Hanny
Posts: 422
Joined: 7/5/2011
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tyronec
So here are the consequences to the way the air war is working at present:
Axis can defend their aircraft by keeping them in stacks each with a moderate number of fighters as long as those fighters don't have too much fatigue.
Ok, just as was the Axis practice in Russia, so the game is getting history right and promoting historical game play in its mechanics. Preventing fatigue requires not flying sorties/engaging in combat etc, so the more you do the less effective you are in keeping it down.
Otoh if FTR can regularly intercept from other basses when a base they are not protecting is under attack, they leave it unprotected, and they are only up on CAP to protect assets on the base, and you get all FTR is range pulled into the first chosen airbase attack, this is repeated till all airbase attacks are completed, by which time FTR formations, had fought in multiple battles and are now burnt out. The later airbase attacks will therefore come in against basses all but devoid of effective CAP. I prefer existing game mechanics over your proposed improvement from both a game play POV and a historical realism POV.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tyronec
Axis can do a moderate amount of unit bombing every turn, either against units that are out of range of Soviet fighters or some attacks with Luftwaffe fighter cover against units within range of Soviet fighter cover. Limited by how much fatigue they can risk running up for their fighters.
Ok, just as was the Axis practice in Russia, so the game is getting history right and promoting historical game play in its mechanics. I agree that fatigue is the key element, giving auto intercepts and increasing the rate of air combats ( more CAP intercepts that result in combat) for CAP will take away the players ability to influence the rate of increase/decrease, he will just have the consequences of having CAP sorties, to deal with.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tyronec
Axis can use ground support in battles that are out of range of Soviet fighter cover and very occasionally, at high risk, for battles within range of Soviet fighter cover.
Soviets can do as much ground unit bombing and ground support as their bombers have capacity for. If Axis make any mistakes they can do serious damage by air base bombing.
Ok, just as was the practice in Russia, so the game is getting history right and promoting historical game play in its mechanics.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tyronec
Since there is little air to air combat in this model both sides are going to run up a glut of fighters. Axis fighters are simply not protecting their ground troops at all. By Spring '42 my Luftwaffe had 700 fighter losses and 600 fighters in the pool.
Players chose how much air combat they want, by setting your Air doctrine values, the model just provides the outcomes of their choices, different values produce different outcomes.
Hooton ( The air campaigns on the Eastern Front 1941-45) gives German FTR losses by April 42 as 859, so your game is close to historical casualty rates, ie similar Air Doctrine values being chosen. Germany had on March 1 1,766 operational air assets on the Eastern front, in the next three months they consumed 388,000 gallons of AVGAS, 55,000 gallons above that which industry produced for all Theatres. Game has an issue with unlimited supply reaching those consuming it, allowing Air formations unlimited sorties and distance to fly CAP successful sorties simply makes the problem worse, giving the Axis a historical capacity they did not have, and if you change that further in increase the chances of CAP intercepts resulting in combat you introduce a game mechanic that can be abused.
Could the Air war be better modelled?, sure anything can be improved. To do that the Devs would require accurate data to work with, that shows the model would be probably improved by those changes.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tyronec
To take the situation at the start of '42.
Germany has 800 Fighters and builds 43 per turn.
So in your game, you have a LW FTR strength around half that the Axis had by 42. 700+600=1300 FTRs in game, 1500+900=2400 historical. Otoh your game has c40 a turn production and c900 at start, so ought to be in the 1900s.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tyronec
In my game with Brian on some turns in Summer '42 I estimate that about 75% of Axis ground losses were down to the VVS. It is an estimate because you can't really tell exactly what caused the losses, but typically the Soviets could be causing over 10k damage during the Soviet turn by preceding every attack with two ground bombings and then the attack itself with full Ground Support.
If you set the display low enough, it will list all the combat outcomes, its unplayable as a game, but if one wanted to find the data, it is there. Brain as SU, it appears, has achieved air superiority and is reaping the benefits from doing so.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tyronec
A long way from representing the historical reality of the period.
Given you have posted no such historical examples, and want to give the Axis unlimited fuel to fly sorties they generally lacked both the infrastructure and doctrine to perform, i find that an odd thing to have to read.
< Message edited by Hanny -- 8/1/2020 10:13:05 AM >
_____________________________
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
|
Printable Version
RE: Gary Grigsby's War in the East Open Beta 1.12.05 - 
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