The Air Mission Coordination Guide v2.1!

[CaptDave]

One miniscule request: please don't refer to WitP as "stock," which has a different meaning.  While clear in the context of your post (after reading another sentence), it won't always be.  "Stock" just means "as produced" -- there is a stock WitP, and there is a stock AE.  "Non-stock," as it were, would refer to modifications.
 
Sorry to be so picky!  Just hoping to avoid confusion in future.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

One miniscule request: please don't refer to WitP as "stock," which has a different meaning.  While clear in the context of your post (after reading another sentence), it won't always be.  "Stock" just means "as produced" -- there is a stock WitP, and there is a stock AE.  "Non-stock," as it were, would refer to modifications.

Sorry to be so picky!  Just hoping to avoid confusion in future.

Maybe this is due to the fact that English is not my native language but just to explain how I defined this term:

The game we are playing currently is called: "War in the Pacific, Admirals´ Edition".
It is based on "War in the Pacific", the source code developed by the team around Gary Grisby is in use in both games. When I refer to
the original software where a greatly enhanced version is developed from, I am inclined to call that original software "stock".

This does in no way quantify or qualify the workload put into Admirals Edition, nor does it hint that War in the Pacific as a program has never been changed
or improved. I use this term for distinction only, it was used on the forums before, and in fact I find it an nice way of describing where AE is coming from
without overusing the witp-keys.

Usually I find it easier to do something if I understand why I´m doing something.

Since I don´t know if or how you are related to matrixgames or why this important, could you maybe help
me to understand the reason for your request, or in which way my definition was wrong? PM is also welcome. Thanks. [:)]

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Did I miss something? Is it not important to have supperior hq's set to the same target base? I seem to have greatly improved strikes with this rule of thumb?

Very interesting freeboy.
As for now I only considered the impact of the presence of the HQ at the base of strike origin or within the command range of the base, in combination
with the respective squadrons assigned to this HQ.
I did not assume that the HQ planning for a speciofic target has any kind of impact. Could you maybe relate your improvement in coordination to other factors also?
Currently I tend to think the preparation for a certain target by the HQ has no influence on strike coordination, but my experience in testing this is far too limited
to be sure.

It looks to me like when I have my Figher units and LB units assigned to the same command that I experience an increase in coordination (especially when coordinating from different bases). I also try to go with a local HQ in my front-line bases with high AIR and ADMIN stats so I might be seeing some of what freeboy has noted...

[LoBaron]

Assigning squads to the same HQ improves coordination.

What freeboy meant though (at least as I understand it) was that setting the HQ to prepare for the same target you are attacking with your bombers
improves coordination too.

About this I have not noticed an impact yet (or better: a difference compared to if I don´t set the HQ to prepare) so I can´t really comment on whether it helps.

[War History]

Uncoordinated strikes makes some sense when you are talking about USAAF strikes, but that's about it. USN after Midway and IJN since before the war started formed the raids over the carriers/bases before heading out. Before Midway some US carriers did this and others used the "army" method of meeting up en route (which often resulted in coordination problems). By mid-43 even TBF search aircraft had 1 or 2 fighters flying with them to both protect them and to hunt enemy search aircraft. The size of the strike varied based on strike distance because of the time required to form the raids so the further out they went, the smaller the raid package was. So for example if the target was 100 miles out they would send a full 72 plane strike where as if they were going 250 miles there would be 2 strikes of 36 planes about 45 minutes apart. Suggest you read Barrett Tillman. His book "dauntless" goes into strike coordination issues in depth.

[invernomuto]

I want to thanks LoBaron for posting this great guide.
Setting my fighters to sweep at the same alt of bombers and escort now tells the AE engine to sweep FIRST and bombard LAST.
Thanks!

[LoBaron]

Updated a small section at the end of the guide, The high altitude corner and a short comment on sweep missions.
 
Feel free to comment. If you are a dev and I am completely wrong I´d apprechiate your critizism.

[zuluhour]

my thanks!

[janh]

Nice! Much better than having to dig through the forum to get all these details, or even learn them the hard way!

Since you include already mention altitudes, you could make this even more comprehensive air war guide by adding for example the altitude bands -- e.g. dive, level or glide bombing, strafing etc. I recall some have changed in the recent patches, so there is now some obsolete info on the forum in old threads that can confuse...

[LoBaron]

Thanks for the comments guys!

janh, I have already been thinking about some small extension beyond the coordination guide.
The selection of topics is quite wide though, and to be honest the bombing altitudes would not neccesarily be my top priority.

Also, there are already many really good guides around, many are well structured and downloadable in pdf format.
Such as Skyros´ Reference sheets posted a while ago, which I intend to BUMP right now, so it is again on page 1. Take a look at
it, highly reccommend. Bombing altitudes included.

tm.asp?m=3010162

My life is doing some interesting but extensive twists and turns at the moment, I am happy enough if I am able to continue my PBEM
at the current pace, anything beyond that is often simply a matter of luck.

[Empire101]

A great guide....thanks LoBaron![8D]

[DHRedge]

Would it increase the chance of some fighters covering, if they flew as sub groups AB and C(10 each), instead of one group of 30 fighters? To make sure some passed the coordination checks.

Do subgroups at same base incur a higher count of groups flying from airfield for support and af max group requirements?

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: DHRedge

Would it increase the chance of some fighters covering, if they flew as sub groups AB and C(10 each), instead of one group of 30 fighters? To make sure some passed the coordination checks.

Yes, but it comes at a price: A crucial variable for coordination rolls is the leadership value. Since, when you split groups into sub components, usually two of the three get sub par leaders (one remains with the original group commander), a split without leader exchange will decrease mission performance (both in coordination as in combat skill). Personally I use sub components only on very specific occasions, none of them involve combat with large formations.

The only mission type where I split units into their sub components per default is recon.

Do subgroups at same base incur a higher count of groups flying from airfield for support and af max group requirements?

Subgroups count as 1/3 with regards to base administrative stacking. As do fragments, and "stood down" squadrons (training mission set to 0%).

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

The High altitude corner

High alt sweep was not, is not, and never will be an exploit.

In our PBEM we have no limits on maximum mission altitude except the one governed by the airframe.

If you experience severe losses due to an opponent flying at higher altitudes than you are able to, the reason
is that you are doing one or a combination of the below wrong:

- defending with too few numbers (its a numbers game, always)
- competing against a (historically) superior airframe without other qualitative or quantitative advantages to compensate
- neglecting the def skill for fighter pilots (big boo, guess what a pilot has to do in case he lost the initiative)
- not using layered CAP (different altitude settings for different squadrons)
- using planes at altitudes they were not designed for

Simply take a step back, reevaluate the situation and change accordingly.

We fight an air war on these very basic principles and get absolutely plausable and realistic results based on the odds.

Good guide, but I have to strongly disagree with the above. The game mechnics do allow this to be an exploit.

If I am an AFB commander, I am going to set my CAP within the best altitude range for my available planes. For Japan, this ususally means below 20K. If I pick up an Allied sweep at over 40K in altitude, I will tell my pilots to ignore them UNLESS they drop down to a closer delta. Depending on the weather, it is entirely possible for the CAP and the sweep to completely ignore each other, i.e. neither side even knows the other is there at all.

However, the game forces the CAP player to attack regardless of the number of sweeping planes, their Alt, etc. There is no mechnisim in the game that will allow the player to say ignore sweep that are X alitidute higher than my CAP. As a pilot, I can tell you a 20K difference is huge. If the sweep dives down to see if there is anything there, it is likely the CAP will also notice and respond (or not).

To mitigate the way the game models, the best HR I have seen so far is to limit max altitude for all air operations for both sides to 29K. This still gives plenty of room to manuver and allows the game engine to more accurately portray the way Air to Air combat worked in RL.

I did find an actual WWII fighter training video where US CAP was shown to fly 500 ft below cloud cover or around 12K if the sky was clear. Just because the game allows planes to fly at max levels, does not mean that is what happened in RL.

[LoBaron]

I am aware that most think so. I even agree with most of what you say, including that a high alt sweep, taken literally, has no counterpart in reality.

But in an abstracted way the strato sweeps very much reflect the change of performance envelopes of Allied and Japanese fighters throughout the war. Early war most Allied fighters had severe performance issues at high alt, while at the end the Allied late generation fighters with turbosuperchargers dominated the sky, fighting in the vertical in ways impossible to replicate by the Japanese. I know that a sweep at 42k has nothing to do with reality. So I abstract these values to simple altitude superiority, and the result is quite plausable.

Also, as I wrote in the part you quoted, a high alt sweep is far from invincible. Most players simply do not stagger and set their CAP in any sophisticated way to defend against sweeps and bombing attacks alike, fight in the wrong places, or with insufficient support or numbers. But if done properly it is absolutely possible to defeat high alt sweeps, except if one or more of the issues occur which I listed in your quote. This is also evident in our game, where for example a good number of Georges supported by proper early warning hold their own against P47D25s on a regular basis.

That said, I have long ago given up of trying to convince anyone on that.

Solutions like 2nd best mvr band are a viable option, although it lends the alt advantage to a couple of airframes which then profit from their alt band settings in an ahistorical way (e.g. the Tony). If the Japanese player knows how to exploit the alt band restriction by producing specific airframes, the games run into problems similar or worse to when not restricting alt bands.

Each to his own I´d say. Personally I will never play a game with alt restrictions.

[Numdydar]

Well my current game is being played with no alt restrictions and my experence as Japan is far different than yours [:(]. I have had 500 fighters Georges, Jacks (v5), Zero's 5c and 5's, along with Franks and Tojo's. Each type was set at differing altidutes, max for the Georges and Jacks, 20-29K for the zero's and under 20K for the Franks and Tojo's and my losses were about 1.5:1 - 2:1 (or more) in the Allies favor. This is with the beta though so that may have something to do with it. Also this was occuring in Oct/Nov 1944 which may be an issue. So I think that when you get to a certain point in the war, the high altitude and speed of the Allied planes totally outweigh everything else. With good pilots in most of these too (execpt for the Tojo's).
 
A high (40K+) sweep would come in of P47 (or similar) and they would lose 1 and I would lose 3 or more every time. So if I was doing something wrong, I would love to know what [:)]

[LoBaron]

Why should a 1:2 or even 1:5 kill ratio defending against sweeps of the cream of Allied fighter technology in ´44 be considered anything else than a success? Seems you are doing fine.

Anyways, if you want to continue this discussion feel free to PM. [:)]

[Numdydar]

Really? Good to know I don't totally stink as Japan lol. Somehow I thought in my JFB fantasy it should be much better [:D] Thanks for the feedback. No need to PM now [:)]

[Richard III]

My understanding of the details of Air Model has always been weak. Respectfully, Would this be mostly up to date considering the updates and patches, especially the recent Betas ?

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Richard III

My understanding of the details of Air Model has always been weak.

Actually thats a good attitude to learn about it. It is much better than to believe you know everyting, run headlong into incomprehensible situations, and then search for errors within the game engine instead of own errors.

The air model hides a LOT. You have to test, and look closely, and avoid confusing cause and effect, to reach conclusions. Thats a lot of work. I think my understanding of the air model is quite good now, but it took me a long time (and some valuable input from people who know much more about that stuff than myself) to get there.

For a source code as old as the UV engine the air model is absolutely brilliant. You need to abstract a lot and tune your play to the capabilities of the engine, but if you do it it is often surprizingly close to what you would expect from reality. Theres a lot of stuff happening beneath the obvious layer of calculations. Many players ignore that for their own bad.

OTOH, compared to the capabilities of a modern source code it is mediocre at best. Missions are point to point, most complex properties are reduced to a few variables, in general the simulation is crude compared to what is possible now, and you require the implementation of (often abstracted) limitations to achieve credible results (code wise and/or HR wise).

Prayers for WitP II are ongoing...

Respectfully, Would this be mostly up to date considering the updates and patches, especially the recent Betas ?

Yes, with one minor exception. The coordination triggers are not equal anymore - granted they were initially, which I got no proof for. Michaelm eradicated an overcoordination bug, and a few patches latter increased the influence of leader skill and HQ on coordination. So there would be some factors stronger influencing coordination than others.

Also from a current perspective there are some parts missing.

I currently do not plan to update the guide anymore though. It is still correct, and I am not in contact with any of the devs nowerdays which would be a prerequisite to add minor changes in the detail level required. Also I do not have the time anymore to write extensive guides worthy of this forum, so I better leave it to people who do. [;)]