Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Ground Support strategy

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> The War Room >> Ground Support strategy Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Ground Support strategy - 3/27/2021 8:13:10 AM   
TheFerret

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 3/9/2021
Status: offline 		Some questions about the Ground Support air directive:

1. If I just want "air groups should be generally available to support ground combat within range", and I have my air command structure reasonably well organized, is there any benefit to creating GS directives more fine-grained than i.e. a Luftflotte has 1 GS directive to support its corresponding Army Group?

2. If I leave air group assignment on Auto, is there ever any reason to give a single air command two different GS directives for a high-level ground HQ and a lower-level HQ subordinate to it?

3. What are some situations where it would be a good idea to assign GS directives at a more granular level, to corps/army HQs?

3a. "When you want ground support only allocated to those HQs because they'll be the focus of operations this turn" comes to mind. What's the difference between assigning a GS directive to I Corps vs assigning a GS directive to its superior HQ Army Group North and only activating ground support during I Corps' attacks? Other than excluding some units from ground support during the opponent's turn, are there benefits to assigning a GS directive to a lower-level HQ?

4. Is it ever a good idea to just throw organization to the wind, assign every air command GS directives for every high-level ground HQ so every air group has permission to support every ground combat, and let air staff (the AI) figure it all out?
Post #: 1
RE: Ground Support strategy - 3/27/2021 11:35:35 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline 		1 - no that will work fine. I personally tend to use Army for the axis or Front for the Soviets as my target HQ level but it depends. If you are say the axis on the defensive and you have intermixed Pzr and Infantry armies (which you should as this maximises the various assault HQ rules), the AG level is the best choice

2 - The lower level one will over-ride the higher one, the impact depends a bit on how you set up priority and so on but basically the lower level HQ will grab its dedicated missions and not share the more generic stuff. This wouldn't apply in the situation you've described (as the auto routine works that way), but basically there is no gain to the lower level one.

3 - Axis in 1941, you may want to make sure your GS goes to the Pzrs or to a single key attack. You may well be operating at some range to your airbases and want to ensure that GS only hits where you really need it. Soviets, less common but I've done it when a given army is perhaps on a slightly different sector to the main Front (can happen late war with a large Assault Front)

4 - You can't really. The highest level you can assign to is an Axis AG or Soviet front, not a high command like OKH

There are some quirks about how fighter escorts are allocated to GS - see 18.1.3. In effect CAP can be pulled in not just from fighters in the actual directive but if any are left on auto-intercept, as a legacy of AS missions in the relevant sector or in a different GS AD.

This can lead to your escorts getting used up early in the ground phase (its not just a case of toggling GS on/off), the effect will depend on if the enemy responds to your ground attack with their own GS. Its a useful safety net in this case (bombers cause extra disruptions regardless of their notional hits) or it may see your fighters pulled into combats you'd rather avoid.

_____________________________


(in reply to TheFerret)
Post #: 2
RE: Ground Support strategy - 3/27/2021 7:51:09 PM   
dudefan

 

Posts: 139
Joined: 2/26/2021
Status: offline 		I read 18.1.3. but what is not clear to me:

Does it matter if I turn on or off the GS for the enemy turn? So if GS is on for the defensive side mean more CAP commitment or no difference?

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 3
RE: Ground Support strategy - 3/27/2021 9:04:40 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dudefan

I read 18.1.3. but what is not clear to me:

Does it matter if I turn on or off the GS for the enemy turn? So if GS is on for the defensive side mean more CAP commitment or no difference?


H2H or H2AI for the 1st question? Two different answers from my perspective ;-)

Your 2nd question answer is "no difference". But then again I never(very rarely) use GS on the defensive since I only play Germany in H2H games.

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 3/27/2021 9:05:05 PM >

(in reply to dudefan)
Post #: 4
RE: Ground Support strategy - 3/27/2021 9:47:55 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dudefan

I read 18.1.3. but what is not clear to me:

Does it matter if I turn on or off the GS for the enemy turn? So if GS is on for the defensive side mean more CAP commitment or no difference?


this applies:
quote:

Fighters not assigned to this GS and with GS either on or off – low to medium response
, and then any left on auto-intercept

regardless of whether you are playing HtH or vs AI

GS on means you commit bombers, GS off means all you might commit is fighters to intercept enemy GS.

Unchallenged GS is bad news, they get 2 things, first the impact of the normal bombing outcomes and then a sort of generic set of disruptions to reflect the impact on unit movement, command and control of trying to fight under air attack. That can add up quickly.

_____________________________


(in reply to dudefan)
Post #: 5
RE: Ground Support strategy - 3/27/2021 10:24:23 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100





regardless of whether you are playing HtH or vs AI

Unchallenged GS is bad news




I disagree with the above statement "regardless of H2h or AI". For sure in a H2H game you could have an issue. Your 3rd sentence gives the reason for my disagreement and as a player you can take advantage of certain situations to get rid of more than enough fighters to shoot down even more bombers after you dealt with the fighters if set up correctly. I have done it & thus for H2H you play with fire in my opinion if flying Defense GS.

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 3/27/2021 10:28:40 PM >

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 6
RE: Ground Support strategy - 3/28/2021 10:07:00 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline 		the mechanism is mode independent - which is what I said.

how you use GS in practice is indeed mode dependent - though I think you are ignoring the rules around just having GS in action triggering more disruptions than the comes directly off plane/unit interaction.

That has some impact on whether to go into a shell in the enemy phase or interact (with the inevitable losses), its a finer judgement than it was at one stage in the game's development

_____________________________


(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 7
RE: Ground Support strategy - 3/28/2021 10:35:51 AM   
devoncop


Posts: 1304
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline 		Surely as a defender you would be better advised to turn defensive GS off and rely on preset AS missions to preserve bomber capability and reduce fatigue ?

_____________________________

"I do not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it"

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 8
RE: Ground Support strategy - 3/28/2021 11:12:15 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline 		its messy in the trade offs.

at one stage, esp with the Soviets, most of the time, the testers were turning off GS in their own phase.

The logic was clear in that you could run up massive losses with marginal contributions. Equally in HtH (or even vs the AI) some axis players would run an attack, see if the VVS responded and then do a massive redeployment to deploy their fighters to take full advantage.

Now that response is a bit harder to set up and more importantly there is a secondary rule over the impact of GS. Bombers create secondary disruption regardless of the primary interaction so your disruptions can escalate. What you'll see in WiTE2 (there is a good eg in the MP beta AAR being presented) is that even apparently strong units can rout if they have lost too many of their front line combat elements at the end of a battle (not just damage/destroyed but also disrupted).

The other complication is that GS on/off merely sets the response of your bombers it doesn't set the response of fighters either in a GS AD, no AD, or left for auto-assign. That is where the rules in 18.1.3 come in, your fighters will go to provide CAP unless you have put them to rest in your turn.

But opting out of defending vs GS can see a marginal retreat flip to a rout (esp with the Soviets in 1941 or the Germans as their NM starts to decrease).

Where the balance sits I'm not sure, but I would take some convincing now not to use defensive GS.

Now an AS over the target zone is another way to bring in figher cover, but its less flexible than fighters in a GS (or auto-intercept) as you had to set up the AD in advance and guess where the combat is going to be (which in many cases is going to be very predictable)

Roger

_____________________________


(in reply to devoncop)
Post #: 9
RE: Ground Support strategy - 3/28/2021 11:35:25 AM   
devoncop


Posts: 1304
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline 		Thanks again

Given the number of hours you have put into the game it is a tribute to the game design that such choices are not clear cut even to you.


_____________________________

"I do not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it"

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 10
RE: Ground Support strategy - 3/31/2021 10:41:47 AM   
GaryD44

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 3/28/2021
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: devoncop

Thanks again

Given the number of hours you have put into the game it is a tribute to the game design that such choices are not clear cut even to you.


I agree. Ideally, the game should present you with a series of trade-offs similar to real life. What I hate most about games is that players can figure out quirks in the rules and "game the system" to their benefit.

(in reply to devoncop)
Post #: 11
RE: Ground Support strategy - 4/3/2021 2:21:11 PM   
Repsol

 

Posts: 191
Joined: 1/20/2010
Status: offline 		How about including a setting in the air directive screen to allow the player to set

- Allow fighters on enemy turn YES/NO
- Allow GS (bombers,attack) on enemy turn YES/NO

The player should be allowed to make these settings for each individual higher air command and for the needed directive types.






(in reply to GaryD44)
Post #: 12
RE: Ground Support strategy - 4/3/2021 3:00:31 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline 		a partial solution is to use the 'rest' function, at the end of your turn place a given tranch of your airforce to rest and it won't take part in GS in the enemy phase

_____________________________


(in reply to Repsol)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2 >> The War Room >> Ground Support strategy Page: [1]
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.984