CAP question

[topeverest]

Has anyone ever tested the impact to CAP with the following settings, and is there an opinion if one is better than the other.

For simplicity's for any CAP altitude, lets say 15K, on a base that only has fighters and is expected to recieve a large air strike - is it better to set a low CAP (say 30%) and leave the remaining 70 unallocated. Is it better to set a 100% CAP. Is some other setting better.

The outputs I am looking for are how many fighters scramble if a combat occurs, and when, as well as the fatigue the pilots and planes receive.

[LoBaron]

Interesting question. Would also look forward to see the results although I can
about imagine what they look like.

I think 100%CAP is almost always wrong.

You will get high fatigue hitting empty air if the attack does not materialize and have a high
attrition in case you get sweeped instead of bombed. Against a good player its too risky.
The best way to counter 100%CAP is by setting your bombers to naval attack as primary and airfield attack
as secondary. You arrive in the PM phase against guys who have already been airborne for hours.

The impact of the situations described above naturally more than doubles on 2 day turns.

The only situation where 100% might work to your benefit is if you are absolutely sure the attack will
take place, happen in AM phase, and you got exactly enough to stop it with max effort (which means you
got near perfect intel on strike size). So a very theoretical situation.

I use the "rest" settings a lot.

That said, I know you are interested in pure results topeverest, and not chat about the benefits/drawbacks.
Sorry if you regard my comments as off topic.

[Cavalry Corp]

Is the second mission always pm???

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Has anyone ever tested the impact to CAP with the following settings, and is there an opinion if one is better than the other.

For simplicity's for any CAP altitude, lets say 15K, on a base that only has fighters and is expected to recieve a large air strike - is it better to set a low CAP (say 30%) and leave the remaining 70 unallocated. Is it better to set a 100% CAP. Is some other setting better.

The outputs I am looking for are how many fighters scramble if a combat occurs, and when, as well as the fatigue the pilots and planes receive.

The keypoint here is that you expect an attack. Under those circumstances there is nothing wrong going with a 100% CAP.

Firstly, too much angst is made of pilot fatigue. The corelation between AE and the real world in terms of the adverse effects of high pilot fatigue is not that strong. Given the same fatigue level, AE pilots will still perform much better than a real human pilot. Also the rate of fatigue accumulation in AE is slower than in real life. So yes, don't overlook AE pilot fatigue but don't apply real world experience to your AE gaming experience.

Secondly, of far greater AE importance is the adverse consequences usually suffered when CAP is constituted by drips and drabs of late coming planes. Generally speaking you are far better off having your entire CAP participating planes engaging the enemy en masse rather than having some at the start of the battle and then being reinforced by single planes. Hence if you are expecting an air raid, you should have more planes dedicated to CAP than planes grounded without a specified task. Planes with no specified task will be late in taking off and therefore join the battle in drips and drabs. For the same reason you need to be careful about allowing CAP leakers from nearby bases participating.

Bottom line is put up CAP if you can get sufficient mass at the beginning and the battle is worth fighting. It is most unlikely that your proposed 30% CAP will accomplish anything. Remember that only 1/3 of the allocated CAP is actually in the air at any one time on patrol waiting for the enemy. With sufficient warning time and a good climb rate the other 2/3 of the allocated CAP will probably be present at the start of the battle. The remaining 70% not allocated a task join later, quite likely facing far superior numbers of enemy planes.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Is the second mission always pm???

Excluding "Naval Attack", primary missions are always run in the AM phase. Only if delayed, by say weather conditions, are they run in the PM phase.

"Naval Attack" primary missions will be run, if possible, in both the AM and PM phases.

You can assign secondary missions only when "Naval Attack" is the primary mission. The unit will still attempt to run it's primary "Naval Attack" mission in both phases but if there are no available naval targets, the unit will default to its secondary mission in the PM phase. Whether the afternoon secondary mission is actually flown depends on the usual factors which govern the launch of any air strike.

Alfred

[Cavalry Corp]

ok thanks for the clarification

[DivePac88]

If I was expecting an air-raid, I would have my Cap on 40%, if I was sure of a raid 50% at the most. The remainder of the group/groups would be on rest, as some of these will also react to the raid. Even on 40-50% Cap your airframes are going to incur alot of fatigue, but on 100% you will have a lot unserviceable in a very short time.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Firstly, too much angst is made of pilot fatigue. The corelation between AE and the real world in terms of the adverse effects of high pilot fatigue is not that strong. Given the same fatigue level, AE pilots will still perform much better than a real human pilot. Also the rate of fatigue accumulation in AE is slower than in real life. So yes, don't overlook AE pilot fatigue but don't apply real world experience to your AE gaming experience.

Comparing fatigue levels - expressed as a value ranging from 0-99 - to real life human fatigue effects is difficult to impossible anyway.

What is often neglected is that the fatigue stats displayed in the pilots screen always show the fatigue after the fatigue reduction dicerolls
have been made. And these dice rolls happen at the end of the turn, not between AM and PM phase. A pilot on a PM mission could reach fatigue levels
way above the 50s and the player wont notice by looking at the save of the next day when it is already reduced to, say, 20.

As an example. comparing CV battle results on AM/PM phase (naturally after discounting hits scored on ships already dead in the water and the likes),
nav bombing accuracy tends to decrease noticeable.

Its obvious that the usual plane/pilot composition of a squad reduces the effect on fatigue gain (e.g. 25/33), as not every pilot is able to participate
even on 100% CAP, and I´d consider 30% a very/too low setting depending on the threat level. But I´d be careful to underestimate the fatigue
values of pilots in high attrition areas flying PM phase missions - and its impact.

[Chickenboy]

If I knew a raid was incoming, I wouldn't hesitate to do 100% CAP (or LRCAP)for only one turn. If you expect this to be an ongoing series of raids requiring your defense for more than one turn, then 100% CAP is impractical and will yield extensive fatigue. Extensive fatigue degrades the performance of your CAP pilots, of course.

For exchanges lasting longer than one day, I'd have my CAP between 40-50% and try to decrease the range as much as possible to prevent 'leakers'.

[crsutton]

But if you have one or more base forces with good radar, then it does not matter what the CAP is so much. Good radar will scramble just about all the fighters anyways. However, I suppose radar can get a bad detection roll, so if you are expecting an attack then up the %.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: crsutton


But if you have one or more base forces with good radar, then it does not matter what the CAP is so much. Good radar will scramble just about all the fighters anyways. However, I suppose radar can get a bad detection roll, so if you are expecting an attack then up the %.

Good observation crsutton.

I think it was a great idea of topeverest to open this thread.
The topic seems so basic, but different players do have quite different approaches to CAP settings. This could naturally mean that the different settings simply
cancel each other out - in certain situations - if they are not too radical.

Chickenboy, I look at the issue very much from a 2 day/turn perspective, but I see your, and also Alfreds, point how fatigue can be overestimated as a factor
as long as only immediate situations are concerned.

Whoever takes the time to do tests, I´d be an interested observer... [;)]

[pmath]

I take issue with some of the feedback. As long as you face a single attack, a reasonably high CAP level will provide best results. However, if you experience four or more raids over a base in a turn, you will get clobbered in the last raids because of damage and fatigue. Setting CAP at 40% allows you to spread air cover over several attacks,

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: pmath

I take issue with some of the feedback. As long as you face a single attack, a reasonably high CAP level will provide best results. However, if you experience four or more raids over a base in a turn, you will get clobbered in the last raids because of damage and fatigue. Setting CAP at 40% allows you to spread air cover over several attacks,

If you are facing four or more such raids you are going to be clobbered with a 40% CAP rate also. In fact, you are much more likely to be clobbered and fail to inflict any worthwhile losses on the enemy with such a 40% rate.

It all comes down to trying to match mass with mass. Matching mass with a drip rarely turns out well for the drippee.

Alfred

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: pmath

I take issue with some of the feedback. As long as you face a single attack, a reasonably high CAP level will provide best results. However, if you experience four or more raids over a base in a turn, you will get clobbered in the last raids because of damage and fatigue. Setting CAP at 40% allows you to spread air cover over several attacks,

If you are facing four or more such raids you are going to be clobbered with a 40% CAP rate also. In fact, you are much more likely to be clobbered and fail to inflict any worthwhile losses on the enemy with such a 40% rate.

It all comes down to trying to match mass with mass. Matching mass with a drip rarely turns out well for the drippee.

Alfred

To match mass with mass is exactly what the AE air combat model makes kind of difficult. [;)]

In the original WitP - or UV - I would not hesitate to agree with you. In AE things are different, the answer is not as simple as you are making it seem.
As a strike has a high chance to arrive in raid packages, the question is absolutely valid whether a lower CAP % enables the defender to cope with all
incoming raids, and so inflicts more losses to the attacker, or if its better to exhausts his fighters to engage the first raid with max strenght. An attacking
player who knows what he is doing will try to maximise his chances that the best punch and protection arrives on target before or with the first strike package.

So in this case whether your point of view turns out correct or not comes down to raid order and composition vs. CAP distribution.
Yes, its also about matching mass with mass, but we all know its a numbers game, thats nothing new.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: pmath

I take issue with some of the feedback. As long as you face a single attack, a reasonably high CAP level will provide best results. However, if you experience four or more raids over a base in a turn, you will get clobbered in the last raids because of damage and fatigue. Setting CAP at 40% allows you to spread air cover over several attacks,

If you are facing four or more such raids you are going to be clobbered with a 40% CAP rate also. In fact, you are much more likely to be clobbered and fail to inflict any worthwhile losses on the enemy with such a 40% rate.

It all comes down to trying to match mass with mass. Matching mass with a drip rarely turns out well for the drippee.

Alfred

I have to agree with pmath here. From my observation (only with good radar present) A reasonable CAP setting will call fighters up as needed when you face multiple strikes. This will sometimes allow you more kills as you will sometimes catch following bombers without escort. It seems that a large CAP is preferred to counter a massive single strike but a large pool of planes on the ground with a normal CAP setting will make better use of the radar and spread your defenses around. I can't really speak from the Japanese perspective as I really don't know if Japanese radar is any good, but it seems to work for the Allies.

The issue with a large CAP setting is that you are going to accumulate fatigue and morale drops-even if the enemy does not attack. This can be a problem if a sustained air battle is going on and you need to husband your strength.

I will say that I do it both ways depending on the tactical situation, and on my hunches...

[sandman2575]

if I could take this thread on a momentary detour -

playing as the Allies, is there a consensus on what your CAP% for Carrier TFs should be, (1) as a default setting (operating in areas of low threat), and (2) operating in areas of known or suspected enemy air power?

[PaxMondo]

My experience, limited as compared to many of you above is, it depends upon items you rarely have in control. 
 
Even if I know a big attack is coming, what I don't know is will it be coordinated.  A big attack could mean 144x4E's or 12x12x4E, right?  From what I've seen, if I have 3x45xGeorge (rough numerocal parity is important) defending I will get the following outcomes:
 
144x4E
100% CAP = my best chance for a draw in terms of aircraft lost.  I would expect each side to lose 3-4 a/c.  75% chance to interfere with bombing results.
40% CAP = I will lose 4-6 a/c, they will lose 1 maybe. 50% chance of interfering with bombing results to some degree.
 
12x12x4E
100% CAP = The first few waves may turn back, my losses will be low initially, but will mount with fatigue.  each side will lose 4-6 a/c.  late bombing runs will really hit.  likely to lose a/c on ground.
40% CAP = I should outnumber most waves.  My losses expect to be 2-3, 4E losses expect to be 4-6.  Should be able to keep CAP up until final wave, should be able to interfere with bomb runs to some extent.
 
Appreciate comments on my expectations, are they in line with what others expect/see?
 
*Interfere with bombing results means the won't likely 'nuke' the target.  Target still get hit, but not at +50% hit rate, more like 10%.  B-17 => 8x144 = 1152 x500lb bombs.  576 or 115 hitting is a big deal.

[Shark7]

Doesn't everyone have their own formula for this?

For a general cap plus I want to fly some attack missions out of the base I go with a 30/30/30/10 setup.

Set to escort
30% on Cap
30% on training
10% on Rest

If I am in defensive mode, I will go with a different set up

Set on escort
60% on Cap
10% on Rest
30% on Training (if I won't need escorts for attacks, 0% training if I need escorts).

Why the 30% training? Since I play Japan most of the time, you always have some poor pilots in a squad that need training up past about 06, 1942. With the training mission active, they have some chance of getting better other than the 'get better or die' method. It works for me.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: sandman2575

if I could take this thread on a momentary detour -

playing as the Allies, is there a consensus on what your CAP% for Carrier TFs should be, (1) as a default setting (operating in areas of low threat), and (2) operating in areas of known or suspected enemy air power?

I'd say:

1) 30-40% CAP
2) 40-60% CAP

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Doesn't everyone have their own formula for this?

For a general cap plus I want to fly some attack missions out of the base I go with a 30/30/30/10 setup.

Set to escort
30% on Cap
30% on training
10% on Rest

If I am in defensive mode, I will go with a different set up

Set on escort
60% on Cap
10% on Rest
30% on Training (if I won't need escorts for attacks, 0% training if I need escorts).

Why the 30% training? Since I play Japan most of the time, you always have some poor pilots in a squad that need training up past about 06, 1942. With the training mission active, they have some chance of getting better other than the 'get better or die' method. It works for me.

Hi Shark7,

I rarely set my fighter pilots for partial training missions. They don't leave their training squadrons unless they're ready to hatch, IMO. (~50EXP; ~70 SKILL, >50% DEF)

I do something like what you're describing (mixed mission profiles) for non-fighters, however.