Recon Photo Currency

[Michael T]

Am I right in saying that the currency of a targets recon photo makes no difference to bombing accuracy what so ever as long as you have at least 1 photo?

From my experience and tests I have run the damage I can inflict on targets is not influcenced to any degree I can determine by the currency of recon photos.

Thus the only reason to fly recon missions is to gather info on fighter deployments, flak strength and current target capacity/damage. True?

[K.Pooley]

I can't say, but I'd love to have a look at your data.

Kevin

[Michael T]

Well apart from a gut feeling during real play, I did 12 test attacks under very similar weather conditions against the same target (the weather with the 1 day old photo was slightly better). 4 groups 32 a/c strong (B17F) at 23000 ft against a capacity 6 factory. No intercepts just flak. 12 attacks with a recon photo 1 day old yielded and average damage result of 64%. 12 attacks with a recon photo 40 days old yielded 59% average damage. Sure there is a 5% difference but that is not a significant difference over such a small sample of tests. But close enough to suggest that it makes very little difference whether you have a recent photo or not as far as bombing accuracy goes.
 
Logically it makes sense that recon photo accuracy makes little difference when a target is not mobile. What difference is the currency of a photo going to make (target location wise) when not much changes over the course of a month or two.

[simovitch]

Interesting point here. I always thought you would cause more damage, but I'm not sure where I came up with that conclusion. I checked again and the rules are fairly clear on the subject. No target photo is different from a 40-day old target photo it seems:

If there is no target photo for a target then it will be much more likely that
bombers will fail to locate it. If photos are out of date (i.e., any recon photo over 2 days old)
then the bomber planners will have less accurate information concerning air units stationed at
the target (if an airfield) the ground defenses, or damage.

[Erkki]

Gotta agree - seems that if there just is a recon photo, doesnt matter how old, there seems to be no or only little difference in how well the target is hit. There might be a difference in how much flak defenses is destroyed, though, it seems that assault planes or mediums attacking a recently recced airfield, radar etc. will kill the flak more. In my PBEM the allies made two 100 x Typhoon attacks on 2 unrecced airfields(or at least photos were old, +2 days) and no flak was destroyed. A week before 50 typhoons on recced field destroyed almost all flak the field had.

[kaybayray]

The duration since last Recon Photo of a target with respect to your strikes is in them finding the target. The newer the Recon Photo the more chance they will actually locate and bomb the target. This is especially true when in the presence of bad weather or in a crowded target area. This is based on my oberservations.

I will not launch strikes at targets with Recon Photo's older than one day.

Later,
KayBay

[bigmilt]

usually I have found with fixed targets any recon photo will do, but with land units like panzer
units - since they can move around even within an area you usually need a one day recon photo.

[Rob Brennan UK]

The duration since last Recon Photo of a target with respect to your strikes is in them finding the target. The newer the Recon Photo the more chance they will actually locate and bomb the target.

why ? factories/airfields/urban areas aren't likely to move a lot in a few days [:D]. IIRC the germans even used holiday maps for touring cars when nothing else batter was available.

Newer recon will give a beter estimate of target damage/defences but shouldnt really affect finding it one way or another.

[kaybayray]

Rob,
If you want to know the Why... you should query Harley and Hard Sarge. They work with the mechanics of how the game functions. I dont have any clue about that.

I am just sharing my observations. I have found that when my recon is older than 1 day my Strike Groups start having difficulty locating targets. Watching my Strikes fight their way to targets and then seeing a messaage "XX BG can not locate the Target and is moving on to Secondary Target" is not an acceptable option for me. I have lots of Recon Birds and I use them each and every day.


That said, I can think of many reasons why recent Recon may be necessary. When a Strike is being built recent photo's of the area with respect to the various directions of approach of the Strike Groups to the target can provide the Pathfinder elements better locate and identify the days target. Keep in mind that in some instances great efforts were taken to try to disguise a target or to mislead Strikes to a Dummy Target or to another target that was less strategic value. This is just a few of the possible "Why's" I can easily think of. Put that together with what I have seen in GG's games, with respect to his attempt to try to model such things like that under the hood and I think there may be alot of that going on here. Harley and Sarge could best answer that.

Later,
KayBay [8D]

[wernerpruckner]

recce is very important...probably more important later in the game......you need to know where and what you are attacking    (dispersing of the Axis industry is a b*tch)

[Michael T]

I am not saying recon is not important. Its a must for many things. But IMO not for actually finding and dropping the bombs on the target, and it shouldn't be. The rules seem to support this. I am was hoping that someone with inside knowledge of the game could confirm it. Thats all. I only bother with recon to determine flak strength, damage levels, air unit locations. Once a target has one photo thats all that is needed to actually find and hit it. I find reconing your targets turn after turn telegraphs your intentions, burns out your recon units and wastes my feeble brain power [:D]  

[Erkki]

krak, use the recon planes to harass the AI, if you fly your recons close enough to AI's fighters ceiling it will scramble some. A deep recon once in an hour or two is enough. [:D]

[kaybayray]

Just my opinion....

To clearify, when I say use Recon each day I am not saying that I send a Recon mission to a particular target each day, day after day, etc... What I am describing is that for the purposes of Preliminary Strike Recon, to facilitate a Strike locating and identifying a target that I will run a Recon mission either the Day Before the Strike or the Day OF the strike to that particular target. However running Recon the same day requires some coordination so that your Recon is analyzed prior to Strike Launch. Typically I dont run Same Day Recon as I dont think it will be done in time for Strike launch.

I typically run not less than 50 Recon missions each day and for many reasons and across many target types. For the most part usually as many Recon missions as the number of remaining mission slots I have on any given day which is dependant upon my overall Air Ops for that day. If you are only running a few Recon missions each day and only to targets relative to your impending strikes then you may telegraph your intent. However, if you are working your Recon Groups daily in large numbers across different target types and locations I dont think this will telegraph your intent. But what IMO will telegraph your intent is what targets you are actually hitting with your Strikes. This is IMO the more telling clue to an opponent.



If you are playing against the AI Recon targets dont telegraph anything. The AI is not that smart.


Later,
KayBay [8D]

[Nicholas Bell]

use the recon planes to harass the AI, if you fly your recons close enough to AI's fighters ceiling it will scramble some. A deep recon once in an hour or two is enough.

Yeah, nothing like decreasing the number of operational LW fighters by having them chase recon flights instead of important raids. Keeps them in maintenance too, lowering availability. Also increases the fatigue points which reduces pilot effectiveness even if they don't intercept because the units are on alert.

[kaybayray]

Good Call Nick [8D] <S>

I dont think they see your sarcasm.


I try to run my Recon below the radar if possible a lot of the time. Or at least keep it from being targeted too often. I take care how I plot the missions in and out of targets. I dont like overflying Flak concentrations. That gets costly and Recon AC dont have a real high replacement rate.

I dont use Recon AC as a decoy to destract the Luftwaffe. Just my opinion but I think that is a bit Gamey for me. I prefer to work a more straight up fight. I mean, do you really think you can hide a Strike Force of 500+ AC over enemy turf? I think it is a moot point telegraphing your target is in some way allowing your enemy to counter your Strike. I am pretty sure that knowing the destination for a single days Strike is pretty inconsequential with respect to the Luftwaffe's ability to build an effective intercept. Unless you are dealing with the AI. Bait and Dodge is not my Cup of Tea as it were. Although I do know you can easily fool the AI.

For me if I am going to try to Dodge the Luftwaffe I am going to use EW assets as best as I can manage with the equipment I have to work with. But I am taking this off topic. The topic is the use of Recon and how / what does it serve in this game.

For me the Primary use of Regon is for Strike Preparation and Followup Effectiveness Assessment. Or concepts around those topics. I do realize that in this game the capabilities of Recon vary somewhat from Historical WWII but this is a Game, a Simulation that models some things well, some poorly and some not at all. I would like to have the ability to determine more exacting Intel from my Recon. Such as being able to determine what type of AC are being produced at a particular assembly fab. Or maybe what type of Engines, or Components are being produced, etc... however that may not be within the desires of the Developers. That may be making it to easy. I am well aware that some information about the How's and Why's of the mechanics of the game are kept from the community. Perhaps rightly so. Not wanting to debate that here.

Just some of my thoughts on this topic.

Later,
KayBay [8D]

[Michael T]

My friends and I only ever play PBEM, we only use the AI as a brief learning tool. There is a huge gulf between the challenge of a human intelligence and the AI of any game.
&nbsp;
Anyway my&nbsp;opponent and I have come to a somewhat dissappointing conclusion that our enjoyment of the game&nbsp;has been usurped by its current failings. As such our PBEM 1943 campaign (we are on turn 62) is going on&nbsp;a holding pattern until at least the next patch. We are hopeful that it will address some of the problems with the game.
&nbsp;
For me the main ones are as&nbsp;allied:
1. A really crap replay function.
2. Wondering bomber groups that get creamed.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
For my Axis opponent
1. Fighter sweeps that massacre his returning a/c
2. Too many Pilots getting wounded or killed on the ground.
&nbsp;
I know there are other problems as well but these are the main ones for us. The bones of the game are very good but it needs some work to get the PBEM working properly. Bye from me till the next patch [:)]