Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/17/2019 7:30:42 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

Hello,
I have been pondering the subject of high-altitude fighter sweeps as a tactic in this game.
As a tool of achieving air-superiority - it's an absolute must... game wise.

I do have to say though, that it is more than a bit unrealistic.

What works best in the game is to sweep with the highest altitude your best fighters can provide, for a quickly lopsided massacre of your opponent - providing your aircraft can fly higher and faster than his.

In the game, this quickly leads to sweeps at 37,000 to 40,000 plus feet.

In a way, this simulates the advantage of better altitude performance, but taken as a representation WW2 air combat - it is drastically unrealistic.

First of all, in the game, fighters sweeping at 39,000 feet will bounce fighters patrolling at 10-15,000 feet, whereas in reality they would be far too high above them to even see them, let alone dive down on them.

Secondly, this kind of stratosphere combat is representative of the Korean War and the jet age - Not WW2, where air combat was limited to the altitude of attacking bombers (none of which flew over 25,000 feet).

To the main point - What does the forum community think of this? And would many of you favor limiting all air combat to say...26,000 to 28,000 feet?

Just curious,

B

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

Post #: 1

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/17/2019 8:17:08 PM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

Low layered CAP works great against stratosweeps. It is used in recent AARs with great effect against P-38s and P-47s

Yeah, altitude mismatch could've been modelled better in the game, but it does not break the game thanks to the above

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 2

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/17/2019 8:30:50 PM

DanSez

Posts: 1023
Joined: 2/5/2012
Status: offline

Just for maintaining 'historic flavor' I tend to recommend a 3 tiered cap to reflect the rise of service ceiling and increased capabilities as the war progressed

1941/1942 Top altitude 25k
1943/1944 Top altitude 30k
1945/1946 Top altitude 35k

easy to remember, easy to set

some people don't like any rules, I am sure you will hear from them soon

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 3

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/17/2019 9:33:30 PM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

Low layered CAP works great against stratosweeps. It is used in recent AARs with great effect against P-38s and P-47s

Yeah, altitude mismatch could've been modelled better in the game, but it does not break the game thanks to the above

Only if your pilots and planes are comparable in quality to your opponents, otherwise I have found the results are the same (a one sided massacre).

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 4

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/18/2019 8:11:10 AM

GetAssista

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
Low layered CAP works great against stratosweeps. It is used in recent AARs with great effect against P-38s and P-47s

Yeah, altitude mismatch could've been modelled better in the game, but it does not break the game thanks to the above

Only if your pilots and planes are comparable in quality to your opponents, otherwise I have found the results are the same (a one sided massacre).

Well, yes, you should not expect miracles against superior technology pumped up even further by quality pilots.

What I would tweak in the game instead is an abysmal performance of escort fighters no matter tech gap. Current ones are nothing more than ablative armor

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 5

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/18/2019 12:56:16 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

Just for perspective, German pilots were above British spitfires for most of the war. British strategy was to break into the German fighters as they came down, and then use their own maneuverability. I know this happened through '43, and I think through most of '44.

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to GetAssista)

Post #: 6

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/18/2019 5:23:36 PM

Disco Duck

Posts: 552
Joined: 11/16/2004
From: San Antonio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Just for perspective, German pilots were above British spitfires for most of the war. British strategy was to break into the German fighters as they came down, and then use their own maneuverability. I know this happened through '43, and I think through most of '44.

I remember a story about British Fighters climbing to meet the diving German aircraft. Just before contact they would level out under the German fighters so the the German fighters would dive past.

_____________________________

There is no point in believing in things that exist. -Didactylos

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 7

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/18/2019 6:40:49 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

Johnny Johnson wrote, in Wing Commander, that they would fly in formation watching German fighters above them, and calmly calling 'break' as the Germans dove on them. That takes big brass ones, IMHO, to do on a daily basis. His anecdote for that story was they were flying along, watching a couple of Huns above, when somebody cried out "break, Dogsbody!" (Dogsbody was the wing's call sign). The whole wing scattered. Someone got their tail busted

_____________________________

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

(in reply to Disco Duck)

Post #: 8

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/18/2019 7:02:05 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I do have to say though, that it is more than a bit unrealistic.

...

In a way, this simulates the advantage of better altitude performance, but taken as a representation WW2 air combat - it is drastically unrealistic.

Brian,

IMO the problem is in interpreting the altitudes literally. If you think in terms of the numbers being metaphors of the relationships between the various airframes the problem disappears.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 9

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/18/2019 7:09:44 PM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I do have to say though, that it is more than a bit unrealistic.

...

In a way, this simulates the advantage of better altitude performance, but taken as a representation WW2 air combat - it is drastically unrealistic.

Brian,

IMO the problem is in interpreting the altitudes literally. If you think in terms of the numbers being metaphors of the relationships between the various airframes the problem disappears.

Totally agree, JWE stated many times that most if not all of the values in the database should not be seen as absolute values, they depended on how they were actually used in the programming.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 10

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/18/2019 7:41:52 PM

John B.

Posts: 3909
Joined: 9/25/2011
From: Virginia
Status: offline

I've just had experience with low level layered CAP against Americans over Palembang in March 1944 where the result against strato sweeps was very satisfactory (the losses were about even with P-38-Js taking very heavy losses). I agree with GetAssista, based on my experience with the game, escorts are better than nothing but don't really seem to offer much protection to bombers. Perhaps this is to mirror distant escorts (aka sweeps) was more effective than close escort tactics?

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 11

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/19/2019 2:04:59 AM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

Just to keep the discussion alive a bit longer - looking for more imput -
I have read all comments, and I have to say that I disagree with those championing multi-level CAP.

What I have seen over and over in PBEM; The fastest aircraft with the best ceiling (First KI-44 Tojo clearing the air,then the P-38 is introduced) absolutely dominates all air combat....bar none.

IF a fighter is Faster And Flies Higher than the available opposition - it massacres ALL fighter opponents.
The LONE Caveat is that - after killing ALL fighter opposition, IF the bombers are 20,000 feet lower - the bombers survive.

So, After loosing all fighter support, the bombers get through...ONCE.

Repeat the process the next day, and put an additional squadron on low-altitude CAP = Bombers destroyed on the next raid.

Given this sequence of events, over One Week - the Air War over a theater is forever changed.

Going back to my original point - perhaps it would be better if all fighters could operate in at least the same altitude?

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to John B.)

Post #: 12

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/19/2019 2:40:02 AM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Just to keep the discussion alive a bit longer - looking for more imput -
I have read all comments, and I have to say that I disagree with those championing multi-level CAP.

What I have seen over and over in PBEM; The fastest aircraft with the best ceiling (First KI-44 Tojo clearing the air,then the P-38 is introduced) absolutely dominates all air combat....bar none.

IF a fighter is Faster And Flies Higher than the available opposition - it massacres ALL fighter opponents.
The LONE Caveat is that - after killing ALL fighter opposition, IF the bombers are 20,000 feet lower - the bombers survive.

So, After loosing all fighter support, the bombers get through...ONCE.

Repeat the process the next day, and put an additional squadron on low-altitude CAP = Bombers destroyed on the next raid.

Given this sequence of events, over One Week - the Air War over a theater is forever changed.

Going back to my original point - perhaps it would be better if all fighters could operate in at least the same altitude?

This is one occurrence.

The bolded part is not my experience, across hundreds of turns where these sorts of combats have happened. I will say that I am not quite the champion of the lower layered CAP as a viable counter to max altitude sweeps that others around the forum are, as my experience with it (across several games) is much more mixed and so I think it is far more dependent upon individual game parameters (how good are your pilots, how good are mine). For example, ask Bullwinkle (or now obvert) about the P-47 pools in my current late war Japan game. It was faster and higher altitude than all the Japanese fighters available, and yet it maybe traded 1.25:1 at best (from memory). Why? Because of luck/circumstance (which of us had which units set to do what mission and where/when) and because of the quality of the pilots I employed to combat the P-47 sweeps.

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 13

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/19/2019 4:15:58 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanSez

Just for maintaining 'historic flavor' I tend to recommend a 3 tiered cap to reflect the rise of service ceiling and increased capabilities as the war progressed

1941/1942 Top altitude 25k
1943/1944 Top altitude 30k
1945/1946 Top altitude 35k

easy to remember, easy to set

some people don't like any rules, I am sure you will hear from them soon

Something akin to this is a HR in my games too. With a further reminder that only recon planes are granted exception to high flying (but that's not a fighter sweep, is it?).

One of my Allied PBEM partners' (Joseph-aka 'SqzMyLemon') ongoing beefs with the high altitude uber-sweep involved the handcuffing of the lower CAP to be forced to accept any combat. IRL, fighters flying low CAP could have refused combat if they found themselves in a poor tactical environment. The game mandates engagement in an unfriendly engagement envelope and applies the requisite hard-coded bonuses for those at superior altitude.

Better to omit this silliness and the silly ahistoric workarounds altogether by homogenizing sweep altitude max settings. In a HR if necessary.

_____________________________

(in reply to DanSez)

Post #: 14

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/19/2019 5:41:46 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

Except that the lower altitude CAP is not necessarily at a disadvantage...

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 15

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/19/2019 8:22:49 PM

DanSez

Posts: 1023
Joined: 2/5/2012
Status: offline

Even with the ceiling heights, I face off P-38 and occasional P-40K sweeps at the upper limit with stacked lower fighters.

Sometimes the Allies do very well, sometimes I take out a chunk of his planes. I do worse when he chooses to sweep a base where I have 1 model of fighter that is doing both cap and escort duties (usually at 10-12k).

What I have found is that it depends on force composition and pilot experience which is dictated by what is available. Getting the right models and altitudes is like a cook scrambling to whip up the family's favorite reciepe when company shows up unexpectedly.

About the closest I can come up to this voodoo. Trimming the altitudes a bit is a small sacrifice if both players can extend and enjoy the battle.

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 16

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/20/2019 12:50:11 AM

durnedwolf

Posts: 885
Joined: 5/23/2005
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Just to keep the discussion alive a bit longer - looking for more imput -
I have read all comments, and I have to say that I disagree with those championing multi-level CAP.

What I have seen over and over in PBEM; The fastest aircraft with the best ceiling (First KI-44 Tojo clearing the air,then the P-38 is introduced) absolutely dominates all air combat....bar none.

IF a fighter is Faster And Flies Higher than the available opposition - it massacres ALL fighter opponents.
The LONE Caveat is that - after killing ALL fighter opposition, IF the bombers are 20,000 feet lower - the bombers survive.

So, After loosing all fighter support, the bombers get through...ONCE.

Repeat the process the next day, and put an additional squadron on low-altitude CAP = Bombers destroyed on the next raid.

Given this sequence of events, over One Week - the Air War over a theater is forever changed.

Going back to my original point - perhaps it would be better if all fighters could operate in at least the same altitude?

This is one occurrence.

The bolded part is not my experience, across hundreds of turns where these sorts of combats have happened. I will say that I am not quite the champion of the lower layered CAP as a viable counter to max altitude sweeps that others around the forum are, as my experience with it (across several games) is much more mixed and so I think it is far more dependent upon individual game parameters (how good are your pilots, how good are mine). For example, ask Bullwinkle (or now obvert) about the P-47 pools in my current late war Japan game. It was faster and higher altitude than all the Japanese fighters available, and yet it maybe traded 1.25:1 at best (from memory). Why? Because of luck/circumstance (which of us had which units set to do what mission and where/when) and because of the quality of the pilots I employed to combat the P-47 sweeps.

I think another thing to factor in is that with the allies sweeping, they are losing more of their pilots. In this situation, with multiple days of sweeps by the allies, if you can bring in a a fighter group with pilots in the mid to upper 80s for experience, most of your pilots will live to see another day even if their aircraft get shot down. It's nice to have a fighter group or two of high-experience pilots available to surprise those sweepers with.

I've tried the layered CAP and I also see mixed results. Another option might be to bring in other fighter groups at nearby bases ala LRCAP. Numbers also make a difference. If you can field 3x the defensive fighters for a turn or two my WAG is that the allied player will start looking for some other target to plink at...

_____________________________

DW

I try to live by two words - tenacity and gratitude. Tenacity gets me where I want to go and gratitude ensures I'm not angry along the way. - Henry Winkler.

The great aim of education is not knowledge but action. - Herbert Spencer

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 17

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/20/2019 1:04:07 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

Low, layered CAP is effective against strato-sweeps. Read any of obverts AAR's in the past 3 years or any of his opponents. Yes caveats absolutely apply. Nates will not defeat P47's under any circumstance except extreme luck (which can happen). Pilot Exp is a factor. etc.

But, it does work and if you have managed your pilot inventories/exp levels appropriately in the early war, the counter-tactic is effective throughout the mid and late game as IJ.

Really not much more to say...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to durnedwolf)

Post #: 18

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/20/2019 6:42:10 PM

Disco Duck

Posts: 552
Joined: 11/16/2004
From: San Antonio
Status: offline

People forget how physically difficult it was to operate at these conditions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTSSTA9VAb0

_____________________________

There is no point in believing in things that exist. -Didactylos

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 19

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/21/2019 10:03:29 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Disco Duck

People forget how physically difficult it was to operate at these conditions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTSSTA9VAb0

I don't think we forget, I think we just accept that the altitude the fighter is "operating" at is an abstraction.

(in reply to Disco Duck)

Post #: 20

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/22/2019 8:12:58 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanSez

Just for maintaining 'historic flavor' I tend to recommend a 3 tiered cap to reflect the rise of service ceiling and increased capabilities as the war progressed

1941/1942 Top altitude 25k
1943/1944 Top altitude 30k
1945/1946 Top altitude 35k

easy to remember, easy to set

some people don't like any rules, I am sure you will hear from them soon

Something akin to this is a HR in my games too. With a further reminder that only recon planes are granted exception to high flying (but that's not a fighter sweep, is it?).

One of my Allied PBEM partners' (Joseph-aka 'SqzMyLemon') ongoing beefs with the high altitude uber-sweep involved the handcuffing of the lower CAP to be forced to accept any combat. IRL, fighters flying low CAP could have refused combat if they found themselves in a poor tactical environment. The game mandates engagement in an unfriendly engagement envelope and applies the requisite hard-coded bonuses for those at superior altitude.

Better to omit this silliness and the silly ahistoric workarounds altogether by homogenizing sweep altitude max settings. In a HR if necessary.

+1

With the caveat that I prefer these altitudes.

42 20k.
43 25k
44 31k

Not much different.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 21

RE: Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps - 3/27/2019 4:29:58 AM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

Ok, thank you everyone for your input.
What I decided was this;
Instead of imposing mandatory ceilings - that would correspond to realistic altitude ceilings - data-wise, I decided to expand a bit on ceilings of aircraft.
As several have said - "don't get hung up on numbers, let it work as an abstract of altitude performance" - what I decided to do was stretch ceilings for some aircraft to let them fly and fight at slightly higher altitudes than book numbers, so essentially we don't have a situation where some aircraft (fighters only) are restricted to altitudes in the 20'000's while others operate in the 30'000's.
In reality all aircraft operated fighter missions at max 25,000-29,000. But now, all can operate at 32,000 to 40,000 depending on the model and year... the ultimate in disregarding real ceilings.
Some, the best high altitude fighters can fly a bit higher than others that are older in design - but altitude has been equalized.

This should negate the need for House Rules, and faithfully recreate capabilities.

B

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 22

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Concerning High Altitude Fighter Sweeps

Page: [1]