Air system - change from AT to ATG?

[GrumpyMel]

Sure thing Vic, tell me what options you want me to start the game with and PM me where I should send the turn and I'll get it rolling.

[Krafty]

For what its worth, in War in The East, which is a considerably deeper simulation of the Eastern Front, one of the first things as the germans im spending my Admin Points on is consolidating the luftwaffe to army group center, to put everything i have together, to flatten the VVS thats refitting and coming out of national reserve near moscow.I dont think the mega stack in the air is a problem. If all his air is in one spot, good, bomb with impunity outside his range. Fighters with nothing to intercept are useless. Also, I dont think the soviet side needs the VVS to get a victory.

But really, youre always out classed in the air, the idea is to strike the path of least resistence. 100s of fighters stacked at a single base is a no fly zone...but those 100 fighters arent covering other areas of the line...those other areas is where id be hammering away with my Il-2s and DB3s.

[Vic]

@kraftwerk,

that was my design philiosphy as well... if you have air supriority but focus on one front area you give the weaker side the chance to make ground casualties in your unprotected sectors.

@grumpy,

but it never hurts to fine tune... lets see how our game goes... any options are ok... i basicly just want to see if i can build up the russian airforce to equal level to luftwaffe for early 1942.
email me at vic@xs4all.nl

best,
Vic

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: Kraftwerk
For what its worth, in War in The East, which is a considerably deeper simulation of the Eastern Front, one of the first things as the germans im spending my Admin Points on is consolidating the luftwaffe to army group center, to put everything i have together, to flatten the VVS thats refitting and coming out of national reserve near moscow.I dont think the mega stack in the air is a problem. If all his air is in one spot, good, bomb with impunity outside his range. Fighters with nothing to intercept are useless. Also, I dont think the soviet side needs the VVS to get a victory.

But really, youre always out classed in the air, the idea is to strike the path of least resistence. 100s of fighters stacked at a single base is a no fly zone...but those 100 fighters arent covering other areas of the line...those other areas is where id be hammering away with my Il-2s and DB3s.

Kraftwerk- nice thoughts from an academic point of view but play GrumpyMel or another player who is good with mega stacks and I absolutely guarantee you'll change your mind. He won't leave most of the front uncovered. He might make 2 mega stacks, or he might exploit which area you have intercepters turned on by scouting with 1 fighter and then moving his mega stack there to engage your interceptors and blow them all away. It's not so easy to combat a megastack player. Really. The mechanics are broken [as previously discussed on this and other earlier threads] so using a dance and weave strategy won't be enough.

[Vic]

when game starts i will put up my experiences in the aar section.

best,
Vic

[GrumpyMel]

ORIGINAL: Kraftwerk

For what its worth, in War in The East, which is a considerably deeper simulation of the Eastern Front, one of the first things as the germans im spending my Admin Points on is consolidating the luftwaffe to army group center, to put everything i have together, to flatten the VVS thats refitting and coming out of national reserve near moscow.I dont think the mega stack in the air is a problem. If all his air is in one spot, good, bomb with impunity outside his range. Fighters with nothing to intercept are useless. Also, I dont think the soviet side needs the VVS to get a victory.

But really, youre always out classed in the air, the idea is to strike the path of least resistence. 100s of fighters stacked at a single base is a no fly zone...but those 100 fighters arent covering other areas of the line...those other areas is where id be hammering away with my Il-2s and DB3s.

Kraftwerk,

The problem with that theory is that those bombers need to fly out of somewhere. If they aren't sitting in a base protected with a mega-stack of fighters then they simply cease to exist in a few turns because the base gets raided by your opponents fighters.

So what ends up happening is that you get both sides sitting around with a mega-stack of fighters so that they can preserve thier air force and nipping around the edge of each others protected zones for targets. Which feels pretty gamey & ahistoric to many players.

The guy who tries to spread out looses his airforce over the course of a few turns as his opponent slaughters each of his fighter stacks peicemeal with a mega-stack and then it really doesn't matter because he doesn't have any fighters left to protect any part of his front anyway.

The only strategy based solution I've found to the above is a partial one, involving the use of concentrated flak to help protect bases etc. However in vanilla AT at least, that isn't a very cost effective strategy.

I don't mind sharing this up front, as there really is no magic behind the dynamics of how this works. I certainly don't claim to be anything special as a player....and I'm sure Vic will probably wipe the floor with me in general [;)] but hopefully I'll be able to demonstrate how this particular dynamic works.

[GrumpyMel]

Game started.

[Vic]

Yes it will be interesting to see how this turns out. of course i will try to play with a spread out airforce.

best,
Vic

[jjdenver]

Mel, Vic - is this AAR coming?

[Vic]

hi i have to little time to write an AAR (already doing one with Lunaticus), but i will post my experience when the game has progressed a bit.  We are already at round 8 and i can say i am not that impressed by the mega stack tactic yet so far.

however i am strongly thinking of adding at least a penalty for aircraft that operate from an overstacked airfield. more news soon.

best,
Vic

[jjdenver]

Ok Vic, thanks for the update. Sounds good.

[GrumpyMel]

Yeah, I'll say that I haven't been at my best form in the game so far...and that Vic is a very talented opponent[&o].

I'll note that the chance for defending interceptors NOT to scramble on any given mission has thrown a much bigger monkey wrench into my typical mega-stack air war tactics then I anticipated.

Essentialy my typical tactic was to throw the mega-stack at the edge of the defenders intercept range...so that only some of his defending bases would be involved in the intercept and I could pick apart his air defenses peicemeal. Typicaly (in AT classic) I would use a recon flight of a single aircraft set to 5% retreat to determine exactly where this edge existed and whether the defender was on intercept.

The tangle in ATG is that if your recon flight doesn't turn up any resistance..... you don't know whether it's because no one is really there to intercept OR because the interceptors didn't happen to scramble on that particular mission due to random chance. End result is that you end up having to waste alot more aircraft on recon flights then you ordinarly would in order to profile the defenders air defenses. Furthrermore, even when you do identify a good target hex at the edge of the defenders intercept range to dogfight his fighters..... when you throw your mega-stack at it...there is no assurance that the defenders fighters will scramble to intercept THAT particular mission....and if they don't, you've pretty much wasted your offensive air capacity for that turn.

Honestly, that one little rule change from AT Classic to ATG has had a much more pronounced effect on the dynamics of the air war then I thought it would. I definately reccomend having that rule turned on for any games in which you want to reflect a more historical representation of air combat.

I still believe I'm beating the VVS in the air....and I still believe that the mega-stack tactic remains somewhat of an issue in ATG.... but it is (IMO) FAR less so then in AT Classic....the variable intercept rule really goes quite a way toward mitigating that tactic...much more then I expected it would.

 

[Zaratoughda]

Hmmmm... I've only had ATG a bit over a week now and have just gotten to the point where I am fighting major air.

One problem... I tend to send in dive bombers with fighter escort and, there isn't any ways to set the fighters to not bomb but just act as escorts. So, I guess what I could do is send in fighters to bomb first by themselves and hopefully suck out any interceptors and then I can attack with my dive bombers with impunity.

Also, I have units having 10 or 20 dive bombers in them, and send in a number of these units to bomb all at the same time, maybe 50 dive bombers total at a time, and just realized I am at a disadvantage if I do this.

In other words, sounds like, the way things are now with ATG, the best approach would be to individually bomb with waves of fighters, hoping to suck out any interceptors, and then bomb individually with any dive bombers.

Unfortunately, this would not work if the enemy has considerable air forces. You could send in all your fighters in hope of sucking out the enemy interceptors but they might now show which would mean it would be unwise to send in your dive bombers.

The way things SHOULD work in air combat, IMO, would be both attacking and defending forces are split up into waves (fighters first then any bombers), based on the stacking limit. In other words, with the stacking limit at 100, all the fighters in the attacking force would be divided up into waves of 10 each, and the same would then be done for each of the different types of bombers. The intercepting force would also be divided up into waves, though in this case it would just be fighters.

Then, these waves would be 'lined up' so to speak, and the first intercepting wave would fight the first attacking wave (just for a round or two), and if they got through that with enough force that they continue, then they move on to the second wave, etc. After the first wave of interceptors was done (usually reach the point where they retire due to losses including damage), then the second wave 'runs the gauntlet', and so forth. Waves from the attacker could, and usually would, also retire due to losses and damage.

Then, assuming there are still bombers left after any interception, they would go in on their bombing run in waves also, with no negative modifiers. But, any flak would get to fire at each wave in succession.

Uh, I think this could all be done on one combat screen.

Not sure I am explaining this all that well but, having played Grigsby's WitP and WitE, this is pretty much the way things are done, though in these cases the 'waves' are predetermiend by the aircraft in each squadron. In WitP, there are limits as to how many of a given type of aircraft that you can put in each air squadron. In WitE, the number of each in a given squadron is set and you cannot change that. But, given this, air combat is fought in a series of 'wave vs wave' combats and, IMO this is pretty realistic.

Yeah, it is conceivable that in ATG that there would be limits of how many aircraft could be in a given unit.... but that would be something ATG does not do right now so, better if the units were broken up into 'waves' at the point of air to air combat resolution.

I think an approach like this would resolve both the 'big stack' problem and also the 'picking off stragglers' problem.

Zaratoughda

[mgaffn1]

Airfield stacking limits (per GrumpyMel & others suggestion) seems the best adjustment within current game mechanics.

[Rander]

Hello.

I think that airfields stack limitations will be a good measure.
And gives the possibility (if implemented) of building different sizes of airfileds (small, medium, big).

Also could give extra penalties for big units and for attacks involving multiple units (reflecting coordinations problems).

Kind regards,
Rander.

[jjdenver]

Thx for the updates GrumpyMel. Does the scenario designer have to turn on the "variable interception chance" rule? Or is that something players can do?

Hopefully Vic puts in the airbase overstack restriction.

Zara's idea sounds interesting as well.

[GrumpyMel]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

Thx for the updates GrumpyMel. Does the scenario designer have to turn on the "variable interception chance" rule? Or is that something players can do?

Hopefully Vic puts in the airbase overstack restriction.

Zara's idea sounds interesting as well.

It's an editor thing. In the RuleVars.

Honestly, with the variable intercept rule and the airbase stacking limit, I think the dynamics of air combat are going to be much better in ATG.

The only thing I wouldn't want to see is some-one building a dozen air bases all adjacent to each other. But scenerio designers should be able to control that somewhat with the cost (& EP ) for producing airbases or possibly not making them buildable at all for certain scenerios.

[phatkarp]

I like this idea. Lvl 1-3 airfields would be cool, upgraded by engineers like resources are now.

When fighting an air war, always keep in mind the airfield surprise rule, which I believe gives you a couple free rounds against enemy aircraft when you are bombing their field.

ORIGINAL: Rander

Hello.

I think that airfields stack limitations will be a good measure.
And gives the possibility (if implemented) of building different sizes of airfileds (small, medium, big).

Also could give extra penalties for big units and for attacks involving multiple units (reflecting coordinations problems).

Kind regards,
Rander.

[Vic]

I am planning to do a somewhat bigger patch with new features in a few months time (at most) and the airbase stacking rule is on the list for added feature to ATG.

best,
Vic

[Stardog]

Was up Bro's.?!

Vic & other Bro's


I know this is not about Aircraft Stacking & I know this ability is already built in to the game but it works in the back ground.

So could a new Setting/Action for Fighter Aircraft help?...

First I would think that this should only work for Fighter Only Units if you have a Fighter and Bombers mixed in the same counter it would not apply.?.

INTERCEPT = Fighter's set to do Intercept Action . They have a "Curricular Area/Zone of Range/Intercept" . This Action would increase the Fighters Intercept/Air Attack ability by&nbsp; " + #&nbsp; <<< What ever" .

The Fighters could not be surprised " Thank you Radar! < O wait Radar or Radios/Communication is not research able << Hummmm?
Any ways&nbsp; as soon as the enemy's Aircraft are in Detection/Intercept Range they would be Attacked.
If the Fighters do a Intercept Action on the&nbsp; AI's (OPPONENTS) turn you can not use them on your turn. That way there are no double turns with Fighters.


FIGHTER SWEEP/ATTACK = Fighters Attack only the Airfields/Airbases to destroy Aircraft on the Ground or in the Air. They don't attack Troops they Attack Aircraft . This kind of works with "RECON" Action & Airstrike but this I think would be better as they attack Aircraft only.


Learning to LOVE&nbsp; ATG&nbsp; !!!
Thanks
Vic [&o]





&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;