The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2



Message

Joel Billings -> The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/4/2021 9:18:06 PM)

With the release of the 1.02.01 version I wanted to let you know where things stand with some of the various issues that have recently been brought up with the air game.

Issue 1 – Ground support not being auto intercepted by aircraft that are no assigned to air directives.
This first came up in a recent version and was fixed in 1.02.01. You should now once again see auto intercepts in ground battles as long as the air units are not specifically assigned to other non-ground support air directives.

Issue 2 – Air superiority is not intercepting enemy ground support or ground attack missions.
We found that the routine that was counting the distance within the AS box could routine a bad value, making the routine think the hex was not in the AS box at the time the enemy mission flew. We also found that although a box was being displayed and was intended, the code was only providing AS within the radius of the center. So a 5 hex setting which should have provided a 11x11 box was actually only tracing out a circle with a radius of 11. That meant that targets in the corner of the box were not being covered by the AS mission. This has been fixed in 1.02.01. As far as we know, AS is now working as intended. If you use AS and think it’s not working, please provide us with pre-saves so we can look into it.

Issue 3 – Air Transport missions behind friendly lines are too easily intercepted by enemy fighters.
We’ve reduced the chances of intercepting transport flights that don’t fly over enemy territory. This change is in 1.02.01.

Issue 4 – Op Losses are too high.
After looking into this, Gary found that the code that was supposed to count aircraft that get damaged by flak, as lost to flak, when they are destroyed during the landing routine, was not working. So many losses intended to be flak losses were being credited as op losses. This has been fixed in a version we are working on now. In addition, we have decreased the chance for op losses except for an increase in night op losses as detailed below. These changes will be in the next update that goes out.

Issue 5 – Night bombing is too good.
We have just reduced the accuracy of night bombing for flights that don’t have navigation aides (like those in WitW for the Western Allies). In practice that means night bombing in WitE2 will be less accurate. In addition, we’ve greatly increased op losses for pilots under 70 experience, even more for those under 60 experience. These changes will be in the next update that goes out.

Issue 6 – It is very difficult to auto-intercept enemy ground attack air directives, especially against units that are in the front line.
This is WAD, although it may be harder to intercept than it should be. The system must detect the enemy air mission early enough in order to scramble fighters so they can reach the bombers before they get in and get out. When we put out the Torch expansion to WitW, we made these intercepts harder as we thought earlier in the war radar and air defenses were not as effective as they were later (also infrastructure was not as developed in North Africa as in Europe). This carried over to WitE2. The system involves airbases attempting to detect the enemy mission, with the larger airfields being better at detection. In cases where the defending airfields are far from the targets, and the airfields are lower level, it can be very hard or impossible to conduct an auto-intercept. In theory, air superiority missions can be used in these cases to try to cover specific areas. With the recent fixes for AS, this should hopefully work. We are not sure if the detection level system needs a complete overhaul to account for routine fighter flights over the front lines that might be standard and effectively built into the ground support rules, but not accounted for in the air execution phase. This is an issue that is subject to discussion, feedback, and saves so we can see what’s actually going on.


So recapping, we think we fixed 3 issues in 1.02.01, and have fixes for 2 more of the issues in the next version that will go out. That leaves one issue requiring more info. We’re interested in continued feedback as players try out these changes. Thanks to all that have contributed to the discussions to date.




Hardradi -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/4/2021 9:44:41 PM)

Thank you for this sort of update. Much appreciated (and the patches).



AlbertN -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/5/2021 1:35:00 AM)

+1



MarkShot -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/5/2021 1:56:07 AM)

Seeing the air war strutting its stuff as I am a former prop-head is very important to me. Thanks!



Rosencrantus -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/5/2021 6:00:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

With the release of the 1.02.01 version I wanted to let you know where things stand with some of the various issues that have recently been brought up with the air game.

Issue 6 – It is very difficult to auto-intercept enemy ground attack air directives, especially against units that are in the front line.
This is WAD, although it may be harder to intercept than it should be. The system must detect the enemy air mission early enough in order to scramble fighters so they can reach the bombers before they get in and get out. When we put out the Torch expansion to WitW, we made these intercepts harder as we thought earlier in the war radar and air defenses were not as effective as they were later (also infrastructure was not as developed in North Africa as in Europe). This carried over to WitE2. The system involves airbases attempting to detect the enemy mission, with the larger airfields being better at detection. In cases where the defending airfields are far from the targets, and the airfields are lower level, it can be very hard or impossible to conduct an auto-intercept. In theory, air superiority missions can be used in these cases to try to cover specific areas. With the recent fixes for AS, this should hopefully work. We are not sure if the detection level system needs a complete overhaul to account for routine fighter flights over the front lines that might be standard and effectively built into the ground support rules, but not accounted for in the air execution phase. This is an issue that is subject to discussion, feedback, and saves so we can see what’s actually going on.


So recapping, we think we fixed 3 issues in 1.02.01, and have fixes for 2 more of the issues in the next version that will go out. That leaves one issue requiring more info. We’re interested in continued feedback as players try out these changes. Thanks to all that have contributed to the discussions to date.




From my experience and just testing myself as the Soviets on T1, launching GA on frontline axis units sometimes leads to an interception, but after that one interception, most of the time unless the area has been concentrated with axis fighters (which becomes very difficult for the axis to do as they get spread out over the Soviet Union) there are no more interceptions. This is a problem as if the Soviet fighter escort is large enough, the first interception will still leave majority of the bombers untouched. As a result on subsequent days of the air phase, the unit that is getting GA'd gets heavily weakened, making defeating the unit much easier. What I propose is that for more subsequent Ground Attacks in an area, the increased likelihood of fighter interception to reflect that the air forces are more alert for ground attacks in that particular area. I don't want to punish the Soviets for having managed to defeat the LW in a particular part of the front as they should be rewarded with the capability of dealing heavy damage to enemy ground troops but its odd that there is usually only one interception against one GA mission during the entire air phase.



Zovs -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/5/2021 10:13:34 AM)

With the newest patch I have seen many more interceptions than just one.



jubjub -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/5/2021 3:20:11 PM)

Thanks Joel. With the anticipated increase in flak losses, I'd like to put my request in for additional detail into the execution of anti-aircraft fire.

Also, small item, but do you know where this bug is on the list? It would really be a QOL improvement over assigning individual missions per hex.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5081310&mpage=1&key=�



Joel Billings -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/5/2021 3:39:52 PM)

It's on the bug list, but I don't think Pavel has looked at it. I don't expect it will get looked at until after the editor work is done.



tyronec -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/6/2021 7:14:00 AM)

Thanks for the update, much appreciated.



tyronec -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/6/2021 8:54:55 AM)

quote:

From my experience and just testing myself as the Soviets on T1, launching GA on frontline axis units sometimes leads to an interception, but after that one interception, most of the time unless the area has been concentrated with axis fighters (which becomes very difficult for the axis to do as they get spread out over the Soviet Union) there are no more interceptions. This is a problem as if the Soviet fighter escort is large enough, the first interception will still leave majority of the bombers untouched. As a result on subsequent days of the air phase, the unit that is getting GA'd gets heavily weakened, making defeating the unit much easier. What I propose is that for more subsequent Ground Attacks in an area, the increased likelihood of fighter interception to reflect that the air forces are more alert for ground attacks in that particular area. I don't want to punish the Soviets for having managed to defeat the LW in a particular part of the front as they should be rewarded with the capability of dealing heavy damage to enemy ground troops but its odd that there is usually only one interception against one GA mission during the entire air phase.

I would concur with the above.
Can understand the logic that it is difficult to intercept one mission launched against units on the front line, however if the Soviets are massing large numbers of sorties on one hex then the probability of intercepts should increase.

This is using my RtL test bed, Soviets bombing a front line air base on T2.
All the Axis fighters get wiped out without one intercept.
If you try and bomb an airbase behind the front line then there is an increased likelihood of an intercept.

So the point I am making is not particularly about bombing air bases, rather that the Soviets can do massed bombings of a front line hex and not get intercepted even if there are Axis fighters within range.


[image]local://upfiles/52296/D4A4E39610C34F21861FA66D5D57B962.jpg[/image]



AlbertN -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/6/2021 3:43:35 PM)

Err... has something changed with the Naval Patrol missions?
I cannot isolate anymore ports as Talinn or Odessa ... I do exactly the same air directives that were isolating them before but now even without enemy air action, the Interdiction values drop during the enemy turn.
So when the turn comes back to me, the Interdiction value is not high enough anymore (That despite naval patrol missions being set to happen in both phases).



Markko -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/22/2021 10:33:04 PM)

So, yes, it would be hard to intercept a single, out-of-the-blue airstrike over a front-line hex. But, this game is simulating a week's worth of battles. Thus, if one instead imagines a front-line hex of importance to the command that is having constant enemy ground support missions on call to the enemy ground commanders .... one would have to assume that your ground commanders are heating up the radios calling for fighters to come and stop the bombing.

In the west, the I've heard a term like 'taxi-rank' with regard to ground support. Ie, the allied fighter-bombers were just circling overhead waiting for a call for ground support. This would seem to be a bit different from the quick in-and-out raid discussed above. I realize that was the western front, and thus different. But still, ground support seems to imply some planes on some sort of stand-by ready to respond to calls from the battlefield? Especially when there are longer-range planes from more-distant bases? If you call for a strike on an artillery position that is pounding you, being told that the planes are now taking off from their base and that they'll be there 2 hours from now doesn't do you a lot of good.

Ground support attacks are related to the intensity of the ground battle, and thus can be predicted by a ground commander, especially one who has the initiative and is launching attacks. Its a pretty fair guess that the defending commander is going to call for his ground support after you launch your next attack. It would seem possible that the ground commanders could clue in the air commanders as to the time of the expected ground battle?

It would appear that ground attack and ground support are two different cases. Perhaps the ground attack mission on a front-line hex is a quick in-and-out attack that hits before the target can call for defending fighters. But ground support is an ongoing activity during 7 days of ground battle. Ground support should be difficult unless one has control of the air on a regular basis. Perhaps the only time it should not be intercepted would be when under a friendly Air Superiority zone that is providing such air control?

Ground support could perhaps be easy to intercept, as it is easy to predict when and where it will be. But what keeps the enemy from doing this is your own fighters controlling the air over the battlefield ... either by AS mission or perhaps by just by having 60 fighters only 20 km away who aren't doing anything else.

And on ground attack missions, there does seem to be a difference between a single, more unpredictable raid on a target, and a sustained, multi-raid bombing campaign over several days, or several weeks. At some point, one would have to expect to find more enemy fighters waiting for you.






Zovs -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/22/2021 11:27:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Markko

So, yes, it would be hard to intercept a single, out-of-the-blue airstrike over a front-line hex. But, this game is simulating a week's worth of battles. Thus, if one instead imagines a front-line hex of importance to the command that is having constant enemy ground support missions on call to the enemy ground commanders .... one would have to assume that your ground commanders are heating up the radios calling for fighters to come and stop the bombing.

In the west, the I've heard a term like 'taxi-rank' with regard to ground support. Ie, the allied fighter-bombers were just circling overhead waiting for a call for ground support. This would seem to be a bit different from the quick in-and-out raid discussed above. I realize that was the western front, and thus different. But still, ground support seems to imply some planes on some sort of stand-by ready to respond to calls from the battlefield? Especially when there are longer-range planes from more-distant bases? If you call for a strike on an artillery position that is pounding you, being told that the planes are now taking off from their base and that they'll be there 2 hours from now doesn't do you a lot of good.

Ground support attacks are related to the intensity of the ground battle, and thus can be predicted by a ground commander, especially one who has the initiative and is launching attacks. Its a pretty fair guess that the defending commander is going to call for his ground support after you launch your next attack. It would seem possible that the ground commanders could clue in the air commanders as to the time of the expected ground battle?

It would appear that ground attack and ground support are two different cases. Perhaps the ground attack mission on a front-line hex is a quick in-and-out attack that hits before the target can call for defending fighters. But ground support is an ongoing activity during 7 days of ground battle. Ground support should be difficult unless one has control of the air on a regular basis. Perhaps the only time it should not be intercepted would be when under a friendly Air Superiority zone that is providing such air control?

Ground support could perhaps be easy to intercept, as it is easy to predict when and where it will be. But what keeps the enemy from doing this is your own fighters controlling the air over the battlefield ... either by AS mission or perhaps by just by having 60 fighters only 20 km away who aren't doing anything else.

And on ground attack missions, there does seem to be a difference between a single, more unpredictable raid on a target, and a sustained, multi-raid bombing campaign over several days, or several weeks. At some point, one would have to expect to find more enemy fighters waiting for you.


Good points, but only for the Western Allies in 1944-45 and modern war, but not the eastern front 1941-1945.



AlbertN -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/23/2021 12:12:17 AM)

Actually it was the Germans that had carousels of airplanes in the skies during '41 rapid advances as they were in wait to be called for support. Germans taught tactical doctrine to the Allies.

Markko is quite right on the point of missions spanning over the week and that sides fighting over a hex would be there.

The Allies late in the war simply had everything including plethora of planes and fuel to keep them in the sky in abundance.



Joch1955 -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/23/2021 5:34:21 PM)

There actually would not have been a difference between Ground Attack and Ground Support in RL in WW2. Except in rare circumstances, ground units could not contact AC in the air. Typically, a ground HQ would send a request to an Air HQ, i.e. "we are attacking objective X in a few hours/tomorrow, can you schedule a strike?". Air HQ would designate the air group, pilots would be briefed on the ground, would fly to the target, drop their ordnance and fly back out so chances of interception were slim unless enemy CAP was already there.

That is the way it is supposed to work in game, enemy fighters assigned to GS may intercept your bombers and friendly fighters assigned to GS may intercept the enemy fighters leading to air combat in the hex. ( see 18.1.3 and 18.1.10 in the manual).



cameron88 -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/23/2021 10:55:21 PM)

Issue 7 - Ground attack and bombing does virtually no damage, absolutely worthless to do direct bombing raids with JU87s, level bombers, or anything you could and would have done in WITE1 against enemy troops.

Issue 8 - Flak losses are stupidly high, i dont even need to explain this.



Jango32 -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/23/2021 11:01:25 PM)

In my experience disruption caused by ground attack directives is very powerful and very useful to do to melt a unit's CV rating. So I don't think there is an issue 7 to consider.



Rosencrantus -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/24/2021 12:01:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jango32

In my experience disruption caused by ground attack directives is very powerful and very useful to do to melt a unit's CV rating. So I don't think there is an issue 7 to consider.


+1. I know firsthand just how strong GA can be to weakening a unit.



AlbertN -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/24/2021 1:17:41 AM)

Agreeing that [Ground Attack - Unit] is way too strong if spammed. Probably even 1-2 rounds already fatigue the unit sensibly.

Frankly I'd simply erase tha aspect of the function and considering the 'turn lengthy' Ground Attack is factually Ground Support IF there is a real ground attack.

The best way to represent it would be that a 'Ground Attacked' (by planes) unit cannot be 'Ground Attacked' subsequently by land units. But since the game envision first A and then B in sequence, it would be clumsy and not applicable.

I think WITE1 had an approach to limit in planes and amount the ground attacks on a specific hex.

On a different notion has anything changed to Naval Interdiction? It seems to me something has - I cannot isolate anymore enemy ports by naval interdiction business. It seems to work during my turn BUT the interdiction lowers sensibly during the enemy turn; without enemy air intervention.



KenchiSulla -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/25/2021 7:10:00 PM)

Hi Joel, Issue 4 - beta 1.02.06

I've been looking @ aircraft losses in the Operation Typhoon scenario and what I see:

- Direct kills by flak are fairly rare
- Crashes after being damaged by flak are common
- Some op losses occur

Roughly 5-15% of attacking bombers are lost by flak or ops... every time. That seems excessive...



[image]local://upfiles/30342/18E9A2F166C7433C8CC5161ACBD38544.jpg[/image]



Joel Billings -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/26/2021 5:09:21 PM)

That's because the code resolves what happens to the aircraft when it returns to land. Some of the aircraft damaged by flak would be lost enroute home, some would crash on the runway. The code doesn't know which is which, but generally I think if it's been damaged by flak or in air to air combat it generally gets counted as one of those instead of an op loss. The weather during the Op typhoon scenario is generally bad, and if so that increases the losses. My sense in general is that our sortie counts are low, but our losses per sortie are high. In a way it averages out, but I'd like to see more results from longer games played. Thanks for the feedback.



KenchiSulla -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/26/2021 7:31:54 PM)

Hi Joel, I understand that you want more data. Just consider that it might average out in losses but not in (possible) impact of the VVS and Luftwaffe although I must admit that it is hard to quantify....



jubjub -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/27/2021 5:29:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

That's because the code resolves what happens to the aircraft when it returns to land. Some of the aircraft damaged by flak would be lost enroute home, some would crash on the runway. The code doesn't know which is which, but generally I think if it's been damaged by flak or in air to air combat it generally gets counted as one of those instead of an op loss. The weather during the Op typhoon scenario is generally bad, and if so that increases the losses. My sense in general is that our sortie counts are low, but our losses per sortie are high. In a way it averages out, but I'd like to see more results from longer games played. Thanks for the feedback.


The overall losses average out, but the impact of the air war is substantially reduced due to fewer sorties.



AngularMan -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (11/30/2021 5:56:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

That's because the code resolves what happens to the aircraft when it returns to land. Some of the aircraft damaged by flak would be lost enroute home, some would crash on the runway. The code doesn't know which is which, but generally I think if it's been damaged by flak or in air to air combat it generally gets counted as one of those instead of an op loss. The weather during the Op typhoon scenario is generally bad, and if so that increases the losses. My sense in general is that our sortie counts are low, but our losses per sortie are high. In a way it averages out, but I'd like to see more results from longer games played. Thanks for the feedback.


The overall losses average out, but the impact of the air war is substantially reduced due to fewer sorties.


I find it kind of ridiculous how ineffective level bombers are. Ju88 production alone, for example, consumes half of the armament points produced by the Axis in 1941, yet their impact on the battle field (and in the theater boxes) is marginal at best (yes I know, the production system is only a peripheral part of the game). I am pretty sure quite a lot of players just leave them in the reserves or theater boxes so that they do not suck up valuable supplies intended for the front line units. Or maybe I just haven't found their role.



DeletedUser44 -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (12/1/2021 1:04:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

That's because the code resolves what happens to the aircraft when it returns to land. Some of the aircraft damaged by flak would be lost enroute home, some would crash on the runway. The code doesn't know which is which, but generally I think if it's been damaged by flak or in air to air combat it generally gets counted as one of those instead of an op loss. The weather during the Op typhoon scenario is generally bad, and if so that increases the losses. My sense in general is that our sortie counts are low, but our losses per sortie are high. In a way it averages out, but I'd like to see more results from longer games played. Thanks for the feedback.



Part of this I fully understand.

For example, OPS losses were incurred historically during aircraft rebase missions as well. Yet, in the game, there is 0 risk involved of an OPS loss while rebasing aircraft. So that difference has to be made up somewhere.

As has been noted, OPS loses start to increase after a certain Traveled(%) threshold, as well as a fatigue threshold.

But what is frustrating is the air system easily allows a user to inadvertently fly their aircraft into the ground by pushing aircraft over these thresholds.

Historically, OPS rates also increased during poor weather conditions. I presume the same occurs in WiTE2? But are those rates published anywhere? (and don't try to say nobody knew, because I know that they had statisticians who were updating OPS loss-risk rates on a continuous basis)



jubjub -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (12/1/2021 3:12:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AngularMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

That's because the code resolves what happens to the aircraft when it returns to land. Some of the aircraft damaged by flak would be lost enroute home, some would crash on the runway. The code doesn't know which is which, but generally I think if it's been damaged by flak or in air to air combat it generally gets counted as one of those instead of an op loss. The weather during the Op typhoon scenario is generally bad, and if so that increases the losses. My sense in general is that our sortie counts are low, but our losses per sortie are high. In a way it averages out, but I'd like to see more results from longer games played. Thanks for the feedback.


The overall losses average out, but the impact of the air war is substantially reduced due to fewer sorties.


I find it kind of ridiculous how ineffective level bombers are. Ju88 production alone, for example, consumes half of the armament points produced by the Axis in 1941, yet their impact on the battle field (and in the theater boxes) is marginal at best (yes I know, the production system is only a peripheral part of the game). I am pretty sure quite a lot of players just leave them in the reserves or theater boxes so that they do not suck up valuable supplies intended for the front line units. Or maybe I just haven't found their role.



They were very good in the ground attack - unit role until they decided to nerf it. You can get up to 4,000 disrupted with a sortie of 200 JU-88's. The key is to fly at 22,000 feet so 37 mm AAA can't hit and disrupt the bombing runs.

With the current state of things, I'm strongly considering moving all the German level bombers to the reserves. I may have to study a bit more about how much freight they consume per sortie to see if it's still worth it.



HardLuckYetAgain -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (12/2/2021 5:20:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub


quote:

ORIGINAL: AngularMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

That's because the code resolves what happens to the aircraft when it returns to land. Some of the aircraft damaged by flak would be lost enroute home, some would crash on the runway. The code doesn't know which is which, but generally I think if it's been damaged by flak or in air to air combat it generally gets counted as one of those instead of an op loss. The weather during the Op typhoon scenario is generally bad, and if so that increases the losses. My sense in general is that our sortie counts are low, but our losses per sortie are high. In a way it averages out, but I'd like to see more results from longer games played. Thanks for the feedback.


The overall losses average out, but the impact of the air war is substantially reduced due to fewer sorties.


I find it kind of ridiculous how ineffective level bombers are. Ju88 production alone, for example, consumes half of the armament points produced by the Axis in 1941, yet their impact on the battle field (and in the theater boxes) is marginal at best (yes I know, the production system is only a peripheral part of the game). I am pretty sure quite a lot of players just leave them in the reserves or theater boxes so that they do not suck up valuable supplies intended for the front line units. Or maybe I just haven't found their role.



They were very good in the ground attack - unit role until they decided to nerf it. You can get up to 4,000 disrupted with a sortie of 200 JU-88's. The key is to fly at 22,000 feet so 37 mm AAA can't hit and disrupt the bombing runs.

With the current state of things, I'm strongly considering moving all the German level bombers to the reserves. I may have to study a bit more about how much freight they consume per sortie to see if it's still worth it.


It is "not" in my opinion. But that is just me.



AlbertN -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (12/2/2021 7:56:18 PM)

In my experience German bombers are not really useful whilst IL2 are death-stars flying in huge numbers and without logistic constraints.
And if by disgrace your escorts are undercut in numbers, the Soviet swarms obliterate a huge chunk of German bombers.

Right now I concur with JubJub about moving bombers to the reserve. I wish the LW could create more fighter squadrons instead because bombers are risky to be used and when used not really tipping balance of anything at least going by the Ground Losses. It's very rare to see numbers that are no 0 in the Damaged or Destroyed columns whilst it is normal to see IL2 inflict destroyed and damaged assets.



jubjub -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (12/2/2021 9:45:06 PM)

Stukas are good as long as there's not much flak, and they're part of a hasty attack. As I mentioned earlier, I think level bombers are best at ground attack - unit. They would be very useful at destroying enemy rail yards if AA wasn't so powerful, and they're pretty decent at naval patrol. Besides that, I don't really see a role for them.

Here's some examples of German bombers being good. Unfortunately, level bombers will miss ground attack about half the time now, so you have to halve the effectiveness. I will reiterate, this was the worst possible way to nerf ground attack, and it hurts the German air game much more than the Soviets.

Stukas in hasty attacks:

[img]https://i.imgur.com/U71JbxB.jpg[/img]

[img]https://i.imgur.com/gYbhFOo.jpg[/img]

Level bombers in ground attack.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/nDpIon8.jpg[/img]



jubjub -> RE: The status of the air game as of 1.02.01 (12/2/2021 9:48:57 PM)

quote:


Here's some examples of German bombers being good. Unfortunately, level bombers will miss ground attack about half the time now, so you have to halve the effectiveness. I will reiterate, this was the worst possible way to nerf ground attack, and it hurts the German air game much more than the Soviets.


Idk why they didn't just reduce accuracy of low experience bombers or something.

Also, let's be clear, running interdiction is a miss - it's a totally useless ability when run on a front line unit. It's even WORSE than doing nothing because of the freight consumption. To top it off, it's bugged, and uses the 'ground attack - unit' interdiction multiplier instead of the higher 'ground attack - interdiction' value.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.59375