Sorry but I have to rant.....

[Kadrin]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Bombers turning back was quite the player requested feature for, ohhh....about 4 years during WitP's lifetime. See all the posts on the old WitP forum titled "why do my bombers go into the target unescorted?"

The simple fix for that would have been to add a toggle for bombers. Attack target only if escort is present: Yes/No.

[AcePylut]

In thinking more about this, I actually like that bombers will fly unescorted.  Happened all the time. 
 
I think, though, that the "die roll" that checks to see if bombers "run away" when CAP attacks, should be greatly increased for unescorted attacks.  I.e. after the first bomber or two is splashed, the rest should be turning back.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

In thinking more about this, I actually like that bombers will fly unescorted.  Happened all the time. 

I think, though, that the "die roll" that checks to see if bombers "run away" when CAP attacks, should be greatly increased for unescorted attacks.  I.e. after the first bomber or two is splashed, the rest should be turning back.

the question will be though how this should look like. If morale is low enough you can have 50 bombers running into 200 fighters and after the first bomber is damaged, the whole squadron turns back. After the next bomber damaged, the next squadron turns back and this means all bombers would have turned back. How would this work in real life though? The fighters would not just land again letting the bombers escape unharmed.

[AcePylut]

Dunno, haven't worked out all the fine details, and obviously there would be some fine details. 
 
The more I think about it, the more I think it's WAD, and I don't really have a problem with "unescorted flights getting beat up" too much...  the real issue imho is when you have 100 zero's go escort a Mary dive bomber attacking an AKL, instead of escorting the Big Netty Strike.
 
So either the "choice of who to escort" needs to be fixed, or something needs to be done to reduce the "desire" of an unescorted strike to continue it's attack when it meets heavy CAP. 

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

Dunno, haven't worked out all the fine details, and obviously there would be some fine details. 

The more I think about it, the more I think it's WAD, and I don't really have a problem with "unescorted flights getting beat up" too much...  the real issue imho is when you have 100 zero's go escort a Mary dive bomber attacking an AKL, instead of escorting the Big Netty Strike.

So either the "choice of who to escort" needs to be fixed, or something needs to be done to reduce the "desire" of an unescorted strike to continue it's attack when it meets heavy CAP. 

#


agreed, but this pretty much goes towards strike coordination again and that´s not my pet peeve! [;)]

[Q-Ball]

I don't have a problem with the bombers sometimes flying unescorted. Flights got separated all the time. Look at Midway: How many of those SBD/TBD groups had a close fighter escort? Some did, some didn't, it was chaotic.

IMO, it's fine, even if that means sometimes I lose a bunch of planes. C'est la guerre!

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

the real issue imho is when you have 100 zero's go escort a Mary dive bomber attacking an AKL, instead of escorting the Big Netty Strike.

Isn't a fix for this setting the Netties/Zekes at one atltitude and the DBs and their escorts at another?

[Nikademus]

Setting bombers and fighters at various different alts increases the chance for them operating seperately while setting all to the same alt decreases it but there are still rolls and randoms. No gurantees.

[Xargun]

Couldn't we use the LRCAP settings where we can pick a specific TF - just change it (no idea if even possible) to allow you to select an air group to LRCAP (escort). Or even call it LR Escort where we specify an specific airgroup to escort - and if that airgroup doesn't fly the fighters stay home too.

Xargun

[Nikademus]

Code changes for game tweaks are unlikely at this point. You can narrow the scope of your fighters in the escort role by selecting a specific base as a target when they are set to the "Escort" mission. They will only escort strikes to that target, no other.

Range settings are another way to tailor the selection process for escorting strikes but ultimately....no, you cannot set them to escort specific strike elements.

[AcePylut]

"You can narrow the scope of your fighters in the escort role by selecting a specific base as a target when they are set to the "Escort" mission. They will only escort strikes to that target, no other. "
 
Well that's good news, didn't know that... and sounds like the solution to my complaint. 
 
Zero's will escort the 100 Netty strike on Manila, not the 3 Mabel strike on the ships fleeing Hong Kong.  There is still a chance the escorts get separated from the bombers, which is good, imho. 
 
What won't happen, is the Zero's give those betties a big middle finger as they fly off and guard the 3 Jake attack on Guam, or what have ya!

[Nikademus]

be careful when pitting multiple in range airbases to a target, especially if one base has no fighters of it's own. Your fighters may end up escorting a strike from a nearby base which can then result in the bombers from the fighter's home base flying in unescorted.