I was wondering if anyone knows the mechanics of aircraft attacking an airfield with aircraft on the ground. For example, if a squadron of dive bombers hits an airfield with divebombers, etc., it would seem to me that they have to use the pow and powdef ratings in the combat matrix. But, this would also seem to be the same ratings as during air-to-air combat. I couldn't find anything covering this in a quick scan of the manuals.
Also, is there a way to change the intercept range, or is this, as I suspect, hard coded.
Aircaraft combat
Moderator: Vic
Aircaraft combat
One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothin' can beat teamwork -- Edward Abbey
-
ironduke1955
- Posts: 2037
- Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 9:52 am
- Location: UK
RE: Aircaraft combat
Quite right the standard combat ratings are applied even when the defenders are fighters and interception is set for NON, as we know the Soviets lost thousands of planes on the ground. My feeling is that if fighters are set not to intercept that in effect makes them helpless they will not scramble they have been ordered to stay on the ground. Regards the other case where fighters are given a interception commitment 25 50 or 75 losses then it would be unfair to count these planes as on the ground. though it might be argued that they are at a disadvantage. Bombers should be vulnerable but they are not a argument for having a specific air mission targeting the air base element of a hex only with commensurate bonuses for a breakthrough to have a run at the bombers minus the bombers defensive bonus. But that's another level of complexity to what some people consider a complex game.
Every value is modable nothing is hard coded.
Every value is modable nothing is hard coded.
Are we like late Rome, infatuated with past glories, ruled by a complacent, greedy elite, and hopelessly powerless to respond to changing conditions?
-
ernieschwitz
- Posts: 4574
- Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:46 pm
- Location: Denmark
RE: Aircaraft combat
Actually, some things are not modable. Air interception range is one of them.
There are some ways to get around it however, I won't get into it here, but through setting some values at unusual settings (Icym would know too), you can actually get fully customizable interception ranges. That is different values for all planes you set to these unusual values. It is not something I have experimented alot with hence my hesitation about bringing up the exact way to do this.
The work involved and the understanding of game mechanics makes this method very complex btw, and I am sure, there could be bugs from it too...
There are some ways to get around it however, I won't get into it here, but through setting some values at unusual settings (Icym would know too), you can actually get fully customizable interception ranges. That is different values for all planes you set to these unusual values. It is not something I have experimented alot with hence my hesitation about bringing up the exact way to do this.
The work involved and the understanding of game mechanics makes this method very complex btw, and I am sure, there could be bugs from it too...
Creator of High Quality Scenarios for:
- Advanced Tactics Gold
DC: Warsaw to Paris
DC: Community Project.
RE: Aircaraft combat
I kind of figured that it work that way since there isn't any contrary description. It does lead to some difficulties in modeling events like you point out, namely the start of Barbarossa, or even Pearl Harbor. If the planes are on the ground, they should be at a serious disadvantage. It is hard to make this work well since one wants to make dive bombers and level bombers have a smaller defense against fighters, but in a fight like this, even if the planes are not intercepting, the fight would be mismatched. I suppose that one way to fix this in the engine would be to have a surprise rule.
One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothin' can beat teamwork -- Edward Abbey
-
ernieschwitz
- Posts: 4574
- Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:46 pm
- Location: Denmark
RE: Aircaraft combat
There is a rulevar concerning first turn surprise if caught at airbase... If I don't recall wrongly 
Creator of High Quality Scenarios for:
- Advanced Tactics Gold
DC: Warsaw to Paris
DC: Community Project.
RE: Aircaraft combat
Ernie’s memory is working perfectly:
In Settings> RuleVars >Combat Calculations, Rules 835 and 836 determine the effect of attacking an airbase. Rule 835 gives the defender a penalty on the first combat round; the default value is 66. Rule 836 allows the penalty to be applied on subsequent rounds; the default value here is 33 and it signifies the reduction in the defender’s penalty each round after the first. So with default values, the defender gets a 66 (percent?) penalty on round 1, 66-33 = 33 on round 2 and no penalties from round 3.
These values can be changed in game by an event – using ExecSetRuleVar in the Game category. The appropriate trigger would depend on the game situation – in the Pearl Harbor example, playing an action card on the location could do it. When the turn ends, the values could be reset to standard.
The disadvantage of doing this is that all air attacks by that Regime would gain the benefit during that turn.
The effects are quite marked, running a combat sim (6 fighters attacking vs. 5 fighters) gave the following:
Rules 835/836 both set to 0 (no surprise):
Attacker won 20%, defender 80% (defender lost 30% of aircraft).
Rules set to 66/33 (default):
Attacker won 55%, defender 45% (defender lost 45% of aircraft).
Rules set to 90/30:
Attacker won 98%, defender 2% (defender lost 66% of aircraft).
The intercept setting of the defenders appeared to be irrelevant.
Repeating with fighters attacking bombers gave similar fail/success rates, but bomber losses were higher and there were no fighter losses.
Adjusting aircraft range and intercept range:
If you want to tweak the movement ranges of aircraft (and ships too, especially on a large scale map).
From the Statistics 1 screen SFTs can be given an action point mod (standard is 1). For example I used a mod of 1.05 for fighter II to increase its range from 14 to 15. This means it starts the turn with 105 action points instead of 100, which is just enough to give it an extra hex movement. (I had basically worked out how far I wanted each aircraft to move and chose the air movement rates and action points to get the result I wanted). On the same screen you can also set MoveRedux, but for reasons I forget, I didn’t use this for aircraft.
Interception: Rule 147 sets the intercept range of aircraft as a fraction of their normal range. Note that if you change the action points of an aircraft to give it extra range, the intercept range does not change. The standard is .5, so an aircraft with a range of 14 will have an intercept of 7. If you apply a moveredux the intercept range does appear to change proportionately but I have not tested this in a game.
It should be possible to change the intercept range via events and RegimeVars to set different intercept ranges for different regimes. An example would be adding a research item for radar. If a regime improves their radar tech, their aircraft can intercept at a longer range. If you wanted to recreate the total disarray of a surprise attack say on Russia, you could reduce the intercept range so Russian aircraft mostly sit in their airfields failing to intercept and waiting to get pounded.
I hope this provides a few ideas.
In Settings> RuleVars >Combat Calculations, Rules 835 and 836 determine the effect of attacking an airbase. Rule 835 gives the defender a penalty on the first combat round; the default value is 66. Rule 836 allows the penalty to be applied on subsequent rounds; the default value here is 33 and it signifies the reduction in the defender’s penalty each round after the first. So with default values, the defender gets a 66 (percent?) penalty on round 1, 66-33 = 33 on round 2 and no penalties from round 3.
These values can be changed in game by an event – using ExecSetRuleVar in the Game category. The appropriate trigger would depend on the game situation – in the Pearl Harbor example, playing an action card on the location could do it. When the turn ends, the values could be reset to standard.
The disadvantage of doing this is that all air attacks by that Regime would gain the benefit during that turn.
The effects are quite marked, running a combat sim (6 fighters attacking vs. 5 fighters) gave the following:
Rules 835/836 both set to 0 (no surprise):
Attacker won 20%, defender 80% (defender lost 30% of aircraft).
Rules set to 66/33 (default):
Attacker won 55%, defender 45% (defender lost 45% of aircraft).
Rules set to 90/30:
Attacker won 98%, defender 2% (defender lost 66% of aircraft).
The intercept setting of the defenders appeared to be irrelevant.
Repeating with fighters attacking bombers gave similar fail/success rates, but bomber losses were higher and there were no fighter losses.
Adjusting aircraft range and intercept range:
If you want to tweak the movement ranges of aircraft (and ships too, especially on a large scale map).
From the Statistics 1 screen SFTs can be given an action point mod (standard is 1). For example I used a mod of 1.05 for fighter II to increase its range from 14 to 15. This means it starts the turn with 105 action points instead of 100, which is just enough to give it an extra hex movement. (I had basically worked out how far I wanted each aircraft to move and chose the air movement rates and action points to get the result I wanted). On the same screen you can also set MoveRedux, but for reasons I forget, I didn’t use this for aircraft.
Interception: Rule 147 sets the intercept range of aircraft as a fraction of their normal range. Note that if you change the action points of an aircraft to give it extra range, the intercept range does not change. The standard is .5, so an aircraft with a range of 14 will have an intercept of 7. If you apply a moveredux the intercept range does appear to change proportionately but I have not tested this in a game.
It should be possible to change the intercept range via events and RegimeVars to set different intercept ranges for different regimes. An example would be adding a research item for radar. If a regime improves their radar tech, their aircraft can intercept at a longer range. If you wanted to recreate the total disarray of a surprise attack say on Russia, you could reduce the intercept range so Russian aircraft mostly sit in their airfields failing to intercept and waiting to get pounded.
I hope this provides a few ideas.
RE: Aircaraft combat
Thanks icym, that is some nice detail for effects I was unaware of. One question regarding intercept range. If I change the action point cost per terrain, rather than use action point mod, is the normal range calculated from this? My impression from an ongoing game is that the range is still 7.
One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, there ain't nothin' can beat teamwork -- Edward Abbey
-
ernieschwitz
- Posts: 4574
- Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:46 pm
- Location: Denmark
RE: Aircaraft combat
Air movement, is movement like any other movement. If changed in the landscape types, it will be affected.
Re: Icym's revelation on the adding of to the action point mod. In theory this could be manipulated along with the rulevar, to allow ANY interception range, for ANY aircraft. But there is a caveat, since the plane would now have more than 100 APs it could in theory fight more than one combat mission, and use 100 APs in each, and the remainder in the remaining combats.
To achieve basically any Interception range, basically you just set the rulevar to full intercept range = 1 as far as i recall, and then set the planes individual range as a multiplier as that, in the action point mod.
This means you might have an aircraft with range of 3 (determined by the air movement type, 33 pr. hex should do it), and then have it have a flying range of say 9, by simply setting the action point mod to 3.00.
It really is that simple. Of course there might be issues other than the one I pointed out.
Re: Icym's revelation on the adding of to the action point mod. In theory this could be manipulated along with the rulevar, to allow ANY interception range, for ANY aircraft. But there is a caveat, since the plane would now have more than 100 APs it could in theory fight more than one combat mission, and use 100 APs in each, and the remainder in the remaining combats.
To achieve basically any Interception range, basically you just set the rulevar to full intercept range = 1 as far as i recall, and then set the planes individual range as a multiplier as that, in the action point mod.
This means you might have an aircraft with range of 3 (determined by the air movement type, 33 pr. hex should do it), and then have it have a flying range of say 9, by simply setting the action point mod to 3.00.
It really is that simple. Of course there might be issues other than the one I pointed out.
Creator of High Quality Scenarios for:
- Advanced Tactics Gold
DC: Warsaw to Paris
DC: Community Project.
RE: Aircaraft combat
Interception: Rule 147 sets the intercept range of aircraft as a fraction of their normal range. Note that if you change the action points of an aircraft to give it extra range, the intercept range does not change. The standard is .5, so an aircraft with a range of 14 will have an intercept of 7. If you apply a moveredux the intercept range does appear to change proportionately but I have not tested this in a game.
Hmmmmm.....this explains some interception fails in GD 1938, as a fighter with 4 range will have only a two hex for interception. This actually fixes my worries with Mustangs making long range interceptions like they were Mig-31´s....on the other hand, I think that an increase of movement to fighters (using increased AP) will result in fighters being able to fly longer escort missions, so it wouldn´t be desireable.
To simulate surpise you could also decrease readiness for aircraft using an event, to increase people combat value for a given number of rounds or to set aircraft to a low readiness manually (only if want a one round surprise, but would simulate Barbarossa well). These simple solutions are for those, who, like me, lack the ability with the event editor.