Scaling?

[Smirfy]

Why are RAF formations in Squadrons and USAF are in Groups?

[Numdydar]

One is using the metric system and the other English [:D]

[Great_Ajax]

Me and Red Lancer really would like to see RAF Wings instead of Squadrons. The problem is that the RAF Wing was not a standardized unit which consisted of any number of squadrons and often had mixed aircraft types. The system, as it is now, does not allow for these factors.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

Why are RAF formations in Squadrons and USAF are in Groups?

[HMSWarspite]

You could always go the other way (US sqds [X(])!

[Great_Ajax]

Eh. No thanks. Having RAF Wings would cut down on air units and ease some micromanagement.

Trey

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

You could always go the other way (US sqds [X(])!

[RedLancer]

As el hefe says we agree that less air units would be better.

It may sound odd but I'd like still like to 'add' Groups as a layer of command but 'reduce' Squadrons to Wings (where possible) for ease of employment.

[Baelfiin]

How are groups going to work to fit on level one airbases? I like to be able to put 2 or 3 squadrons on the small bases without overloading them.

[RedLancer]

Do you mean US Groups or RAF Wings or RAF Groups? (I confuse myself sometimes)

[Baelfiin]

RAF, not sure if I should have used wing instead of group. Whatever the equivalent to the US group size anyway 8)

[Smirfy]

I think you should change it to wings and the Luftwaffe to Gruppe makes more sense all round. RAF groups would have had several wings, If you make a wing 3 squadrons of the one type just make it 1 wings to the smallest airfield

[RedLancer]

I think some confusion has crept in - along with Trey I would like RAF Wings.

I would also like to have RAF Groups as an intermediate level of Air HQ. Other than the 23 limit this is already possible.

[Smirfy]

Groups would be good, No need for Squadrons except for the odd NF etc unit

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

As el hefe says we agree that less air units would be better.

It may sound odd but I'd like still like to 'add' Groups as a layer of command but 'reduce' Squadrons to Wings (where possible) for ease of employment.

What is the objective of adding Groups (RAF) to the command chain? I can see issues. For example, RAF BC, how would you avoid just adding to the clickfest to set up raids? What do you do with 8 Group (Pathfinders) - they should add to the capabilities of all the others. I am not sure what Groups give you beyond today.

I don't like the idea of taking RAF up to Wings... I know it is only 'flavour' at the expense of clicks, but is in a similar scope to SUs being added to Div TOE and abolished IMHO. The RAF did not run single type wings (either logistically, or operationally) in the same way as USAAF Groups. I think better mass handing tools (or better use of the ones that are there would be the answer before making the RAF a clone of the US

[Smirfy]

My opinion can largely be summed up thus to all intents and purposes the basic operational unit of the RAF was the Wings those wings were put together into groups to cover a specific geographic location and task or a flexible headquarters to cover a continental Advance 2nd TAF in a concept pioneered by the 1st Tactical or desert airforce. If you specifically look at any oob the organization is there recon wings, fighter wings, ground support wings, and Bomber wings.

It makes absolutely no sense to run separate scaling. WItW is an operational wargame squadrons are a tactical unit. It's like having battalions in game.

With regards support units the system just don't work for the Allies the way it does for the Germans, The Germans should have flexible attachment as in WitE&W. The Allied system was stop build up logistics attack breakout pursue, stop build up logistics attack breakout pursue repeat until end of the war. Two fundamentally differing concepts the reacting to events system of the Germans and the creating events system of the Allies.

[RedLancer]

The good thing with Subordinate Air HQs (Groups & Fliegerkorps) is that you don't have to use them. You can suck aircraft belonging to a Group into an AD set by the higher HQ. Alternatively it gives you more ADs to play with and allows you to set Groups to specific tasks.

Officially I'm pretty sure we won't be using RAF Wings - el hefe and I would like Wings which allow multiple aircraft types but that functionality is not on the cards. I merely mentioned that if someone wanted to they could create Wings but they would be homogeneous.

[Omat]

Hello

One aspect against gruppen, groups and Wings is that you have about 30-60 planes at one airfild. As a result it is easier to destroy airplanes on a airfild if the enemy bomb that airfild. With smaller squadrons or staffel you can spread out your airplanes a little bit on multiple airfilds.

Omat

[Banquet]

I'm probably being thick, but I don't get the problem with squadrons. The AD system is flexible enough that it doesn't seem to introduce any complexity for assigning broad stroke missions, but does give the added flexibility of being able to assign a variety of missions down to squadron level if desired. I'm sure there were times in the war when there was only a squadron assigned to an airbase so, in terms of having a game engine that can cope with the greatest variety of situations, squadron level seems to way to go? If I had to keep counters on a real map, then definitely wings - but keeping track of lots of little details like squadrons instead of wings is what computers are good at!

[Smirfy]

I think it is a mistake to discount wings I think it is better to worry first about getting the effects of airpower right then worry whether a unit is homogenous, standardisation of unit makes that process infinitely easier. That's my final word on the subject (for now)

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

My opinion can largely be summed up thus to all intents and purposes the basic operational unit of the RAF was the Wings those wings were put together into groups to cover a specific geographic location and task or a flexible headquarters to cover a continental Advance 2nd TAF in a concept pioneered by the 1st Tactical or desert airforce. If you specifically look at any oob the organization is there recon wings, fighter wings, ground support wings, and Bomber wings.

It makes absolutely no sense to run separate scaling. WItW is an operational wargame squadrons are a tactical unit. It's like having battalions in game.

With regards support units the system just don't work for the Allies the way it does for the Germans, The Germans should have flexible attachment as in WitE&W. The Allied system was stop build up logistics attack breakout pursue, stop build up logistics attack breakout pursue repeat until end of the war. Two fundamentally differing concepts the reacting to events system of the Germans and the creating events system of the Allies.

You might find your message gets across better with a little more punctuation.

To answer your specific points: the RAF did not routinely fly as Wings. These were more administrative units. Except for certain distinct operations such as early Rhubarbs (41-42) or the Duxford Wing experiments by Bader, they flew in much more ad hoc groupings. They were not always based together, and didn't have a fixed TOE. Wings in 2TAF on D Day vary from 1 to 4 sqds. German Gruppen were even less coherent(sometimes the units of a Gruppe weren't always all on the same front!

The difference in scaling appears to have no effect on the game mechanics. And we do have battalions in game... art, Eng, AA, in fact almost all the SUs are Btns.

As for your description of land combat differences, you are still not making yourself clear. What exactly do you think is wrong? Units (divisions) have capabilities that are a function of equipment on hand (guns, squads, AFVs etc), and supplies/fuel/ammo. If they outrun their supplies or lose a lot of equipment they lose combat effectiveness. Restock/refit and they are restored.