Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
...

Show me a picture from early game for your fighter interception. Later in the war of course your interception is going to be good. My average is about 1 in 7 bombing raids if I had to guess on interception on GA. When I do intercept and there are Soviet fighters there I get eaten alive too :(

The mass bombings is a bit off the charts. I thought Soviet bombers were used for mostly ground support?

I'm not arguing I could get that early game - which is the point. There is a lot of noise that auto-intercept is broken, its not it works exactly as it should. Well supplied fighters will intercept pretty much at range, poorly supplied fighters struggle.

Think of it this way. An airbase with plenty of fuel can scramble on the possibility that this time its for real, one lacking fuel etc has to be damn sure its identified a real raid. You can map the varying response of the RAF during the Battle of Britain onto this distinction.

AFAIK, you get experience either by training (in reserve, not resting, exp<NM)or via pilot wins. Not sure you get anything for just flying around?

which indirectly leads to an answer on this

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Also can we fix the Minor countries air units in Axis Reserves and Soviet Garrison? I can't get mine out of the vicious circle of not coming to the map once place in either of those two boxes :(

all I can do is report what I see. I make no claims to competence at the game, I'm certainly doing nothing special to get the results I report.

so, have no idea why you can't so here we are. Open a random air base, select a Hungarian bomber AOG and I can bring Hungarian LB to the map ... 3 clicks and there they are




edit: and as above (& I realise you aren't doing this), muddling up AS/AD, auto-intercept-GS and auto-intercept-GA really doesn't help understanding

edit 2: from Stahel's work using German combat diaries, interdiction was the main thing the VVS did in 1941. In our terms the German's over-reacted, there are reports of Pzr regiments deploying off road when threatened by a few SB-2s. Oddly I think the VVS abandoned this as it retrained in early 1942 to focus more closely on battlefield support, certainly by 1943 it seems they mostly (in game turns) ran GS.

Oh, THANK YOU. No I haven't tried that let me try real quick since I was just trying it from the TB boxes only. Why didn't anyone say anything? :(

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Soooooooo, I looks to me that when you bring German Aircraft on air bases in the Soviet Union the Germans are acquiring their Air support as a Soviet & that Air Support experience is in the 40's. But if you place an airgroup in Germany the Germans will get the correct value of 70 for Air support. This could be an underlying cause I would suspect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Soooooooo, I looks to me that when you bring German Aircraft on air bases in the Soviet Union the Germans are acquiring their Air support as a Soviet & that Air Support experience is in the 40's. But if you place an airgroup in Germany the Germans will get the correct value of 70 for Air support. This could be an underlying cause I would suspect.

Matter of fact it looks like the whole darn Airbase acquired Soviet stats in Soviet union :(

quote:

There is a lot of noise that auto-intercept is broken, its not it works exactly as it should. Well supplied fighters will intercept pretty much at range, poorly supplied fighters struggle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

quote:

There is a lot of noise that auto-intercept is broken, its not it works exactly as it should. Well supplied fighters will intercept pretty much at range, poorly supplied fighters struggle.

I have to disagree with this, see this post: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5077441
The supplies at Memel are showing 100% plus and those fighters never intercept.
Maybe you need more than 100% or maybe one of the other criteria is not being met. My question is what criteria and what does it need to be ?

I do agree that it is primarily a problem of not intercepting GA, and that massed bombing attacks by the VVS is unrealistic. Which is why am suggesting a house rule, at least in my games, to not use GA at least until interception is fixed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

quote:

There is a lot of noise that auto-intercept is broken, its not it works exactly as it should. Well supplied fighters will intercept pretty much at range, poorly supplied fighters struggle.

I have to disagree with this, see this post: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5077441
The supplies at Memel are showing 100% plus and those fighters never intercept.
Maybe you need more than 100% or maybe one of the other criteria is not being met. My question is what criteria and what does it need to be ?

I do agree that it is primarily a problem of not intercepting GA, and that massed bombing attacks by the VVS is unrealistic. Which is why am suggesting a house rule, at least in my games, to not use GA at least until interception is fixed.

Ya, I agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jubjub

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

quote:

There is a lot of noise that auto-intercept is broken, its not it works exactly as it should. Well supplied fighters will intercept pretty much at range, poorly supplied fighters struggle.

I have to disagree with this, see this post: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5077441
The supplies at Memel are showing 100% plus and those fighters never intercept.
Maybe you need more than 100% or maybe one of the other criteria is not being met. My question is what criteria and what does it need to be ?

I do agree that it is primarily a problem of not intercepting GA, and that massed bombing attacks by the VVS is unrealistic. Which is why am suggesting a house rule, at least in my games, to not use GA at least until interception is fixed.

Ya, I agree.

I don't think the VVS potential is overrated. The VVS was a major thorn in the Germans side through out the war. Check out the operational history of a couple of bomber regiments. Granted, these are probably standout performers among the VVS, but still show the Soviets were capable of inflicting large amounts of damage from the first few days of the war. There's no English articles, but the automatic google translate function seems to work well enough.


Single regiment flies 370 sorties in a day:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/31-%D0%B9_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA

Regiment responsible for destroying 126 tanks, 150+ trucks, 15 artillery pieces, and 2735 manpower from June 23 to August 28, 1941.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/140-%D0%B9_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA

Similar results flying SU-2's. From June 29 to August 15, the regiment, operating on the Central Front , performed 590 sorties, destroyed and damaged 45 aircraft, 125 tanks, 375 vehicles with cargo, 1 ammunition depot, 8 guns, 1 headquarters and up to 5,000 enemy soldiers and officers.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/103-%D0%B9_%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B6%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BA

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I would absolutely love to see some Pro Axis stuff posted from time to time. Gets tiring of seeing everything about Soviets being GAWDS at everything they do from day 1 of the war :(

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzer51

Most of these are their own reports. You need to cross-reference them with German ones to see if any of these are true. Soviets were notorious in exaggeration of their successes especially in 1941 when reporting something bad to higher ups could've easily resulted in execution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: metaphore
...
I don't have time for compiling further details and numbers. So, in final, just be aware that auto-interception is quite a complex piece of code and changing a single parameter in your ADs could result in some very unexpected things (like YHLA showed on his late AAR). I can tell myself that there are more loopholes than that and I really doubt that the whole system is actually "Working as Designed".

Your claim really isn't supported by your data. It also seems you are mixing up AD design with auto-intercept (which is outside the AD system).

Also auto-intercept works differently when it interactions with GA style missions compared to GS

quote:

ORIGINAL: metaphore

...
Or, am I wrong saying that, because of such code complexity, it might not be (no claim) "working as designed"?
I think you know the answer too... as, since the dev admiting it, you edited your own post claiming just the opposite.

Or, is it simply the word "loophole" that triggered you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100
your test was all about the interaction of auto-intercept and GS. That has a set of specific rules - see the manual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: metaphore

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100
your test was all about the interaction of auto-intercept and GS. That has a set of specific rules - see the manual.

Ok, Loki, forget the rhetorical part and be practical then: which part of the manual specific rules changed since last patch? I can't see any patch note clarifying that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: metaphore

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100
your test was all about the interaction of auto-intercept and GS. That has a set of specific rules - see the manual.

Ok, Loki, forget the rhetorical part and be practical then: which part of the manual specific rules changed since last patch? I can't see any patch note clarifying that.

None .. but the rules for interception of GS are different, read the manual as written and released. This isn't a new distinction, its been in the game since release - in fact in the game since well before release.

quote:

Fighter interception will still be problematic whilst advancing due to the having to rebase in just seized airbases, thus being pratically out of personnel and supplies in the new bases too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

An example of the effect of mass GA as the game stands.

The first two pics show GA against units both with two AA SUs. The Panzer division has a battalion and a company. The mot division has two battalions including the 'super' marine AA SU, Axis just have a couple of near this quality. As can be seen the first round of bombing takes out a lot of the AA, so that subsequent rounds of bombing are facing less or possibly no AA. This looks to be part of the game engine as almost invariably there are disproportionately high losses suffered by the AA elements.

The third pic shows the ground combat on the Panzer division after it has been hit by 14 GAs. It should have had a CV of 1-200, instead it has dropped to 14. This is the usual consequence of heavy GA, a lot of elements are damaged so the in combat CV will be much lower than the displayed value.
In this division there were 23 tanks lost to AA and then another 39 lost during ground combat, most of them because they were damaged by AA.

This is all WAD, there was fair amount of discussion about it a year or so ago during testing. However at that time fighter interception was working better.
I think this is something that has always been wrong in the way this aspect of the game functions. Massed GA is too effective and as Loki says unrealistic for the Soviets at this period of the war. The problem is exacerbated by fighter intercepts not working fully to the extent if the Soviet player takes advantage it is a game breaker.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

An example of the effect of mass GA as the game stands.

The first two pics show GA against units both with two AA SUs. The Panzer division has a battalion and a company. The mot division has two battalions including the 'super' marine AA SU, Axis just have a couple of near this quality. As can be seen the first round of bombing takes out a lot of the AA, so that subsequent rounds of bombing are facing less or possibly no AA. This looks to be part of the game engine as almost invariably there are disproportionately high losses suffered by the AA elements.

The third pic shows the ground combat on the Panzer division after it has been hit by 14 GAs. It should have had a CV of 1-200, instead it has dropped to 14. This is the usual consequence of heavy GA, a lot of elements are damaged so the in combat CV will be much lower than the displayed value.
In this division there were 23 tanks lost to AA and then another 39 lost during ground combat, most of them because they were damaged by AA.

This is all WAD, there was fair amount of discussion about it a year or so ago during testing. However at that time fighter interception was working better.
I think this is something that has always been wrong in the way this aspect of the game functions. Massed GA is too effective and as Loki says unrealistic for the Soviets at this period of the war. The problem is exacerbated by fighter intercepts not working fully to the extent if the Soviet player takes advantage it is a game breaker.

I feel your pain and seen the same in my game but not 12+ GA's on a hex.

Make ground attack cost 4 AP per airgroup to fly in 41 for the administrative nightmare or coordinating the whole thing along with the supply call for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

It is the same concept of moving units adjacent to an enemy that sits there and wait due to the IGO-UGO system, and pratically pounce on them with overwhelming odds.

Same is for the massive air strikes, so is to maneuver a Soviet Army with the admin movement and all.

I thought to have read on the manual that the Air Rating of a leader determines how many planes fly - but yes that does not seem a grand issue for Soviets; I agree with JJ about increasing difficulty tests the more AoG or even just Air Units are to partake in the same mission, at coordination level, finding the right target, etc.