I have just sent this message with my last PBEM turn

[Andy Mac]

I sweep for 2 or 3 days before I want to bomb I dont take th erisk of lack of co ordination unless I have to.
 
 

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Swenslim

There is simple rule - order at least 1 group to sweep enemy airbase, because in 90% cases in my games sweep mission arrives before bombers and escorting frighters. So the skys are clear for strike force, or enemy CAP is disrupted and has high level of fatigue.

I haven't seen even close to 90% sweeps going in first. Do you have a certain technique you use, or make certain the circumstances are within certain parameters? Care to share? [:)]

[sfbaytf]

I've pondered the sending in of sweeps before bombing raids, but I felt that it would que your opponent off and give away some element of surprise. This would allow him to withdraw some valuable squadrons and in the case of ports with shipping you want to bomb while they're in port, would alow your opponent to get them out of port.

The allieds with their B-17, B-24's and B-29's I think can pull off a surprise raid without prior sweeps with with a better chance of success and coming away with accepptable losses. The Japanese with their more vulnerable bomber may want to sweep more before bombing.

One good thing about sweeping a day or 2 before bombing is when you do bomb you'll probably catch more damaged planes on the ground that are being repaired from engaging your prior days sweeps.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: Swenslim
There is simple rule - order at least 1 group to sweep enemy airbase, because in 90% cases in my games sweep mission arrives before bombers and escorting frighters. So the skys are clear for strike force, or enemy CAP is disrupted and has high level of fatigue.

We must not be playing the same game. At least 98% of my sweep missions come in after bombers and escorting fighters.

Probably because of different tactics in using the sweep?

If you want a high chance of sweeps coordinating (means sweep arrive first) with raids they have to be at the same altitude. If you sweep significantly higher
you might raise the chances of effective sweep but trade it for overall coordination.
Also cruise speed differences of the airframes could have an impact.

[Swenslim]

I dont know why this happens, maybe depends on agressivnes level of air group commander and speed of fighters ?

And my sweep groups are usually have more exp level than escort.

[LoBaron]

Assigning different missions to squads based on exp level is a good tactic.

[Oldguard1970]

I thought it was important for the squadrons assigned to sweep to be based closer to the target than the attack squadrons.  Is that true?

[Canoerebel]

Nothing works - at least for the Allies early in the game.  I had fighter squadrons based much closer to the target hex than were the bombers and escorts, but the fighters always flew their sweep missions after the bombers and escorts.  Distance, HQ, experience, and equivalent altitudes did not help.

[AcePylut]

It should be on the flight leader to get his flock where they need to be and on time to meet the bombers. And frankly pretty much anyone out of flight school can do that (except of course the leader of flight 19).

There's so many other factors that go into "getting there at the right time".  It's not a matter of "meeting above the friendly airport" at the right time, it's a matter of "meeting above the *enemy* airport" at the right time.  After all, a plane that flies 300kias would want to depart after the 200kias flight.. and now you're trying to get them to meet at the same spot 600nm away.    Suppose that 200kias flight needs to take off and start flyign to target immediately due to fuel concerns (i.e the 300kias flight can't fly at 200kias becasue that's not 'best cruise' speed, and the flight needs to be at best cruise to have the endurance to make it to the target).... now you're trying to coordinate a "meeting" between strike and escort 500 nm away in injun territory, not over your own airfield.  That, even with clear weather and no enemy, is no an easy thing. 
 
Suppose there was a 5 minute rainsquall at the departure zone.  What if one plane experienced trouble taking off, and tied up the runway for a few mins.  What if the actual winds aloft were different than the forecast, and you were facing a 20knot headwind instead of a 10kt tailwind.  Suppose the flight leader had engine trouble.  Suppose the navigator made a mistake in navigation - it's not that hard to do.... lets face it, these guys aren't dealing with GPS, VOR's, Loran systems like we have now... they were dealing with dead-reckoning.  That is a MUCH more difficult skill to be proficient at.  This all assumes that all the base commanders at the various bases got the right information.  Suppose they did, and the zero flight was under heavy fog but the bombers weren't, and the message wasn't relayed that the fighters were going to be an hour late.  Suppose that they loaded up on bombs for the "normal range flight" and thus don't have any fuel reserves to dilly-dally around the coordination point. 
 
Suppose that you put the most aggressive commander in that squadron of bombers... do you think that he's going to "turn around" cuz his fighters didn't show up?
 
I bring this all up, because it really seems that there are a couple of "set and forget" things in AE... one of them being "set all your fighter squadrons with leaders that have high aggression".  Perhaps this thinking needs to be evaluated.  Perhaps putting commanders with the highest admin (for example) would help coordinate fighter escort better. 

I dunno.  Someone want to test the effects of leader skills on coordination?  Then weather?
 
 
 

[Andy Mac]

The main reason the allies suffer earlty war is the low general xcp level of the aircraft

[khyberbill]

I thought it was important for the squadrons assigned to sweep to be based closer to the target than the attack squadrons. Is that true?

Only if the exp of the pilots is better than 50. In fact, >60 is preferable.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: AcePylut

It should be on the flight leader to get his flock where they need to be and on time to meet the bombers. And frankly pretty much anyone out of flight school can do that (except of course the leader of flight 19).

There's so many other factors that go into "getting there at the right time".  It's not a matter of "meeting above the friendly airport" at the right time, it's a matter of "meeting above the *enemy* airport" at the right time.  After all, a plane that flies 300kias would want to depart after the 200kias flight.. and now you're trying to get them to meet at the same spot 600nm away.    Suppose that 200kias flight needs to take off and start flyign to target immediately due to fuel concerns (i.e the 300kias flight can't fly at 200kias becasue that's not 'best cruise' speed, and the flight needs to be at best cruise to have the endurance to make it to the target).... now you're trying to coordinate a "meeting" between strike and escort 500 nm away in injun territory, not over your own airfield.  That, even with clear weather and no enemy, is no an easy thing. 

Suppose there was a 5 minute rainsquall at the departure zone. What if one plane experienced trouble taking off, and tied up the runway for a few mins. What if the actual winds aloft were different than the forecast, and you were facing a 20knot headwind instead of a 10kt tailwind. Suppose the flight leader had engine trouble.  Suppose the navigator made a mistake in navigation - it's not that hard to do.... lets face it, these guys aren't dealing with GPS, VOR's, Loran systems like we have now... they were dealing with dead-reckoning.  That is a MUCH more difficult skill to be proficient at.  This all assumes that all the base commanders at the various bases got the right information.  Suppose they did, and the zero flight was under heavy fog but the bombers weren't, and the message wasn't relayed that the fighters were going to be an hour late.  Suppose that they loaded up on bombs for the "normal range flight" and thus don't have any fuel reserves to dilly-dally around the coordination point. 

Suppose that you put the most aggressive commander in that squadron of bombers... do you think that he's going to "turn around" cuz his fighters didn't show up?

I bring this all up, because it really seems that there are a couple of "set and forget" things in AE... one of them being "set all your fighter squadrons with leaders that have high aggression".  Perhaps this thinking needs to be evaluated.  Perhaps putting commanders with the highest admin (for example) would help coordinate fighter escort better. 

I dunno.  Someone want to test the effects of leader skills on coordination?  Then weather?

all the time? We´re pretty much back in abstraction fantasy again. Like said probably a hundred times already, this should be the exception and not the norm. 9 out of 10 times you´re not able to get two squadrons to fly together. I´m not talking about 1000 bomber strikes.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Nothing works - at least for the Allies early in the game.  I had fighter squadrons based much closer to the target hex than were the bombers and escorts, but the fighters always flew their sweep missions after the bombers and escorts.  Distance, HQ, experience, and equivalent altitudes did not help.

Canorebel did you also consider if the coorinated altitudes are unique in the area of operations?
From your AAR I see you are running operations that require a high ammount of different missions with different targets. If they "overlap" in altitude the game engine gets confusd which squadrons to
coordinate.
If I want to fly a risky mission with a high coordination chance I´d doublecheck if the squads assigned to this mission fly at a unique altitude.

[FatR]

I only see systematic coordination problems in my PBEM if many squadrons fly from a single airfield that just barely satisfies the size and support requirements (in my case, Rangoon). Usually some bombers fall behind. Local fighters almost always connect with the main raid, though, despite flying at much higher attitude.
Bad unit commanders, aicraft with significantly different cruise speeds on 15-hex-distance raids and general inexperience also punished me with miscoordination a few times. But this happened less often than outright refusal to fly.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Miller

"I'm really at my wits end regarding the airstrike co-ordination bullshit. It seems to be mission impossible to get any sort of worthwhile escort to arrive at the same time as the bombers".

I have tried everything that has been suggested: Fighters at same Alt as bombers (even though that puts them at a huge disadvantage against CAP), limiting the range to non-extended, high morale, high inspiration pilots/leaders, more aviation support than is needed at a base, Air HQ at a base....nothing seems to work.

I'm sorry but an escorted strike was not beyond the IJN in 1944, no matter how inept their pilots/leaders.

Are your airgroups all assigned to the same Air HQ and is this Air HQ located at the base?

If you use airgroups that are assigned to different Air HQ and/or the airgroups are not within the command range of their Air HQ it is no wonder that you don't get many coordinated airstrikes. In WITP, the presence of an Air HQ (any) within range was sufficient, in the AE this is not the case.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Miller

"I'm really at my wits end regarding the airstrike co-ordination bullshit. It seems to be mission impossible to get any sort of worthwhile escort to arrive at the same time as the bombers".

I have tried everything that has been suggested: Fighters at same Alt as bombers (even though that puts them at a huge disadvantage against CAP), limiting the range to non-extended, high morale, high inspiration pilots/leaders, more aviation support than is needed at a base, Air HQ at a base....nothing seems to work.

I'm sorry but an escorted strike was not beyond the IJN in 1944, no matter how inept their pilots/leaders.

Are your airgroups all assigned to the same Air HQ and is this Air HQ located at the base?

If you use airgroups that are assigned to different Air HQ and/or the airgroups are not within the command range of their Air HQ it is no wonder that you don't get many coordinated airstrikes. In WITP, the presence of an Air HQ (any) within range was sufficient, in the AE this is not the case.

Kereguelen, is this the official statement about it now or not? As we´ve spoken earlier about this I´ve tried it in an AI game and have not seen any difference. May of course be my version.

The only thing that worked (for me) was giving the squadrons very high exp using the editor. This should also explain why I usuall see massed coordinated strikes early in the game - JAPANESE coordinated strikes. The Japanese have high exp early in the game. Everything else than exp, nothing helps in MY game and is in MY games only plain theory. Others seem to confirm this as there are quite experienced players trying to coordinate their strikes too but fail.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Miller

"I'm really at my wits end regarding the airstrike co-ordination bullshit. It seems to be mission impossible to get any sort of worthwhile escort to arrive at the same time as the bombers".

I have tried everything that has been suggested: Fighters at same Alt as bombers (even though that puts them at a huge disadvantage against CAP), limiting the range to non-extended, high morale, high inspiration pilots/leaders, more aviation support than is needed at a base, Air HQ at a base....nothing seems to work.

I'm sorry but an escorted strike was not beyond the IJN in 1944, no matter how inept their pilots/leaders.

Are your airgroups all assigned to the same Air HQ and is this Air HQ located at the base?

If you use airgroups that are assigned to different Air HQ and/or the airgroups are not within the command range of their Air HQ it is no wonder that you don't get many coordinated airstrikes. In WITP, the presence of an Air HQ (any) within range was sufficient, in the AE this is not the case.

Kereguelen, is this the official statement about it now or not? As we´ve spoken earlier about this I´ve tried it in an AI game and have not seen any difference. May of course be my version.

The only thing that worked (for me) was giving the squadrons very high exp using the editor. This should also explain why I usuall see massed coordinated strikes early in the game - JAPANESE coordinated strikes. The Japanese have high exp early in the game. Everything else than exp, nothing helps in MY game and is in MY games only plain theory. Others seem to confirm this as there are quite experienced players trying to coordinate their strikes too but fail.

As I told you before, it does not guarantee coordination but it helps.

Japan begins the game with experienced airgroups which are properly assigned to 'their' Air HQ's. Many players shuffle their airgroups around alot without paying proper attention to their Air HQ assignments (have seen enough saves which show this). But as you already know, there are many factors that may lead to a 'perfect' airstrike or may prevent such a 'perfect' airstrike. Some players manage to somewhat optimize their performance, some do not. Anyway, it is my impression that many players still act on their experience gained by playing WITP. Some things simply do not work the same way they did in WITP. But players will eventually learn - and I think this is part of the fun of the AE.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen




Are your airgroups all assigned to the same Air HQ and is this Air HQ located at the base?

If you use airgroups that are assigned to different Air HQ and/or the airgroups are not within the command range of their Air HQ it is no wonder that you don't get many coordinated airstrikes. In WITP, the presence of an Air HQ (any) within range was sufficient, in the AE this is not the case.

Kereguelen, is this the official statement about it now or not? As we´ve spoken earlier about this I´ve tried it in an AI game and have not seen any difference. May of course be my version.

The only thing that worked (for me) was giving the squadrons very high exp using the editor. This should also explain why I usuall see massed coordinated strikes early in the game - JAPANESE coordinated strikes. The Japanese have high exp early in the game. Everything else than exp, nothing helps in MY game and is in MY games only plain theory. Others seem to confirm this as there are quite experienced players trying to coordinate their strikes too but fail.

As I told you before, it does not guarantee coordination but it helps.

Japan begins the game with experienced airgroups which are properly assigned to 'their' Air HQ's. Many players shuffle their airgroups around alot without paying proper attention to their Air HQ assignments (have seen enough saves which show this). But as you already know, there are many factors that may lead to a 'perfect' airstrike or may prevent such a 'perfect' airstrike. Some players manage to somewhat optimize their performance, some do not. Anyway, it is my impression that many players still act on their experience gained by playing WITP. Some things simply do not work the same way they did in WITP. But players will eventually learn - and I think this is part of the fun of the AE.

I´m thankful for every input and I can asure you that I don´t ignore such things. I´ve asked if this is the official statement on HQ effect or not, because if it is then this means at some point you SHOULD see an impact if there´s a routine on it. If it´s just an abstracted fantasy (of which there has been an endlessly long list lately) then it´s not worth looking further into it (for me). After you told me, I tried to find a difference (in an AI game because the pps in my PBEM were worth too much to be spent on something I don´t know if it even works) but failed doing so. And it wasn´t just one or two attacks, I tried to do it dozens of turns, without ever seeing a difference. Up to now, the only thing I for sure can confirm is that experience is a huge factor. Big enough that probably everyone can notice it. Problem is that people won´t see the majority of their squadrons at 70+ exp because it take two years of combat to reach that. My 4E bomber squadrons in my PBEM have done 100+ missions (bombing missions) and still are in the high 50s or low 60s. By far not enough to see them coordinating. That´s what is IMO wrong because I doubt that it took combat pilots two years of war to be able to see one squadron of fighters joining the other one to fly a coordinated 50 fighter sweep (if ordered to do so). I´m not talking about hundreds of aircraft in one strike, I´m talking about 1 squadron +.

At this point, months after release and months of discussing how to "coordinate" there are so many experienced players around not able to do it that I just wonder if those things discussed are actually influencing coordination. As all the experienced players aren´t able to do that, I doubt that those factors actually are factors to be honest. But that´s just my oppinion on it of course and as long as I can´t make out AARs (those that actually show combat reports with all details) that show coordination most times (that´s what should happen and not the other way around most of the time) I will keep on doubting those "assumptions" what you should and what not. Doing this because the AARs I´m looking closely show it not working. Add in the weekly thread about coordination on the main forum and voila, I´m right at the side that says it´s not working.

One other thing I´ve mentioned is that IF it is by design now that airgroups should be assigned to the air HQ in range then it was an immense oversight to keep the daily political points at 50 because you then will spend more pps than available just to change squadrons around. Not to talk about the pps you need for all the other stuff. You can´t add in "features" that are there or not [&:] and on the other side forget about the consequences or about the other thing you´ve got to change.

It´s a pity that those people that seem to have 99.9% coordinated strikes (or are 99.9% sure why they have or haven´t a coordination) don´t do a detailed AAR with all the combat reports. This would be the example all the "complainers" are waiting for to do the same to get coordination most of the times. When I´m able to tell you 99.9% why squadrons coordinate or not I guess then usually I will also be able to have them coordinate. I´m missing the AAR that is showing me this. I´m not doubting anyones word nor would I call anyone a liar, but when looking into the AAR subforum then I can´t make out the AARs that get coordination working.