second game on top of serious operational losses) but the number of Air Combat Losses and the number of Pilots KIA (which are closely correlated). Where I could previously reach easily 2,500+ Air Combat kills, I'm actually struggling to get more than 1,000 since the current release.

Consequently, either the odds for launching Ground Support missions were changed for the Soviet, either the chance for the German fighters to intercept were altered. My bet is on the later.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 24

RE: GA - 9/16/2021 6:28:16 AM

tyronec
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline

quote:

I can only compare one save from 01.03beta vs another from 01.09beta (but I've made plenty).

Air Losses of Turn 1, GC41 -> the opening move is roughly the same and I have obtained consistant results accross several tests

103b vs 109b

***** AXIS Losses *****
97_____45_____Pilots KIA
95_____49_____Fighter Bomber
17_____11_____Transport

_89_____41_____Air Combat Losses
__7______1_____Flak Losses
_16_____18_____Operational Losses
112_____60_____TOTAL Losses

***** SOVIET Losses *****
2,210_____1,062_____Pilots KIA
__446_______305_____Fighter
1,270_______731_____Fighter Bomber
__251_______299_____Tactical Bomber
1,083_______940_____Level Bomber
____4_______37_____Recon

2,797_____1,363_____Air Combat Losses
____0________6______Flak Losses
_187_______719______Lost On The Ground
__70_______224______Operational Losses
3,054_____2,312_____TOTAL Losses

What matter here is not the total of airframes destroyed -in excess of 500+ were due to airfields being overun in the second game on top of serious operational losses) but the number of Air Combat Losses and the number of Pilots KIA (which are closely correlated). Where I could previously reach easily 2,500+ Air Combat kills, I'm actually struggling to get more than 1,000 since the current release.

Consequently, either the odds for launching Ground Support missions were changed for the Soviet, either the chance for the German fighters to intercept were altered. My bet is on the later.

I would suspect that the reduction in Soviet A2A losses is due primarily to their GS being intercepted by Axis fighters.
In my games the Soviets do get some intercepts of Axis air base bombing GAs, and that has changed under recent patches compared to what was happening some time ago.
This would seem to reinforce the idea that the chance of a GA intercept is related to the distance behind enemy lines that the bombing attack occurs.
Personally I think this may be wrong logic. If it means that you have a better chance of intercepting 5 LBs attacking a rail yard far behind the front line than of intercepting 2000 sorties against a Panzer division on the front line.

(in reply to metaphore)

Post #: 25

RE: GA - 9/16/2021 12:25:34 PM

metaphore
Matrix Trooper

Posts: 238
Joined: 9/4/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

quote:

I can only compare one save from 01.03beta vs another from 01.09beta (but I've made plenty).

Air Losses of Turn 1, GC41 -> the opening move is roughly the same and I have obtained consistant results accross several tests

103b vs 109b

***** AXIS Losses *****
97_____45_____Pilots KIA
95_____49_____Fighter Bomber
17_____11_____Transport

_89_____41_____Air Combat Losses
__7______1_____Flak Losses
_16_____18_____Operational Losses
112_____60_____TOTAL Losses

***** SOVIET Losses *****
2,210_____1,062_____Pilots KIA
__446_______305_____Fighter
1,270_______731_____Fighter Bomber
__251_______299_____Tactical Bomber
1,083_______940_____Level Bomber
____4_______37_____Recon

2,797_____1,363_____Air Combat Losses
____0________6______Flak Losses
_187_______719______Lost On The Ground
__70_______224______Operational Losses
3,054_____2,312_____TOTAL Losses

What matter here is not the total of airframes destroyed -in excess of 500+ were due to airfields being overun in the second game on top of serious operational losses) but the number of Air Combat Losses and the number of Pilots KIA (which are closely correlated). Where I could previously reach easily 2,500+ Air Combat kills, I'm actually struggling to get more than 1,000 since the current release.

Consequently, either the odds for launching Ground Support missions were changed for the Soviet, either the chance for the German fighters to intercept were altered. My bet is on the later.

I would suspect that the reduction in Soviet A2A losses is due primarily to their GS being intercepted by Axis fighters.
In my games the Soviets do get some intercepts of Axis air base bombing GAs, and that has changed under recent patches compared to what was happening some time ago.
This would seem to reinforce the idea that the chance of a GA intercept is related to the distance behind enemy lines that the bombing attack occurs.
Personally I think this may be wrong logic. If it means that you have a better chance of intercepting 5 LBs attacking a rail yard far behind the front line than of intercepting 2000 sorties against a Panzer division on the front line.

Hi Tyrone,
I would suggest that you try it yourself: 100% of the air losses I've recorded above happened during the German movement phase when Soviet GS might be triggered and intercepted (or not) by German fighters.

During those tests I've made for turn 1 opening moves, there wasn't a single German AD flown during the Air Phase (not a single Axis bomber/recon left on the map, only Bf 109 fighters set in auto-interception mode).

As you are saying that GA results might have been altered too, I'm just pointing that auto-interception is part of the process and was definitively altered.

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 26

RE: GA - 9/17/2021 8:59:34 AM

tyronec
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4940
Joined: 8/7/2015
From: Portaferry, N. Ireland
Status: offline

As I see it there are three aspects here:

AS has a bug and is not working against at least some GA. This should be resolved in a future patch. It does work against naval patrol.

Auto-intercept is not being triggered against some GA attacks. I think this is a design feature, it was raised as an issue a long time ago during testing but has never been recorded as a bug. It seems that the probability of an intercept is related to the distance the GA aircraft fly over enemy terrain. I don't know if range to the intercepting fighters air field is a factor. In practice this means that if you bomb far behind the enemy front line you may well be intercepted but if you only bomb front line units then you may be immune to interception.

The algorithm for intercepts looks to have been changed in recent patches. As reported by metaphore above and I also noticed that T1 long range air base bombings were being intercepted more often.

< Message edited by tyronec -- 9/17/2021 1:12:47 PM >

(in reply to metaphore)

Post #: 27

RE: GA - 9/17/2021 12:29:49 PM

AlbertN
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline

On T1 I personally feel that Soviets should not intercept at all. But it may go bogus.
It means more planes destroyed on the ground but more pilots saved.

Currently it's almost a no brainer to keep German planes from bombing airfields and let the Soviets just fly en mass to suicide.

At the same time it allows a proper and not luck reliant airfield bombing in depth as well.

(in reply to tyronec)

Post #: 28

RE: GA - 9/17/2021 2:37:15 PM

metaphore
Matrix Trooper

Posts: 238
Joined: 9/4/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

As I see it there are three aspects here:

AS has a bug and is not working against at least some GA. This should be resolved in a future patch. It does work against naval patrol.

Auto-intercept is not being triggered against some GA attacks. I think this is a design feature, it was raised as an issue a long time ago during testing but has never been recorded as a bug. It seems that the probability of an intercept is related to the distance the GA aircraft fly over enemy terrain. I don't know if range to the intercepting fighters air field is a factor. In practice this means that if you bomb far behind the enemy front line you may well be intercepted but if you only bomb front line units then you may be immune to interception.

The algorithm for intercepts looks to have been changed in recent patches. As reported by metaphore above and I also noticed that T1 long range air base bombings were being intercepted more often.

Hi,
Looking deeper into those T1 Commander Reports for 103b and 109b, it might be that the Attaker chance to intercept Defender Ground Support was roughly halved in the last patch.

Discounting half a dozen "supplies" missions flown by Axis Ju 52s:

__ 103b__
"Air Battle" Reported: 128
"No Aircraft" Bogus Battle Reported: 54 ("Air Battle" where there was no aircraft involved - oddly, an aircraft loss is recorded in two cases)
Defender Ground Support Battle Triggered: 74 (Real number of Defensive Ground Support)
Defender Ground Support Battle Intercepted: 38 => 51%

Defender Ground Support Aircraft Flown: 5,386 (Total) 2,325 (Bombers) 3,061 (Fighters)
Defender Ground Support Aircraft Intercepted: 4,236 (*** 79%) 2,070 (Bombers) 2,166 (Fighters)
Fighter Intercepting: 1,774

__109b__
"Air Battle" Reported: 99 (all Soviet Defensive Ground Support)
"No Aircraft" Bogus Battle Reported: 0 -> fixed?
Defender Ground Support Battle Intercepted: 26 => 26%

Defender Ground Support Aircraft Flown: 5,470 (Total) 3,326 (Bombers) 2,144 (Fighters)
Defender Ground Support Aircraft Intercepted: 2,175 (*** 40%) 1,629 (Bombers) 546 (Fighters)
Fighter Intercepting: 1,032

(in reply to AlbertN)

Post #: 29

RE: GA - 9/17/2021 2:46:44 PM

metaphore
Matrix Trooper

Posts: 238
Joined: 9/4/2021
Status: offline

From those data above, I might say that the size of the Striking force is also a factor for triggering interception: 51% of the Defender Strikes are intercepted but it result of 79% of the total Aircraft flown in the first case, which is proportionnaly confirmed in the second case with 26% of the Strikes but 40% of the aircraft.

(in reply to metaphore)

Post #: 30