Fighter alt (Full Version)

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



Message

Valgua -> Fighter alt (11/9/2009 9:31:06 AM)

Hi!

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



Sardaukar -> RE: Fighter alt (11/9/2009 9:50:15 AM)

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.



moose1999 -> RE: Fighter alt (11/9/2009 11:55:45 AM)

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...?




m10bob -> RE: Fighter alt (11/9/2009 12:46:18 PM)

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..



rhohltjr -> RE: Fighter alt (11/9/2009 1:38:33 PM)

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



TheElf -> RE: Fighter alt (11/10/2009 4:50:54 AM)


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....



1EyedJacks -> RE: Fighter alt (11/10/2009 5:12:41 AM)


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?





Sardaukar -> RE: Fighter alt (11/10/2009 6:59:00 AM)


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. [8D]



m10bob -> RE: Fighter alt (11/10/2009 9:36:30 AM)


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!!!!



modrow -> RE: Fighter alt (11/10/2009 10:18:09 AM)

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. [8D]


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



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Fighter alt (11/10/2009 2:26:24 PM)


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.



1EyedJacks -> RE: Fighter alt (11/10/2009 2:41:05 PM)

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.




Gresbeck -> RE: Fighter alt (11/10/2009 9:49:02 PM)


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?



TheElf -> RE: Fighter alt (11/11/2009 12:10:12 AM)


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...



rhohltjr -> RE: Fighter alt (11/11/2009 4:08:17 PM)

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

[8|]

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!!!



Icedawg -> RE: Fighter alt (11/11/2009 9:19:08 PM)


[/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?



rhohltjr -> RE: Fighter alt (11/12/2009 1:41:24 PM)

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.



xj900uk -> RE: Fighter alt (11/12/2009 1:48:08 PM)

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



Dobey455 -> RE: Fighter alt (11/12/2009 2:28:00 PM)

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.



Anthropoid -> RE: Fighter alt (11/12/2009 5:28:51 PM)

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



xj900uk -> RE: Fighter alt (11/13/2009 1:57:25 PM)

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)



Mike Scholl -> RE: Fighter alt (11/13/2009 6:43:05 PM)


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.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.080078