HMSWarspite
Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel
quote:
ORIGINAL: loki100
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel
Clearly, I did a less then stellar job in ordering my air missions over the invasion... but I don't think it was that crazy off base to enjoy minimal results....and I certainly didn't expect I would need to do everything optimaly to do a reasonable job in slowing the A.I's response on difficulty settings of "Normal" and below.
here's my 2 euros worth. I've used the May 44 campaign to test out a number of options. For what its worth, the worst use of the allied airforce in WiTW is direct ground support, ground attacks based around interdiction and rail give you far better returns.
Second observation, I did one where I turned the air over to AI completely and another where I worked with the AD screen and set areas of operation but not much else. My first attempt at manual control was much worse than trusting the AI, my second attempt at manual control I had much better interdiction levels and axis combat units often just collapsed on contact.
So my advice would be if you aren't sure about what you are doing, trust the AI.
That sounds like direct ground support is pretty much useless, if ground Attack Unit is better at it's core mission then it is. A little counter-intuitive to me, but ok if that's the way the game makes it. Thanks for the advice.
I had assumed that Ground Support would be better at effecting units that your ground forces were in actual contact with and engaging since you would have spotters on the ground calling in direct air support missions against targets where they were encountering heavy resistance rather then relying on luck, spotting from the air and photo recon to hit targets not in contact.
I had been using Ground Attack - Unit alot to see if I could soften up units (and fortifications but it seems not to work for that at all) prior to deciding whether I wanted to assault them since there doesn't seem to be a way to do a "If you are meeting heavy resistance call off the attack" setting for ground attacks.... so the computer can't differentiate between when a player wants to do a "take at all costs" meat-grinder frontal assault and a "probe for weakness and exploit if you can" attack.
I had also been using them to hit and weaken units behind the line or in parts of the line I didn't intend to attack that turn but might try in future. Didn't seem all that effective in Italy but the terrain is horrible there.
Thanks for the advice!
I think we have a common misunderstanding going on about how air was used in Ww2. People tend to think of what I nickname "Harry potter" air support. I guy with a magic radio on the ground gets eyes on some defender, mutters a pig Latin phrase and a big bolt of fire (or 60lb rockets/250 bomb) flashes out of the sky to destroy the target. Whilst this is what happens today (ish) it was very rare in Ww2 ( not there at all other than on certain occasions in the west in 44-45). What air support was much more like was a slow but heavy artillery mission. A unit (company, battalion whatever) tries to advance and finds a wood or feature that fires back too well to be shifted. Message goes back up to say Corps, that talks to air liasion. Half a day later a lot of aircraft turn up and make a mess of the wood (with luck). With more luck, the ground troops were't hit themselves and are ready to attack again. This is a simplification, but it gives the idea. What is actually far more useful and often used is planned support behind the front lines. In a tactical game, the correct depiction of air support is that the enemy unit's artillery support is not there because it was attacked by aircraft just before the attack. Or the 2nd wave attackers arrive late and reduced. This would be achieved by either preplanned or roaming ground attackers (in the second case, on the defenders side obviously!).
Interdiction tends to be a bit further back again and can be the classic 'patrol that road and attack MT'. Or it can be 'attack choke points on that road (bridges, junctions etc (without necessarily seeing anyone move)). These last tend to stop units moving behind the lines, cuts supply to the frontine etc.
thus the big set piece assault can benefit from ground support. But a few weeks effective interdiction can remove the need for the big set piece assault (or make it much easier) in the first place.
Obviously. Poor terrain lessens interdiction. So other rules apply. Normandy was a interdiction success (despite the famous set piece heavy bomber support etc). Italy rather less so... Hard to interdict mountain roads in the same way alas Norman ones
Hope this (somewhat simple) description, which isn't necessarily strictly accurate in terminology, helps understanding,
Put your Fbs (in bomber role) on interdiction, and your medium bombers on GA on railcards, then watch the defence soften. I rarely have more than 1 grd support Ad active at once per theatre,
_____________________________
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
|
Printable Version
RE: Thoughts on Fortifications - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread