training missions intercepts

training missions intercepts (Full Version)

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

Message

seille -> training missions intercepts (7/20/2014 8:38:54 AM)
I´m in a scenario 2 PBEM using one of the last betas and i´m more and more frustrated by some things the engine is doing. A while ago the engine was modified to make coordinated strikes much harder. It is more or less luck to have bombers escorted. and raids are mostly splitted. Each bomber group is flying alone and not together even flying from same base and using same altitude. Up to this point it is ok. But now comes the addition i don´t think is ok. It is the training mission intercept thing. In my current example i swept Akyab by 2 Sentai, had LRCAP over the target and added parts of two other Sentais as escort. At Akyab a few Hurricanes were on training missions. Off course they EVADED my sweeps and off course the attacked my alone flying bombers. Out of 4 groups of Helens i lost 35 Bombers against 16 Hurricanes. So why sweeps can´t catch training missions ??? The other way it is allowed. Actually the allied player can use this feature to have a CAP that only picks unescorted bombers. All he has to do is to put his fighters on training. [:@] For me this looks like a cheap way to hurt the japanese. It is a feature nobody really need especially together with the coordination problems when you can´t be sure to have escorts with your raids. And even 3 out of 4 raids are escorted the training mission will catch and destroy the fourth wave. Absolutely inacceptable and demotivating. I know the trainings missions intercept has been implemented since a long time, but a problem it became when the coordination rules were changed. Imho that stuff should be modified, so that either sweeps can catch them or they stay on ground when sweeps are part of the enemy air attack. The extreme high efficiency of CAP makes these things even harder. Not long ago i slaughtered 35 allied carrier planes by only 24 A6M3a (it is 09/43) without own losses. Small escort though. Two weeks earlier i lost 65 (about 50% fighters were escorts) CV planes in a similar way against allied CAP, which lost only 2 planes this day. These extreme black and white results are imho not good and not realistic and i really wonder that not much more players complain about this. I would like to hear what other players think about this and how they handle it. But please no tips for better coordination.

Spidery -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/20/2014 10:04:58 AM)
You could try sending some fighters or fighter-bombers at 34000 feet on airfield strike and set a large LRCAP. If the training mission engages, your bombing aircraft should have the dive and not be particularly vulnerable. You should be high enough to avoid losses to flak. It would be nice if sweeps could engage training groups.

KenchiSulla -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/20/2014 10:17:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seille But now comes the addition i don´t think is ok. It is the training mission intercept thing. In my current example i swept Akyab by 2 Sentai, had LRCAP over the target and added parts of two other Sentais as escort. At Akyab a few Hurricanes were on training missions. Off course they EVADED my sweeps and off course the attacked my alone flying bombers. Out of 4 groups of Helens i lost 35 Bombers against 16 Hurricanes. Yes, this happens sometimes. As far as I know it is not a guaranteed thing. The trainers might not engage. If you think your opponent is trying to take advantage of the situation I suggest you talk to him about houserules The extreme high efficiency of CAP makes these things even harder. Not long ago i slaughtered 35 allied carrier planes by only 24 A6M3a (it is 09/43) without own losses. Small escort though. Two weeks earlier i lost 65 (about 50% fighters were escorts) CV planes in a similar way against allied CAP, which lost only 2 planes this day. These extreme black and white results are imho not good and not realistic and i really wonder that not much more players complain about this. Your not really telling us the whole story. What was the number of CAP up? What was the CAP/escort ratio? I'll give you a couple of examples Morning Air attack on TF, near Gasmata at 104,126 Weather in hex: Light cloud Raid detected at 75 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 29 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M5 Zero x 76 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 71 SBD-3 Dauntless x 113 TBF-1 Avenger x 14 Japanese aircraft losses A6M5 Zero: 2 destroyed Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 3 destroyed SBD-3 Dauntless: 7 destroyed, 26 damaged SBD-3 Dauntless: 2 destroyed by flak TBF-1 Avenger: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged Number of escorts match the CAP. Acceptable losses to the allied bombers and about equal losses escort/CAP Morning Air attack on TF, near Milne Bay at 101,132 Weather in hex: Thunderstorms Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 30 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M5 Zero x 38 B5N1 Kate x 6 B5N2 Kate x 40 D3A1 Val x 45 Allied aircraft F4F-3 Wildcat x 6 F4F-4 Wildcat x 111 Japanese aircraft losses A6M5 Zero: 2 destroyed B5N1 Kate: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged B5N2 Kate: 14 destroyed, 5 damaged B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed by flak D3A1 Val: 33 destroyed D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed by flak Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 3 destroyed CAP outnumbers escorts. The escorts still do a decent job (experience probably) but are not able to screen bombers.. Result is slaughter

seille -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/20/2014 11:00:46 AM)
You want examples on the CAP thing (my main reason for the post above has been the training group interception thing). But the CAP performance on BOTH sides is another problem. As i wrote above: 35 allied planes died to my 24 Zeros. A6M3a in 08/43. CAP has imho too much power. Escorts not enough especially in combination with coordination rules. BTW, i have less problems with my own CV based attacks in this case. More a problem is the allied attack in my eyes against my few Zeros. My attack: Morning Air attack on TF, near Cooktown at 92,137 Weather in hex: Partial cloud Raid detected at 154 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 51 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M3a Zero x 62 D4Y3 Judy x 10 Allied aircraft Hurricane XIIb x 14 P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 47 F6F-3 Hellcat x 20 Japanese aircraft losses A6M3a Zero: 9 destroyed D4Y3 Judy: 6 destroyed Allied aircraft losses Hurricane XIIb: 1 destroyed CAP engaged: VF-2 with F6F-3 Hellcat (4 airborne, 14 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) intercepting now. 2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 16000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 35 minutes No.14 Sqn RCAF with Hurricane XIIb (0 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 10000 and 11000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 25 minutes 347th FG/339th FS with P-39D Airacobra (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 25 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 100 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 100. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes 348th FG/340th FS with P-47D2 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 14000 and 25000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 23 minutes 348th FG/341st FS with P-47D2 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 19 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 11000. Raid is overhead 348th FG/342nd FS with P-47D2 Thunderbolt (4 airborne, 11 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) intercepting now. 1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 22000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 22000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 31 minutes Training flight from 347th FG/339th FS has been caught up in attack --------------------------------------------- Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Cooktown at 92,137 Weather in hex: Moderate rain Raid detected at 116 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 38 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M3a Zero x 50 B6N2 Jill x 16 Allied aircraft Hurricane XIIb x 7 P-47D2 Thunderbolt x 44 F6F-3 Hellcat x 18 Japanese aircraft losses A6M3a Zero: 9 destroyed B6N2 Jill: 8 destroyed No Allied losses Allied Ships LST-457 Aircraft Attacking: 2 x B6N2 Jill launching torpedoes at 200 feet Naval Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo CAP engaged: VF-2 with F6F-3 Hellcat (4 airborne, 12 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) intercepting now. 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 12000 , scrambling fighters between 8000 and 14000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 20 minutes No.14 Sqn RCAF with Hurricane XIIb (0 airborne, 5 on standby, 0 scrambling) 2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 10000 , scrambling fighters between 9000 and 13000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes 348th FG/340th FS with P-47D2 Thunderbolt (0 airborne, 8 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 25000 , scrambling fighters between 1000 and 10000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 14 minutes 348th FG/341st FS with P-47D2 Thunderbolt (17 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 17 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 11000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 11000. Raid is overhead 348th FG/342nd FS with P-47D2 Thunderbolt (4 airborne, 10 on standby, 0 scrambling) 4 plane(s) intercepting now. 1 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 22000 , scrambling fighters between 12000 and 22000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 34 minutes Training flight from VF-2 has been caught up in attack ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ allied attack: Morning Air attack on Tarawa , at 136,128 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid spotted at 38 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 14 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M3a Zero x 24 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 17 F6F-3 Hellcat x 14 SBD-3 Dauntless x 36 SBD-5 Dauntless x 71 Japanese aircraft losses H6K2-L Mavis: 1 destroyed on ground L2D2 Tabby: 1 destroyed on ground G3M3 Nell: 2 destroyed on ground Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 5 destroyed F6F-3 Hellcat: 2 destroyed SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 4 damaged SBD-5 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged Japanese ground losses: 81 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 16 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Airbase hits 3 Airbase supply hits 3 Runway hits 10 Aircraft Attacking: 11 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 4000' Ground Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb 8 x SBD-5 Dauntless releasing from 3000' Airfield Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb 20 x SBD-5 Dauntless releasing from 2000' Airfield Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb 12 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 2000' Ground Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb 16 x SBD-5 Dauntless releasing from 2000' Airfield Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb 11 x SBD-3 Dauntless releasing from 3000' Ground Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb 12 x SBD-5 Dauntless releasing from 4000' Airfield Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb 14 x SBD-5 Dauntless releasing from 4000' Airfield Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb 1 x SBD-5 Dauntless releasing from 3000' Airfield Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb CAP engaged: 13th Ku S-1 /B with A6M3a Zero (4 airborne, 10 on standby, 10 scrambling) 4 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 25000 Time for all group planes to reach interception is 32 minutes Also attacking 24th Air Flotilla ... Also attacking Tarawa ... Also attacking 24th Air Flotilla ... Also attacking Tarawa ... Also attacking 24th Air Flotilla ... Also attacking Tarawa ... Also attacking 24th Air Flotilla ... Also attacking Tarawa ... Also attacking 24th Air Flotilla ... Also attacking Tarawa ... Also attacking 24th Air Flotilla ... Also attacking Tarawa ... Also attacking 24th Air Flotilla ... Also attacking Tarawa ... --------------------------------------------- Afternoon Air attack on Tarawa , at 136,128 Weather in hex: Thunderstorms Raid spotted at 35 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 16 minutes Japanese aircraft A6M3a Zero x 22 Allied aircraft F4F-4 Wildcat x 5 F6F-3 Hellcat x 10 SB2C-1C Helldiver x 32 TBF-1 Avenger x 51 Japanese aircraft losses A6M3a Zero: 1 damaged Allied aircraft losses F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed F6F-3 Hellcat: 2 destroyed SB2C-1C Helldiver: 1 destroyed, 2 damaged TBF-1 Avenger: 3 destroyed, 3 damaged Japanese ground losses: 63 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled Runway hits 3 Aircraft Attacking: 18 x TBF-1 Avenger bombing from 13000 feet Airfield Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb 15 x SB2C-1C Helldiver releasing from 3000' Ground Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb 15 x TBF-1 Avenger bombing from 13000 feet Ground Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb 14 x TBF-1 Avenger bombing from 13000 feet Ground Attack: 2 x 500 lb GP Bomb 12 x SB2C-1C Helldiver releasing from 4000' Ground Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb 4 x SB2C-1C Helldiver releasing from 2000' Ground Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb CAP engaged: 13th Ku S-1 /B with A6M3a Zero (4 airborne, 9 on standby, 9 scrambling) 4 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 25000 Time for all group planes to reach interception is 38 minutes Also attacking 65th Naval Guard Unit ... Also attacking 14th Naval Const Bn /1 ... Also attacking 65th Naval Guard Unit ... Also attacking Tarawa ... Also attacking 24th JAAF AF Bn ... Also attacking 65th Naval Guard Unit ... Also attacking Tarawa ... Also attacking 65th Naval Guard Unit ... Also attacking 36th Const Co /1 ... Also attacking 65th Naval Guard Unit ...

dcpollay -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/20/2014 2:04:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seille I´m in a scenario 2 PBEM using one of the last betas and i´m more and more frustrated by some things the engine is doing. A while ago the engine was modified to make coordinated strikes much harder. It is more or less luck to have bombers escorted. and raids are mostly splitted. Each bomber group is flying alone and not together even flying from same base and using same altitude. Up to this point it is ok. But now comes the addition i don´t think is ok. It is the training mission intercept thing. In my current example i swept Akyab by 2 Sentai, had LRCAP over the target and added parts of two other Sentais as escort. At Akyab a few Hurricanes were on training missions. Off course they EVADED my sweeps and off course the attacked my alone flying bombers. Out of 4 groups of Helens i lost 35 Bombers against 16 Hurricanes. So why sweeps can´t catch training missions ??? The other way it is allowed. Actually the allied player can use this feature to have a CAP that only picks unescorted bombers. All he has to do is to put his fighters on training. [:@] Think about this in real-life terms. A squadron of trainees is no match for a dedicated sweep by (probably experienced) enemy fighters. If you were the training commander, would you send your green pilots up against those odds? Probably not. Even if the planes are in the air, the trainees would be unlikely to engage. In game terms, the trainees may not engage due to failing an experience check or morale check, or something similar. Unescorted or lightly escorted bombers are a different matter, for at least three reasons: 1) Bombers are easier targets; 2) They are much lower risk than fighters for inexperienced pilots to attack; 3) Trainees would be defending against a direct threat to their home base. I believe it is much more likely that training pilots would enter the fight against a bomber strike. I don't know how the game mechanics specifically handle this, but the result you describe seems to make sense to me.

topeverest -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/20/2014 2:21:31 PM)
IMHO this is WAD. P47D2 and F6F3 are formidable, and generally speaking (IMHO) superior air frames to the Zero 3A. I believe the results are within the possible expected outcomes - and more on the likely side as the game ventures deeper into 1943. Good outcomes in these kinds of engagements hinge on coordination, weather, commanders, altitude, pilot skill, and airframe types. Generally speaking, CAP is quite effective breaking through escorts, but as we all know 'Bombers almost always get through' [image]local://upfiles/26803/D0E17C92FDB7461BA330B5636B3D165A.jpg[/image]

Gaspote -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/20/2014 2:21:46 PM)
I think the unescort bomber case just don't have sense. It's like the bomber can't wait the fighter over their base or wait over the fighter base. Although I rarely got trouble getting an escort for my bomber as jap so don't really understand [&:] In all your combat report, I don't think there is so much issue. Japanese raid got boom & zoom by P47D2, nothing more to say. US raid was intercept from an higher altitude. I'm pretty sure most of the US plane got shot down immediatly at the beginning, A6M come from higher, dive on an US fighter, out turn him and shot down him or put him out of combat. Once half are out, the zeros attacked the bomber freely. The jap didn't get enough ammo for the bombers fortunatly. The mistake here was too few fighters for so much bombers, you can't expect your guy to escort 3 time more bombers, it's impossible to be everywhere. Playing some warplane simulation, escorting a bomber is just a nightmare for fighter pilot. You get attack from higher, always, even if you dominate your opponent, he can dive away and you won't follow because you are suppose to protect the bomber. Be sure he will come for you later once you leave him dive away. You have to keep an eyes on bombers, your wings and your tail, you at least failed for one. So you protect the bomber, your wingman die or you, everytime. Escort is only trading fighters for bombers, you should make sure to sweep the base before. If you can't get a decent escort compare to what you usually meet during the sweep just don't send the raid.

seille -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/20/2014 2:53:29 PM)
As i said these reports show only my LAST problem with too effective CAP. Some of you might have missed the report where my A6M3a on CAP destroyed lots of Allied carrier planes without any losses. I know the P47 is a good plane, a very good one. Still no reason to achieve a 60:2 kill ratio in the other fight. Especially when in the jap planes were flown by veteran pilots. And for the training missions: I had all 4 Helen groups set for same target flying from same base. Groups had high morale and low fatigue. They still arrived seperated at the target. Only one was escorted. The training mission should not be able to pick their targets and avoid escorts and sweeps. This allows gamey manoeuvers. Why longer set planes to CAP, when i have training and low risk CAP at the same time ? Again, this is just that much of a problem since the coordination between escorts and bombers was complicated that much.

seille -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/20/2014 2:57:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gaspote Escort is only trading fighters for bombers, you should make sure to sweep the base before. If you can't get a decent escort compare to what you usually meet during the sweep just don't send the raid. interesting idea, but works only if the opponent doesn´t have half of his fighters on training which go active as soon as a unescorted bomber arrives.....

Numdydar -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/20/2014 4:48:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: topeverest IMHO this is WAD. P47D2 and F6F3 are formidable, and generally speaking (IMHO) superior air frames to the Zero 3A. I believe the results are within the possible expected outcomes - and more on the likely side as the game ventures deeper into 1943. Good outcomes in these kinds of engagements hinge on coordination, weather, commanders, altitude, pilot skill, and airframe types. Generally speaking, CAP is quite effective breaking through escorts, but as we all know 'Bombers almost always get through' [image]local://upfiles/26803/D0E17C92FDB7461BA330B5636B3D165A.jpg[/image] Now where did you get those nifty screens? [:)] Are those done outside the game or are there modded in game?

LoBaron -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/20/2014 6:02:47 PM)
Has been discussed hundreds of times over the years already. Training misison intercepts are one of several reasons why to better use escorts (at least in addition to LRCAP/Sweep). Training missions are on average much less potent than genuine CAP, in addition the intercept probability is much lower. So if strikes are coordinated properly, training mission setting is the worse choice. If not then thats the fault of the attacker, not gamey play by the defender. The coordination guide applies even more post beta than it did before. Same base of origin, same a/c type, high morale and high fatigue are definitely not enough to ensure coordination. Also, it is always the relative number of bomber vs. escort that counts towards a well protected raid. Low number of escorts (for example because a player assigns LRCAP instead escort missions) do not result in failed coordination rolls, but rather prevent the escorts from successfully covering the complete strike. quote: Now where did you get those nifty screens? Are those done outside the game or are there modded in game? Numdydar, thats the standard ingame Plane & Weapon DB view. Please don´t tell me after all those years you did not notice it. [X(][:D] [img]http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2014/07/20/tPbOU.png[/img]

Gaspote -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/20/2014 7:07:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seille quote: ORIGINAL: Gaspote Escort is only trading fighters for bombers, you should make sure to sweep the base before. If you can't get a decent escort compare to what you usually meet during the sweep just don't send the raid. interesting idea, but works only if the opponent doesn´t have half of his fighters on training which go active as soon as a unescorted bomber arrives..... Sweep, 75% of CAP remove, then escort raid, training and remaining CAP struggle with escort but at least the escort got a chance. Don't know why you consider bombers can't get an escort, work well in my PBEM. Why do you send japanese bomber on daylight if there is so much trouble ?

rustysi -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/20/2014 9:13:31 PM)
quote: The training mission should not be able to pick their targets and avoid escorts and sweeps. I agree and I don't use the training mission at foward airbases. When I get there I will pick an opponent that won't do this either. If my sweep would engage the training mission I wouldn't care, but it seems they won't.

Alfred -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/21/2014 12:13:24 AM)
As LoBaron points out, this has well and truly been explained before in great detail. Read this thread http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3244889&mpage=1&key=training%2Cintercept&#3245971 closely, paying attention to the very detailed posts I made (#3, 9 and 17) and the linked thread provided in post #3. Some of the outrageous claims made now just have to be addressed briefly now. 1. Training flights do not, repeat do not, intentionally avoid enemy sweeps and then in the same phase intentionally seek out unescorted enemy bombers to engage. 2. Training flights intentionally attempt to avoid all, repeat avoid all, combat. 3. When enemy planes operate at the same altitude that the training flight is operating at, there is a chance that the training flight can not avoid combat. 4. Combat Reports never tell the full story. They do not provide 100% accuracy in detailing aircraft losses. They do not split the information into what occurred before the ordnance delivery and what occurred after the ordnance delivery. They don't indicate whether all the escorting fighters were present ab initio, or as is not uncommon some of the escorting fighters joined the melee in dribs and drabs. Some of the text messages are just string text which requires interpretation to be of any value. 5. Because of point 4 above it is never, repeat never, adequate to skip watching the combat animation in full and at a viewable pace, if one wants to really understand what transpired. And yet time after time there are players who do not bother to watch the animation. When they combine that failure with the usual failure to read closely what is contained in the combat report, the usual outcome is that the rest of us are assailed with outrageous claims. Alfred

Numdydar -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/21/2014 5:26:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LoBaron Has been discussed hundreds of times over the years already. Training misison intercepts are one of several reasons why to better use escorts (at least in addition to LRCAP/Sweep). Training missions are on average much less potent than genuine CAP, in addition the intercept probability is much lower. So if strikes are coordinated properly, training mission setting is the worse choice. If not then thats the fault of the attacker, not gamey play by the defender. The coordination guide applies even more post beta than it did before. Same base of origin, same a/c type, high morale and high fatigue are definitely not enough to ensure coordination. Also, it is always the relative number of bomber vs. escort that counts towards a well protected raid. Low number of escorts (for example because a player assigns LRCAP instead escort missions) do not result in failed coordination rolls, but rather prevent the escorts from successfully covering the complete strike. quote: Now where did you get those nifty screens? Are those done outside the game or are there modded in game? Numdydar, thats the standard ingame Plane & Weapon DB view. Please donï¿½t tell me after all those years you did not notice it. [X(][:D] [img]http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshotsv2/images/2014/07/20/tPbOU.png[/img] ROFL if I did I no longer remember it (Just like a lot of other things [:(]) I actually never looked [X(] Once I got tracker going I never bother to use those screens any more.

LoBaron -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/21/2014 5:29:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Numdydar ROFL if I did I no longer remember it (Just like a lot of other things [:(]) I actually never looked [X(] Once I got tracker going I never bother to use those screens any more. Just file it for later when it applies to one of those 'I forgot more about WitP than you will ever learn' situations. [:D]

seille -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/22/2014 9:10:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred As LoBaron points out, this has well and truly been explained before in great detail. Read this thread http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3244889&mpage=1&key=training%2Cintercept� closely, paying attention to the very detailed posts I made (#3, 9 and 17) and the linked thread provided in post #3. Some of the outrageous claims made now just have to be addressed briefly now. 1. Training flights do not, repeat do not, intentionally avoid enemy sweeps and then in the same phase intentionally seek out unescorted enemy bombers to engage. 2. Training flights intentionally attempt to avoid all, repeat avoid all, combat. 3. When enemy planes operate at the same altitude that the training flight is operating at, there is a chance that the training flight can not avoid combat. 4. Combat Reports never tell the full story. They do not provide 100% accuracy in detailing aircraft losses. They do not split the information into what occurred before the ordnance delivery and what occurred after the ordnance delivery. They don't indicate whether all the escorting fighters were present ab initio, or as is not uncommon some of the escorting fighters joined the melee in dribs and drabs. Some of the text messages are just string text which requires interpretation to be of any value. 5. Because of point 4 above it is never, repeat never, adequate to skip watching the combat animation in full and at a viewable pace, if one wants to really understand what transpired. And yet time after time there are players who do not bother to watch the animation. When they combine that failure with the usual failure to read closely what is contained in the combat report, the usual outcome is that the rest of us are assailed with outrageous claims. Alfred Thanks für the Link Alfred. Interesting there are other guys having the same problem and saying the same as i did. Sadly i cannot confirm your points. Even my opponent has mixed feelings about this. In the recent half dozen encounters lone flying bomber groups were attacked while the escorted ones at same altitude were not engaged in the same phase. Sweeps NEVER hit any enemy trainings flights. I had no problems with this at all, but together with the extremely hard coordination it is simply not fair. My 4 Lone flying Helen Groups were under same HQ, HQ at same base. There was not much more i was able to do to increase coordination chances. During the next turns i´ll try to sweep the base at exact trainings groups level and we´ll see how often they´ll engaged by my sweeps. My prediction: ZERO times. Losing 35 Helens against 16 Training Hurricanes is not funny when you did no serious mistakes. I would like to find a working solution here.

LoBaron -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/22/2014 9:58:53 AM)
What did the complete strike composition look like?

seille -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/22/2014 11:30:27 AM)
As you see the sweeps are high (too high ?). The 6 Tojo IIc you see with most attacks is LRCAP from Magwe. Too high to engage the Training CAP with good effect. From my experience so far the trainings flight never go up and attack when a attack is well escorted. That the fought with my LRCAP (high altitude difference) i saw the first time. Escorts in good numbers were never engaged. Morning Air attack on Akyab , at 54,45 Weather in hex: Heavy rain Raid detected at 15 NM, estimated altitude 27,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 4 minutes Japanese aircraft N1K1-J George x 45 No Japanese losses Aircraft Attacking: 45 x N1K1-J George sweeping at 24000 feet --------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Akyab , at 54,45 Weather in hex: Heavy rain Raid detected at 45 NM, estimated altitude 30,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 12 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-44-IIa Tojo x 21 Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 6 No Japanese losses Aircraft Attacking: 21 x Ki-44-IIa Tojo sweeping at 26000 feet * --------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Akyab , at 54,45 Weather in hex: Heavy rain Raid detected at 59 NM, estimated altitude 15,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 18 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 6 Ki-49-IIa Helen x 27 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-49-IIa Helen: 3 damaged Ki-49-IIa Helen: 1 destroyed by flak Runway hits 4 Aircraft Attacking: 27 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 13000 feet Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb --------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Akyab , at 54,45 Weather in hex: Heavy rain Raid detected at 80 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 25 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 6 Ki-49-IIa Helen x 27 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-49-IIa Helen: 6 destroyed, 3 damaged Airbase supply hits 1 Runway hits 1 Aircraft Attacking: 16 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 13000 feet Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb CAP engaged: No.135 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIc Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 16 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 15000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 10 minutes Training flight from No.135 Sqn RAF has been caught up in attack --------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Akyab , at 54,45 Weather in hex: Heavy rain Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 12 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 6 Ki-49-IIa Helen x 31 Allied aircraft Hurricane IIc Trop x 8 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-49-IIa Helen: 7 destroyed, 8 damaged Allied aircraft losses Hurricane IIc Trop: 1 destroyed Runway hits 1 Aircraft Attacking: 18 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 13000 feet Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb CAP engaged: No.135 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIc Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 8 scrambling) Group patrol altitude is 15000 , scrambling fighters to 17000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 24 minutes No.136 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIc Trop (16 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 16 plane(s) intercepting now. Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters between 0 and 20000. Raid is overhead Training flight from No.136 Sqn RAF has been caught up in attack --------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Akyab , at 54,45 Weather in hex: Heavy rain Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 12 minutes Japanese aircraft Ki-44-IIc Tojo x 6 Ki-49-IIa Helen x 36 Allied aircraft Hurricane IIc Trop x 2 Japanese aircraft losses Ki-49-IIa Helen: 2 damaged No Allied losses Airbase hits 3 Airbase supply hits 1 Runway hits 3 Aircraft Attacking: 36 x Ki-49-IIa Helen bombing from 13000 feet Airfield Attack: 4 x 250 kg GP Bomb CAP engaged: No.136 Sqn RAF with Hurricane IIc Trop (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling) 2 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact. Group patrol altitude is 20000 , scrambling fighters to 26000. Time for all group planes to reach interception is 84 minutes

LoBaron -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/22/2014 11:56:49 AM)
Ok that is pretty much in line of what I thought. Training mission 'caught in a raid' probability is in part proportional to size of the attacking formation and indirectly proportional to the altitude delta between the training formation and the attack formation. I have never extensively tested training mission intercepts by fighter sweeps so I cannot comment on the probability of an intercept, but for all I know it is < 0 in general. Training missions do get caught up in escorted raids and usually suffer. Also LRCAP can intercept training missions occasionally. As already pointed out by Alfred, intercept chances for sweep/LRCAP are low because training missions usually take place at regular altitudes and sweep/LRCAP missions are - for obvious reasons - mostly set to max ceiling. In contrast, bombing attacks in general share similar alt bands as training missions. The difference between CAP and training missions is: CAP actively searches for targets to engage, training mission does not. For that reason CAP engages sweeps and training missions neglect them, more so if there´s a large altitude delta between the formations. The attack is a textbook example of how neglecting to escort a strike with sufficient numbers of fighters - because the use of high alt sweep/LRCAP combination is deemed more effective - backfires. Add escorts to your attacks and you will reduce the problem to a minimum. Use sweeps (and maybe LRCAP) in support of your escorts, but not as replacement for them. Also you might increase chances of an intercept by sweeps by setting it at the same alt as the strike.

seille -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/22/2014 8:28:51 PM)
Please LoBaron, off course i had normal escorts attached. But since the "coordination-patch" i´m not longer so optimistic they´ll fly. It´s often more a gameble than a safe thing to plan with escorts. And the 1,5 groups i ordered to escort did not fly. But here i have to admit it was not the same AF as the bombers. The target contained only a few fighters. The sweeps and escorts i had just in case there is LRCAP from Chittagong (about 140 fighters following recon results). The LRCAP was planned only as a safety net. I see i might have choosen wrong altitude settings for sweeps and/or LRCAP. I´ll try to follow the tips here and vary it more next time.

LoBaron -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/22/2014 9:01:35 PM)
When I ask you for a complete strike composition I would expect your response to contain all squadrons assigned to the strike. Which obviously includes information about escorts. By providing inaccurate information you get inaccurate comments. Anyways, 1.5 squadrons fighters for 4 squadrons of bombers is marginal at best, so do not expect perfect coverage there, even IF you achieve coordination. Different base lowers escort chances further, the factor depends on the location of the fighter base in relation to the bomber base and target. The other coordination factors are unknown, so it is difficult to assess them. Only one more factor I notice is heavy rain over target, which could mean bad weather over the area. Bad for coordination. As a rule of thumb, if there are fighters at a base I attack I provide escorts - in the best way possible - or accept the risk and live with the results. The possible exception are Allied 4eng bombers, where the combination of sweeps and unescorted attacks often suffices in face of light opposition.

seille -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/23/2014 8:26:30 AM)
Next time i´ll add more escorts and set the LRCAP lower.

LoBaron -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/23/2014 8:36:15 AM)
Depending on the distance to target I wonder if it makes sense to add LRCAP at all. I know many players swear on its use, but LRCAP does not per default protect a bomber formation. Also, you lose one squadron which could provide additional strenght to escort. Coordination - as many things in the WitP - is a game with chance. All you can do is improve chances. By increasing the number of escorting squadrons you increase chances that sufficient escort will be provided. FWIIW I don´t question your decision. There is no single correct way to handle things, only different options with different potential consequences.

seille -> RE: training missions intercepts (7/23/2014 8:48:01 AM)
As i wrote above the LRCAp was my (planned) safety net. I think it could have worked with altitude of 15-18k instead of 25k. Here i know i´ll have own fighters over the target. Imho for escorts the chances are too small overall even you maximize it. And i did not want to set ally my fighters in this area to escort since i need strong CAP over my bases, especially for Magwe. Next time i´ll be more careful with setup and will always keep in mind there could be a "trainings-CAP". Thank you guys for the help. Even if i don´t always fully agree i appreciate the comments [:)]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1