1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

Disgruntled Veteran -> 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/8/2020 5:21:46 PM)

I'm a bit aggravated/confused so maybe some community feedback can help out.

As a long time axis player I am finding my airforce is quickly becoming obsolete by August 1941. In my current game (a very good soviet player) I am observing worrisome trends and want to have some advice. Observations include:

-losing around 100-200 planes per turn, on my last few off turns, by enemy bombing. I can have fresh fighters and a bazillion flak guns, but they seem to take the day off when soviet attacks come. The attacks are coming by daytime. Has this always been the case and I'm just now finding a player who utilizes this?

-My airforce loses morale and suffers losses during my active turn at a much higher rate. I currently am about 30-40% airforce due to me sending about a dozen groups a turn back to reserve. The rest are all under strength and many are hovering around 60-70 morale. I'm on T011.

I have utilized my airforce in the same way as previous versions. So, the questions are:

-Is this WAD in 1.12+?

-Is this bad airforce management? I run 30% required to fly with the aircraft %'s at 100. I try to triple stack counters with all loaded with flak and I try to leave fighters with 30-40% usage at the end of turn.

Would love some feedback. I'm not bitching per se, I just want help in understanding how to play axis airforce better in 1.12. Thanks



joelmar -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/8/2020 5:33:27 PM)

There is currently a bug with interception which Morvael said will be fixed on the next patch. It has to do with the new on demand airgroup supply system that doesn't trigger truck deliveries correctly for interception.

I might be off the track, but my observations are that airbases far from rail do almost no interception, those near rail do better, but it still seems too low.

I use 5% required to fly. I also understand that it's better to use very high fighter interception, like 200%-300%, I don't really get the logic of it, but I'm experimenting with it.

Until it's fixed, I try to keep all my airbases on rail or very near.




tyronec -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/8/2020 6:21:19 PM)

Am no expert but would suggest the following:
Put intercept up to 300%
Keep all your air units close together. There are maybe enough fighters to protect just 2 or 3 huddles.
Keep them back from the front.
Do not allow the fighters to do any intercepts that are not necessary (by adjusting their range).
Get their fatigue right down.

I am really struggling with the air war, the VVS have got the upper hand in both my games. Maybe the Luftwaffe are too weak in '41 and '42 or maybe I have been miss playing them. Having said that any increase in their strength would need some rebalancing elsewhere.



chaos45 -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/8/2020 6:55:00 PM)

For axis, its about distance, using Flak to cover airfields, low fatigue...and stay together esp after 1941.




Disgruntled Veteran -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/8/2020 7:40:10 PM)

Thanks to all. I was particularly wondering if this revolved around the recent changes of 1.12+ It would seem possible that it does. I did forget to turn interdiction off this game (I never use interdiction) and I am playing a skilled, aggressive Soviet player. These are factors too.

So, I've turned aircraft participation to 10%, clumped all airfields with other units (always 3 deep) and distributed 3 flak units to each fliegerkorps, and I also turned interdiction to 0. I'll let you know how it affects everything.

As of T011 I'd lost just shy of 800 planes on the ground.



tyronec -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/8/2020 7:43:09 PM)

Am not sure about using using Flak to cover airfields. Most of the fighter losses seem to come from fatigue when they are doing air cover and the only way to protect against that is to have low fatigue and high interception during the Soviet turn. If the fighter protection is good then the Soviets will take big losses and will be forced to give up air base bombing.
If you try and protect air bases with AA then that in itself will reduce the bombing damage but will not protect the fighters in the air. But you have to protect your fighters and good air cover is the only way to do that.
So maybe better to use the AA to protect ground troops. Or put them with Corps HQs and use them as ground combat support troops.
Maybe am missing something but that is what recent play has led me to think.



Disgruntled Veteran -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/8/2020 7:56:50 PM)

I do understand that, but most of my losses are from my planes getting bombed. Maybe this is because they are too fatigued to fly...that seems to be what you're implying, but I've lost 750 planes on the ground after 10 turns. That is crazy. Airbase bombing almost never yielded results after T1 for either side. In 1.11 flak was so potent that it made airbase bombing very problematic. Now they fire nerf rounds.



Telemecus -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/8/2020 8:12:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Disgruntled Veteran

I do understand that, but most of my losses are from my planes getting bombed. Maybe this is because they are too fatigued to fly...that seems to be what you're implying, but I've lost 750 planes on the ground after 10 turns. That is crazy. Airbase bombing almost never yielded results after T1 for either side. In 1.11 flak was so potent that it made airbase bombing very problematic. Now they fire nerf rounds.


To be honest the flak in v1.11 was way overpowered - and that was not historical either.

If your problem is airbase bombing keep your airbases beyond enemy fighter range. Your fighters would then massacre Soviet bombers bombing your airbases ...



Disgruntled Veteran -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/8/2020 8:37:09 PM)

Flak was a bit OP, but it cut both ways.

I know I could keep my airbases back, but is that the way it should be when this game has been out for almost 10 years? If my fighters have to fly 10 or more hexes just to reach the front, they will lose significant utility. Stacked airbases with plenty of fighters shouldn't get annihilated just sitting on the ground.

I do greatly appreciate the feedback and thank you all for responding. I'm just voicing a bit of frustration over not knowing how the game mechanics work. I've played about 12 full axis games since 2013 and I don't think I've lost 800 planes on the ground in all those games combined.

So it is a flaw in 1.12? OR Operator error? I'll keep posting feedback and see if my adjustments make a difference. I told my opponent to press as hard as he can.



joelmar -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/8/2020 8:53:49 PM)

Might or might not... but in the meantime the interception bug is very real and has many consequences, not just on airbase bombing interception.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4815759



Telemecus -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/8/2020 9:19:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Disgruntled Veteran
So it is a flaw in 1.12? OR Operator error? I'll keep posting feedback and see if my adjustments make a difference. I told my opponent to press as hard as he can.


All points above are true. But also bluntly there was a change of paradigm or meta. When I first became involved in these forums the general repsonse was the air does not matter much and there was not much you could do. When I started using the techniques and methods I was used to from other wargaming places, they were just shattering on oppoents. In the 8MP game the whole Soviet air force had to move to the national reserve by the end of the summer. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4250683

So I would say some of it was just people in Matrix forums did not use the air tactics and methods that were known elsewhere until recently.



Disgruntled Veteran -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/8/2020 9:35:07 PM)

I forget when, but at one point the power of air became crucial. Doing a softening up ground attack can disrupt half the stack making your attacks multitudes easier. Close air support is essential in breaking up a solid line.



BrianG -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/8/2020 10:00:00 PM)

I would describe the air action in my game versus Tyronec

He bombs heavily my units he is about to attack. That's it for him. His airgroups are very bunched for protection and give good attack.

For me, I bomb units i am about to attack, i attack his airfields especially to kill recon and general front line day and night bombing.

My fighters do zilch when he air ground attacks my units. His fighters will only intercept on my ground attacks and on my airbase attacks. Not on general bombing.

Result is i have some very high morale tactical L2 bombers. and filled Russian units.

He has not been attacking my airbases. Why bother when you are steamrolling on the ground. And i cannot stop his concentration from the air when he wants superiority.

We are at turn 57.



Telemecus -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/8/2020 10:02:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BrianG
i attack his airfields especially to kill recon


Given that the Axis have almost limitless cheap recon that cannot be a profitable tactic. The choke point for the Axis is single engine fighters, not recon.



56ajax -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/8/2020 11:34:02 PM)

In one of my recent games my opponent bombed the Luftwaffe into the dark ages by about T14. I ain't too flash as the Axis so would be interested to hear what expert axis players think.



Telemecus -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/9/2020 12:02:02 AM)

You can certainly preserve a very effective LW in 1941 just by keeping your fighter bases outside of enemy escort range. The Axis have longer range fighters than the soviets do. Plus they can use staging bases on their side of the front line which the other side cannot. So there is no reason not to do this. Whether you want to expose your fighters to enemy combat in the air beyond that during their turn the real question, not can you keep your fighters from being bombed. You can stop that if you want to.



BrianG -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/9/2020 12:58:58 AM)

quote:

Given that the Axis have almost limitless cheap recon that cannot be a profitable tactic. The choke point for the Axis is single engine fighters, not recon.



like how many do they have or get in campaign

German short range recon

and how many strategic recon?.

approximates?



Telemecus -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/9/2020 1:15:06 AM)

Axis start with 584 recon already in airgroups and about 340 in the pool on the start of turn 1. They deliver about 20 per turn to the Eastern front during the game from factories. Several hundred more arrive in airgroups that arrive to the Eastern front in later turns. In addition other types of aircraft, like Gladiator fighters or Heinkel bombers, are converted TO recon aircraft. Finland even upgrades its bomber factory to be a recon aircraft factory!

I challenge anyone to show me a game where Axis did not have enough recon for their needs. When a Soviet player bombs my recon I laugh and push my recon bases further forward hoping they will waste their time doing it more. I criticise Axis players for having recon losses which are too low! [:D]



redrum68 -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/9/2020 3:04:56 AM)

Those poor German recon pilots...



BrianG -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/9/2020 3:27:03 AM)

692 recon

164 strategic

German air kia so far.

I think the short range recon get replenished as does the strategic.

If I ever get to 1944 I'll report back on how the strategy is working out



eskuche -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/9/2020 4:19:29 AM)

It can be quite difficult for axis to recover if Soviet player is specifically targeting the Luftwaffe and the Axis does not remove it from escorted bombing range. In one of my games, Axis is doing as Tyronec and ground bombing before attacks. However, he has over-used fighter escorts, leading to a death spiral of me bombing Axis airbases.

Turn 16:

[image]local://upfiles/59341/886DDBC1097C4D318B91CD6101A06C4E.jpg[/image]



tyronec -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/9/2020 8:49:12 AM)

quote:

I would describe the air action in my game versus Tyronec

He bombs heavily my units he is about to attack. That's it for him. His airgroups are very bunched for protection and give good attack.

For me, I bomb units i am about to attack, i attack his airfields especially to kill recon and general front line day and night bombing.

My fighters do zilch when he air ground attacks my units. His fighters will only intercept on my ground attacks and on my airbase attacks. Not on general bombing.

Result is i have some very high morale tactical L2 bombers. and filled Russian units.

He has not been attacking my airbases. Why bother when you are steamrolling on the ground. And i cannot stop his concentration from the air when he wants superiority.

We are at turn 57.


Brian describes it well.
Axis can get some useful bombing before attacks every turn, but I have to be careful not to over use my fighters or they will get too fatigued and then he can bomb my airbases. So I try to use the minimum of escorts on each attack and every few turns a mission gets caught without enough escorts and the Soviets shoot down a stack of bombers. I have a glut of fighters and LBs now so can afford the odd mishap but overall the Luftwaffe is very restricted whereas the VVS can engage at will.

VVS are killing around 2-3k a turn with ground bombing. And then I think there there are more ground losses in the follow up ground combats.
I cannot afford to use GS, except on very rare occasions. So the Soviets have the advantage of that for most combats.

The Recon bombing is reducing the amount of Recon I can do each turn but am never going to run out of aircraft. In my other game he is not doing Recon bombing, it does make life a bit easier for Axis with not having to protect the Recon units. So I think Recon bombing is gaining a very moderate advantage but is not costing the Soviets much.

I think any attempt by Axis to bomb Soviet air bases would totally trash the Luftwaffe. I tried it once against airbases that were about to be overrun and even then it cost far too many aircraft for the damage inflicted. Whereas playing a couple of years ago bombing air bases, certainly in '41, was a fair prospect for Axis.



joelmar -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/9/2020 12:15:26 PM)

I don't think that bombing Soviet airbases was a thing for the LW in WWII beyond june 22 1941 anyway. But I agree with how you use the LW, I do mostly the same.

Except that for ground support/ground attacks I do the opposite, I privilege Ground support instead of bombing before attacks. Ground Support has a direct effect on the battle because every disrupted elements don't participate in the final CV calculation, while disruption by Ground attacks only adds fatigue to the unit, which is also useful, but doesn't have as much impact on ground battles. So if I have the luxury of doing both, I do both, but if I have to choose it's ground support.

For bombing of recon, I'm 100% with Telemecus. Anyone playing the Soviets against me is very welcome to do so.



tyronec -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/9/2020 1:14:31 PM)

quote:

Except that for ground support/ground attacks I do the opposite, I privilege Ground support instead of bombing before attacks. Ground Support has a direct effect on the battle because every disrupted elements don't participate in the final CV calculation, while disruption by Ground attacks only adds fatigue to the unit, which is also useful, but doesn't have as much impact on ground battles. So if I have the luxury of doing both, I do both, but if I have to choose it's ground support.

Understand that, however the problem with GS is a lot more Soviet fighters are turning up and you have less control over what the Luftwaffe send so you have to be careful with where and how often. With direct bombing you can tailor what goes to each attack and as long as the Soviet fighter response is not too erratic you can get a lot of use from the bombers, usually I get some units up to 100% traveled.

I would prefer it if the optimum tactic was for both sides to primarily be using GS but I don't think that is the case at present.



joelmar -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/9/2020 1:28:21 PM)

It all depends on doctrine levels. But there is the interception bug that is a big problem ATM for reserve activations (not enough CAP missions to counter added enemy ground support). It's particularly painful when the enemy gets 2 corps activated on reserve... your ground support suddenly gets overwhelmed and losses are ridiculous. I can't wait for the next patch when this is fixed, until then, the air war is very much biased to the Soviets.



eskuche -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/9/2020 2:25:44 PM)

@Tyronec.
Mostly good play! You can consider also stacking recon bases on or near your fighter bases. I know many hesitate to move airbases after they are placed and airgroups transferred to them, but in reality it's a minor fatigue bump and the occasional damaged plane (for Germans at least) to scoot bases back even 10-20 hexes after planes have flown. This 1) prevents recons from getting bombed or 2) prevents you from having to dedicate fighter range and expected help to airbases relatively far away.

Another point is that ground bombing will have only very minimal effects on a future battle. Soviet manpower is so expansive that ground bombing for casualties as the VVS can do (I've gotten 10k+ a turn in 1941) is pointless. However, disruption/fatigue is converted as such a bad rate that I only see a point to ground bomb very, very important battles and to disrupt/fatigue potentially pocketed troops by decreasing their MPs. Ground support on your turn should incur about the interception rate as ground bombing on your tunr and is 3-9 times more effective in terms of the direct effects of battle disruption.



chaos45 -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/9/2020 4:55:04 PM)

Ground bombing can turn what might be a close battle into a for sure win...esp if the defenders aren't entrenched so they suffer more disruption before your attack.

Not to mention if its a strong stack you can bomb 2x push them back then bomb them 2x more....will basically decimate their combat effectiveness for the following turn...and if you can do 3 hexes against the same units....they become basically combat ineffective even if they don't rout as all their strength is completely disrupted more or less...so the next turn their fatigue will skyrocket with affects their combat ability that entire turn as well.



eskuche -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/9/2020 5:29:43 PM)

Stacks are even worse for bombing because only one unit counter is hit at random. I might be wrong but if the German focuses on using a lot of his air assets in a theatre to decimate one or even five Soviet units at a time, the Soviets are probably winning overall because you're not focusing on pocketing.

I agree that ground bombing can turn the tides, but Germans are getting at absolute max 300 kills per ground bomb run and ~6,000 disrupted (usually 1000-2000), which converts to 2,000/10,000 men in a rifle division = ~20% fatigue for ONE soviet counter. I do not want to spend any fighters doing this at all whatsoever.

Example below: the full complement of axis ground bombing took out ~4000 men, which less than one rifle brigade. Average disruption was 2,000 or roughly 5% fatigue. Look at the required fighter escort the Germans used. That translates to ballpark 10-25% fatigue on the entire Luftwaffe which means in turn I was able to take out 10,000 men and 200 planes as above due to limited LW interception capabilities. It's almost never worth it to stress the LW out for minor, minor gains (in the greater scheme) such as a few thousand men killed.

[image]local://upfiles/59341/EA62381DD58E44B5B613460278F6C4CB.jpg[/image]



joelmar -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/9/2020 5:47:43 PM)

I agree with eskuche.

One distinction to make about disruption is that it's always converted to fatigue BEFORE the next battle. So disruption as such never accumulates, but fatigue does.



chaos45 -> RE: 1.12.05 - WAD or am I mismanaging? (6/9/2020 6:51:22 PM)

I think you guys misunderstand---its not mass bombing you want to do...its selective bombing.

Also why waste bombers on soviet rifle divisions? usually they have low CV anyway. As germans save the bombs for tank corps/cav corps in open if at all possible. As soviets you want to knock German units out of entrenchments then bomb them every chance you get.

In all honesty the game aside from Leningrad/Moscow is all won/lost in the south....as its open ground and once one side has an edge its very hard for the other side to get the initiative back due to the clear terrain and how effective tanks and air strikes are in clear terrain--esp against unfortified units.


In your example you're bombing some very bad targets is part of the reason for your bad results. Its all about hitting targets in the open and not entrenched--that's where Air power gets it best effects.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.357422