Doctrine

[pompack]

Tuk: let me try

Playing BTR, no hard numbers recorded, so this is anecdotal from memory [:)]

Doc setting: 109s and 190s set to bounce fighter, 410s set to bounce bomber, 110s set to direct bomber
Setup: 109s and 190s near Channel, 410s and 110s north of Ruhr

Raid progression:
As raids put up over the channel, I guesstimate which are bombers, which are escort, which are sweep. I allocate fighters to escort (half to three quarters of raid strength per raid) and try to ignore sweeps unless they look dangerous (which they usually do). This creates a rolling battle moving slowly inland with many, many raids countered by many interceptor groups. During this portion of the battle I NEVER have fighters attacking bombers unless I have mistakenly assigned someone to a bomber group.

As the raids move inlands, I allocate four fighters per possible bomber group unless someone has already IDed them by attacking (see above). Usually these fighters will try to attack who I told them to, but sometimes doctrine strikes that they go for a fighter instead. It mostly seems to depend on how close the escorts remain to the bombers at that point.

As the raids begin to shake out and I can identify deep penetration raids and the escort and I still have fighters assigned to attack those escorts, I allocate the destroyers to the bombers (but only after someone has actually identified a bomber by attacking it.)

During the late portions of the raid, the 109s and 190s will begin to target bombers to a limited extent (less than 10% by guestimate). The 410s and 110s will virtually NEVER attack a fighter (although there are rare exceptions, probably less than 1%).

Occasionally I will make a boo-boo and target a destroyer group on a fighter (and usually this is in the withdrawal phase where I get a little confused about who is whom). Even then the destroyers will tend to go for a bomber if they can find one; the only place I see repeated attacks by 410s against escort are when I have assigned them an isolated escort group as a target and they can't find anyone else (and yes I will grab for the recall button if I see it happen).

So from my standpoint, it looks like doctrine works very well indeed.

[Tuk]

Pompack, thanks for addressing this issue, I'm not the only person to have noticed it. If we are indeed playing the same game, I can only assume that more people haven't raised it because you can still get a good kill ratio in spite of the problem. I cannot believe, however, that this is working as designed. Here is an example of what happens-



I have about 120-130 interceptors, all on bounce -fighter doctrine and all moving on an incoming group of 50 escorts which are to rendezvous with returning bombers. I think to myself, surely this time I get them!

[Tuk]

See how the interceptors have climbed to 30 000, yet the escorts have lowered to just under 16000...

[Tuk]

So, all but two attacks are made on the bombers. The Thunderbolts have one plane damaged and it later crashes. One plane hit wihen 120+ interceptors were assigned to hit them.
 
This is not the exception, it's the rule. How do you explain this?

[Hard Sarge]

to be honest, based on the screen shot, would say it is working as it is suppost to

the LW are high, the bombers are closer to the LW fighters then the preferred targets so, so they will attack what is there

I don't know, when I target fighters, I attack fighters

I just ran a turn, set up one of the Honens to attack some late Spits coming in, they made a number of attacks on the Spits as they joined up with the bombers, then seen one of them break off and chase a damaged bomber, looks right to me

[Tuk]

The question is, why are the fighters high when the escorts they are set to target are low? This is not patrols at a set hight diverted to target escorts, they took off tasked to attack escorts. I didn't check, but presume the escorts dived rather than came in low, but it makes no difference here. They were picked up by one interceptor group on the way in, and followed, so their altitude and approx whereabouts should have been known to everyone.
 
 
Clearly and demonstrably, whatever example you cite to the contrary- and I'm not disbelieving you- all fighters like to go for bombers given the choice. Please, will you look into the code, I know its not working as designed.

[Hard Sarge]

Tuk

the LW didn't care how many Allied fighters got shot down, they didn't mean anyting (other then in helping the main goal)

everything is geared to knocking down the bomber

you could be the best dogfighter in the world, it didn't mean anything if you didn't knock down bombers too

now in the case you show, I would agree, I think the fighters dropped down on something they seen, leaving the LW to still be tracking and coming in high, but once there, the Bombers would become the main target, as the fighters are out of range

if you watch enough raids, you see during combat, there may be planes between 2000 and 30000, the dive, climb and any other thing you can think of

all I can think of, is you got to hit the fighters before they join up with the bombers ?

(if there is nothing else in the area, they got to fight the fighters, but once they get into the mix, they going to attack what they got the best chance to hit)

oddly, playing from the Allied side, vs the AI, I think the AI goes too heavy vs the fighters to start with, so not sure if what we are seeing is play style vs programming

[Tuk]

the LW didn't care how many Allied fighters got shot down, they didn't mean anyting (other then in helping the main goal)

everything is geared to knocking down the bomber... ...all I can think of, is you got to hit the fighters before they join up with the bombers ?
 (if there is nothing else in the area, they got to fight the fighters, but once they get into the mix, they going to attack what they got the best chance to hit)

 
If interceptors only attack fighters when they have no choice, or can see no bombers, I think that makes my point. So why beat about the bush? Shouldn't the game state it clearly and not mislead players into unachievable strategies with doctrines which are not actually programmed into the game?
 
The escorts didn't see anything lower than them, they just dived when they saw the interceptors. I see it all the time as I noted in post #20, and the interceptors then go for the bombers.
 
As regards play style, I can't see much room for it, except for having patrols in the air and ready to hit return escorts before they reach their bomber formation.
 
 

[HMSWarspite]

Health warning: advice based on Talonsoft version, but unlikely to have changed I think.

I am not sure, but I think there is a targeting issue here. If you select to intercept a bomber raid, you are (in effect) telling the unit to do just that - attack the bombers you targeted. They will not attack another group (even fighters), unless they attack first. If you tell an interceptor to attack a fighter escort, they will tend to do that. You cannot attack a bomber group with an interceptor on 'bounce fighters', and expect them to do anything other than atteck the bombers.

To strip off escorts you must target the escort groups explicitly, and hope your attackers dont see something else first. I have never worked out what happens with close escort fighters, but the majority of fighters will be on high cover anyway, so it is academic...


Does this help?

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Health warning: advice based on Talonsoft version, but unlikely to have changed I think.

I am not sure, but I think there is a targeting issue here. If you select to intercept a bomber raid, you are (in effect) telling the unit to do just that - attack the bombers you targeted. They will not attack another group (even fighters), unless they attack first. If you tell an interceptor to attack a fighter escort, they will tend to do that. You cannot attack a bomber group with an interceptor on 'bounce fighters', and expect them to do anything other than atteck the bombers.

To strip off escorts you must target the escort groups explicitly, and hope your attackers dont see something else first. I have never worked out what happens with close escort fighters, but the majority of fighters will be on high cover anyway, so it is academic...

Absolutely agree Warspite. This is exactly the way I see it working today as I posted above. Unless I target a bomber group explicitly, I never see fighters with Bounce Fighter doctrine attack bombers. If the targeted escorts stay high or go low the fighters follow them.

EDIT: and that is the reason it is so critical to try and identify the bombers as early as possible. Against the AI it is easy, but against a human opponent you need to look for patterns in his deployment and NEVER commit too many interceptors to the battle until you have sorted out which are wolves and which are sheep (and Hermann was wrong: go for the wolves first if you want to live to fight another day[:D])

And relating to some posts on another thread, that is a good reason for the LW to use patrols: sometimes you have to hold your people just outside the battle zone while the first responders sort out where the escorts are. On occasion I even have to move the patrols to stay outside that battle zone (and a royal pain it is to move twenty or thirty groups from one patrol location to another)

DISCLAIMER:While I have never played PBEM in this game I am basing the comments about human opponents on the old BTR experience. The results against the AI are current with v1.02

[Tuk]

Unless I target a bomber group explicitly, I never see fighters with Bounce Fighter doctrine attack bombers. If the targeted escorts stay high or go low the fighters follow them.

In which case we are most definitely playing a different game.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Tuk

Unless I target a bomber group explicitly, I never see fighters with Bounce Fighter doctrine attack bombers. If the targeted escorts stay high or go low the fighters follow them.

In which case we are most definitely playing a different game.

Be patient with me, but I want to make sure I really understand [:)]

1. fighters set to Bounce Fighter Doctrine
2. fighters explictly commanded to attack a known fighter raid
3. fighters instead attack bombers in a different raid

Do I have it correct?

[Tuk]

Yep,
 
Set to bounce fighter doctrine.
 
Either sortied directly at an escort group, deliberately converted from patrol to intercept known escorts or patrol converting to intercept on own initiative. I've tried it all.
 
Fighters instead attack bombers from a different raid.
 
-----------------------------------------------------
 
I've outlined the various circimstances it occurs in previous posts. Now I'm focusing on where they occasionally intercept their intended targets.
 
I find so far-
 
1. If the escorts are a little behind their bombers, angle a patrol to catch them up from behind and that will work. Once separated from bombers you can get the escorts fine (though I had one example of interceptors attacking through escorts at same altitude to get to the bombers behind them. Shame must have deleted the screenie).
 
2. Get the little burgers before they rendezvous with bombers on the return trip.
 
3. If very lucky, I will catch a top escort layer when bouncing from on high. Speed of interceptors may play a part here, as escorts will usually try to dive below the bombers and you know what happens then.... So engage them in a dogfight before they can scoot.
 
4. Sometimes the escorts don't dive but duke it out instead.
 
5. Once escorts engage interceptors they will often lose the bombers and attack escorts back.
 
There are probably a few more instances I can't recall off hand but they all add up to the same thing. Fighters, whatever doctrine you give them, always choose bombers just as gentlemen, supposedly, prefer blondes.
 
Something else I noticed which is related. All the 1943 nightfighters are set to direct bomber doctrine. I've never noticed them attacking without a bounce though.
 
All this leads me to believe that doctrine is a fiction. If it is programmed somewhere, it is being over ridden by something much stronger in the code.
 
 

[otisabuser2]

Hi Tuk,

gotta ask, because it has not been mentioned so far.

Have you checked that the doctrine is set to bounce fighter for the correct Command ? They can be asked do one thing in France, and other further east, etc.

[Tuk]

lol. No harm in asking the obvious, overlooking it is often the problem but not this time. The only point I can see in it is that sorting units by doctrine when allocating interceptors to raids makes this task simpler, so yes, all commands have the same doctrines.
 
Having said that, the last few days I've noticed bounce fighter units have started to intercept fighters a bit more. Hardly following their doctine, but not flouting it for the sake of it. I'm wondering if unit experience might play a part?