Noob's questions

[Nirosi]

Good day to all,

I have been lurking on the board for a couple of years and after three campaigns against the AI, I feel I should try a player vs player game. But before I post a request in the appropriate discussion, I would appreciate if someone will be kind enough to help with a “few” questions for which I never found an answer on the board. I know there a quite a few but any answer, even if partial, will be appreciated 😊 And I must mention that this is truly a great game, my congratulations to all involved in the design…

Land units questions:

In game terms, what is the difference between those types of artillery: Howitzers, Guns and Mortars? Is it that guns are less good at pre-battle bombardment but on the other hand can double-up as anti-tank guns? If so, what would be the advantage, in game terms, of a similar calibers mortar vs. Howitzer and vice-versa? And what about rockets? Any unique ability in game terms?

The rules mention a maximum of 6 SU send to a battle by an HQ. It seems to be a maximum per battle according to the wording. But I am under the impression that in fact it could be « per HQ » from what I think I see? Also, when applying the special commitment phase for 3 extra artillery units, am I right to assume that the non-committed artillery could be committed in the normal phase? I other words, the normal phase is for both non-artillery units and (again) artillery units?

Am I right to believe that for artillery, bigger is always better in all circumstances? The only reason not to always build the biggest guns would be to not suck up too much armament points? Or is it that smaller caliber can fire at shorter range not available to larger caliber (therefore requiring a variety of calibers in a battle)? Then again, does it make a difference in firing with one regiment each at long, middle and short range instead of firing at long range only but with three regiments?

If an HQ provides only artillery divisions to a battle (firing at 2 hexes range), does that mean that any SU unit attached to that HQ (for example a tank REG) could also be committed to battle?

If an encircled and isolated HQ is forced to relocate out of the pocket, what happens to the SU attached to it? They relocate or surrender?

Motorcycle regiments: are they simply a « variant motorised squad » or do they get some other characteristics such as improving the detection level of enemies to simulate recon? While on it, do armored cars and light tanks also help with improving recon (just curious)?

What is the simplest way to train support units? Should I leave them in Stavka or should I ship them farther (to a Military district for example) to keep them more that 10 hexes away? Is it worth the trouble?

Also, when I “pull” a support unit from Stavka to an army, does the AI take the most “ready” unit (TOE, experience, morale)?

I am a little confused about paratrooper divisions. The brigade can combine into a guard division in 1942 or a guard paratrooper division in 1943 (which cannot do airdrops). But, according to the max CV, the latest seems… weaker. Waiting longer implies a better unit, but it does not seem so here. I was wondering that maybe it can do things the normal guard divisions can not (I even tried attaching SU to it just in case). Am I missing something?

Air units questions:

In game term, what is the difference between tactical, ground attack and level bombers? For equal payload etc. are tactical bombers always better? Or is there a difference where one is inherently better than the other at some types of target (i.e.: vehicles vs. squads) or missions (airfield bombing vs. ground support) or fragility? In other words, for what type of mission is it best, respectively, to send, for example, an Il-2, a Pe-2 and an Il-4 (other than transport!).

Are fighter bombers more or less like tactical bombers in game terms? Also, are in general the ones with rockets better at the bomber job?

Are the different size AA guns important for the different altitudes? For example, should we ideally have a mixture of light, medium and heavy AA to fire respectively at bombers attacking at low, medium and high altitudes?

Do level bombers always bomb at the highest possible altitude? Also, if we send a mixture of bombers, are they all at their respective altitudes (implying waves?) or at the lowest common altitude? Also, are some fighters better when fighting at some altitudes?

Despite their printed characteristics etc., are some recon planes better at detection than others? In other words, do some models get a « detection » bonus?

I often have problems making fighters fly as bombers. I played three games against AI and the Italian ones never took off as bombers when assigned so (but no problem as fighters when assigned as fighters) while the Soviet ones took off as bombers but only if paired with real bombers in their bases… Am I missing something?

And last but not least, how to know the relative value of fighters? What characteristic is better? Is there a rule of thumbs that anybody has? For example, between the Mig-3, Yak-3 and Lagg-3, not easy for me to determine which one is the better. Each seems to have an advantage the other two do not! Is speed more important than manoeuvrability or manoeuvrability more so than armament? Also, how to determine what is the best armament when comparing? Is it better to have 12 MG (spitfire) or two heavy MG and a canon (Yak)? Any general feeling just to more or less orient myself would be appreciated 😊

Many thanks in advance,

[jediael]

If you don't mind I will add one about German air units.

How can I get the BF110D-1/R2 FighterBomber? I don't have any to start with, and it is not listed as being produced.

[Nirosi]

Hi Jediael,

No problem, hop along [:)]

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: Nirosi


And last but not least, how to know the relative value of fighters? What characteristic is better? Is there a rule of thumbs that anybody has? For example, between the Mig-3, Yak-3 and Lagg-3, not easy for me to determine which one is the better. Each seems to have an advantage the other two do not! Is speed more important than manoeuvrability or manoeuvrability more so than armament? Also, how to determine what is the best armament when comparing? Is it better to have 12 MG (spitfire) or two heavy MG and a canon (Yak)? Any general feeling just to more or less orient myself would be appreciated 😊

Many thanks in advance,

Mig-3 factory converts into IL-2s at the end of the year. So in the long term they are out. Between Yak-1 and Lagg-3 I always notice that the Lagg-3 shoots down more enemy. But these aircraft are just the precursor to the LA-5. Personally I go for the Swamp the Germans with numbers to get quality pilots. So by the time you get your good aircraft you have quality pilots.

[56ajax]

Artillery - creation of a new unit is always a question of Admin points vs Armament points vs Manpower vs Trucks; early in the game i tend to create units that have tubes already in the pool; later on those that use less manpower.

Motorcycle regiments - no recon advantage that I am aware of; many players disband these, some say for the trucks, but as they only have 100+ trucks not sure it is worth the effort...

Recon detection bonus - nope

Training support units - I tend to train them in a HQ far from the front, and in one that costs 0 admin points to swap them out. Note that it takes about 25 weeks for a unit to obtain max experience so do your planning.

[Denniss]

ORIGINAL: jediael
How can I get the BF110D-1/R2 FighterBomber? I don't have any to start with, and it is not listed as being produced.

You won't get any of them, these were special version operating in Norway or in Africa

[Crackaces]

Land war questions:

Putting my combats in messaging level 7 I observe that land combat consists:

1) There are 2 factors involved -- CV and firepower. There is an initial CV for calculating all kinds of complex things like will a reserve unit participate, Firepower either kills, damages, or disrupts enemy devices and in the end affects final adjusted CV.

2) The name of the game is disruption. Disruption means the unit no longer participates in the combat -- especially final adjusted CV.

3) The air war is first. Stuka's are one of the most devastating platform for influencing final adjusted CV besides crossing a major river ..The disruption from ground support can prevent many units from participating in combat.

4) Then the artillery starts. Now to answer your question. Every device has a range, penetration. blast, rate of fire .. and besides that a requirement of ammo costs and are wither self propelled or need trucks. All of these are strategic, operational, and tactical considerations. Bring in a 305mm siege gun and you get a really big blast at a ROF (-10) the ammo costs are astronomical .. a 20mm quad has little blast effect uses ammo like crazy with a very high ROF .. then there are the 105mm howitzers with a fair rate of fire at a reduced range .. go see each one of these devices and you will begin to notice trade offs. Again some of these trade offs are insidious .. like a ammo of 4000 .. what does that mean? (each shot uses a lot of "ammo" points ammo comes from supply .. units with this device far from a supply source will be devoid of ammo Now you see the trade offs and a need for strategy?)

All I can say is watch a few combats in message mode 7 with different SU's and you will see the effects.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: Nirosi
In game term, what is the difference between tactical, ground attack and level bombers? For equal payload etc. are tactical bombers always better? Or is there a difference where one is inherently better than the other at some types of target (i.e.: vehicles vs. squads) or missions (airfield bombing vs. ground support) or fragility?

Other things being equal dive bombers are more deadly in the ground support and ground bombing role than tactical bombers, and both tactical bombers and dive bombers are better than level bombers. However dive bombers tend to be more easily shot down than tactical bombers. Fighter bombers are less likely to be shot down by fighters, but also seem to be less good at ground support/bombing. Level bombers have other advantages such as altitude of flight that can protect them from some fighter types - essentially they produce high volumes of inaccurate bombs. So they would be better suited to bombing large areas such as cities rather than a small target like a tank. The Axis side has many more level bombers than any other type so you will have no choice but to use them in the ground support/bombing role.

ORIGINAL: Nirosi
Are the different size AA guns important for the different altitudes? For example, should we ideally have a mixture of light, medium and heavy AA to fire respectively at bombers attacking at low, medium and high altitudes?

Yes

ORIGINAL: Nirosi
I often have problems making fighters fly as bombers. I played three games against AI and the Italian ones never took off as bombers when assigned so (but no problem as fighters when assigned as fighters) while the Soviet ones took off as bombers but only if paired with real bombers in their bases… Am I missing something?

You cannot launch a bombing mission without at least one level/tac/dive bomber airgroup. As the Italians do not start off with any of these types they can never launch bombing missions. However AI launched bomber missions such as ground support, I believe, can use them.

ORIGINAL: Nirosi
And last but not least, how to know the relative value of fighters? What characteristic is better? Is there a rule of thumbs that anybody has? For example, between the Mig-3, Yak-3 and Lagg-3, not easy for me to determine which one is the better. Each seems to have an advantage the other two do not! Is speed more important than manoeuvrability or manoeuvrability more so than armament? Also, how to determine what is the best armament when comparing? Is it better to have 12 MG (spitfire) or two heavy MG and a canon (Yak)?

I recommend searching for and reading Dinglir's posting on the subject where he has tried to establish what is the best dogfighter. One of their findings is that when fighters clash the best flight performance usually wins. But in shooting down bombers the heaviest armament is better. So Bf109E3s or Bf110 are better at shooting down bombers but Bf109Fs are better dogfighters. However what is best depends on how you play the air war. My tactics depend on range above everything else.

Between the wars there was a great debate over whether manoeuvrability or speed mattered more. Those who believed in manoeuvrability went for biplanes, those in speed for monoplanes, the Soviet Union went for both. We know in the end historically the monoplane won out.

[Nirosi]

Hi all,

Many thanks for all the answers up to now. Very usefull and very appreciated [:)]

[Dinglir]

ORIGINAL: Nirosi
In game terms, what is the difference between those types of artillery: Howitzers, Guns and Mortars? Is it that guns are less good at pre-battle bombardment but on the other hand can double-up as anti-tank guns? If so, what would be the advantage, in game terms, of a similar calibers mortar vs. Howitzer and vice-versa? And what about rockets? Any unique ability in game terms?

I find this question difficult myself. First, in combat the gun with the longer range fires first, so if it destroys the other gun it is the best. However, I often find that very few guns are actually destroyed this way, and they all get to fire anyway, so I tend to ddisregard range as an important factor.

Then there is caliber and ROF. If a gun is high in one of these, it is probably low in the other. Generally, I think that having a high ROF is better versus enemies with low fortification modifiers and high caliber is better against enemies with high fortification. So on the defense, I would probably go for mortars most of the time (attacking units have no fortification bonus), but if you are preparing an offensive, go for heavier guns.

ORIGINAL: Nirosi
If an HQ provides only artillery divisions to a battle (firing at 2 hexes range), does that mean that any SU unit attached to that HQ (for example a tank REG) could also be committed to battle?

Yes.

ORIGINAL: Nirosi
In game term, what is the difference between tactical, ground attack and level bombers? For equal payload etc. are tactical bombers always better? Or is there a difference where one is inherently better than the other at some types of target (i.e.: vehicles vs. squads) or missions (airfield bombing vs. ground support) or fragility? In other words, for what type of mission is it best, respectively, to send, for example, an Il-2, a Pe-2 and an Il-4 (other than transport!).

Before the last patch, there were only tactical and level bombers. Tactical bombers got a to hit modifier, so that they were more likely to hit their targets. Level bombers do not get any bonus. For ground support during combat use the Il-2, for bombing units prior to combat use the Pe-2 and for attacks deep in the enemy rear use the Il-4.

ORIGINAL: Nirosi
Are fighter bombers more or less like tactical bombers in game terms? Also, are in general the ones with rockets better at the bomber job?

I have never really noticed any positive results from using rockets in combat, as they are very inaccurate (at least during the early war). historically, the Il-2 pilots soon began to rely more on thier cannon than their rockets.

ORIGINAL: Nirosi
Are the different size AA guns important for the different altitudes? For example, should we ideally have a mixture of light, medium and heavy AA to fire respectively at bombers attacking at low, medium and high altitudes?

Do level bombers always bomb at the highest possible altitude? Also, if we send a mixture of bombers, are they all at their respective altitudes (implying waves?) or at the lowest common altitude? Also, are some fighters better when fighting at some altitudes?

Level bombers fly at whatever altitude they are capable of. So don't use AA guns without the proper ceiling against them. Against dive bombers and tacticals use something with a high rate of fire. I have no ides what altitude the level bombers fly at, if they are in a mixed force (I prefer not to do so).

To the best of my knowledge altitude means nothing to a dogfight. This will chance come WitE2.

ORIGINAL: Nirosi
And last but not least, how to know the relative value of fighters? What characteristic is better? Is there a rule of thumbs that anybody has? For example, between the Mig-3, Yak-3 and Lagg-3, not easy for me to determine which one is the better. Each seems to have an advantage the other two do not! Is speed more important than manoeuvrability or manoeuvrability more so than armament? Also, how to determine what is the best armament when comparing? Is it better to have 12 MG (spitfire) or two heavy MG and a canon (Yak)? Any general feeling just to more or less orient myself would be appreciated 😊

In a dogfight, every fighter will first try to get position on the enemy. If this succeeds then he will fire and try to hit. If he hits the damage of the shot is then calculated. As a result, against enemy fighters I believe the aircraft with the best performance are the better choice, while against enemy bombers go for the biggest guns (as the bombers will be outperformed by virtually all fighters).

I believe the better dogfighter is the Yak-1, due to its mix of firepower and maneuverability. The best interceptor is the LaGG-3, due to its haveier guns. The MiG-3 is the fastest and probably have the best overall survivability, but it is armed with a pea shooter and will kill very little.

But those are just guess and estimates, as I have not got the formulas used by the game enigine to calculate dog fights.

However, as HardLuck states, more numbers are always a winner (if you are not fatigued to much). Also, Morale, experience, fuel, ammo and other factors are all playing vital roles.

I recommend you to "dive in", watch and learn, and build your own "fingerspitzgefühl" (Erwin Rommel quote).

[Nirosi]

fingerspitzgefühl...

Good advice! How can one argue against that [:)]

[Nirosi]

or ground support during combat use the Il-2, for bombing units prior to combat use the Pe-2 and for attacks deep in the enemy rear use the Il-4

What would be the best way to make sure that it will be the Il-2s that will be sent for ground support? Is it by putting only Il-2s in air armies attached to fronts and all other bombers under an air HQ attached to Stavka?

[Dreamslayer]

ORIGINAL: Nirosi

or ground support during combat use the Il-2, for bombing units prior to combat use the Pe-2 and for attacks deep in the enemy rear use the Il-4

What would be the best way to make sure that it will be the Il-2s that will be sent for ground support? Is it by putting only Il-2s in air armies attached to fronts and all other bombers under an air HQ attached to Stavka?

You can also restrict the unwanted air units by temporally changing them to night-only mission.

[ringhloth]

How much do changes in CV, from things like fort level, terrain, mud, and leader checks impact actual combat results and men lost? Obviously, they heavily impact the outcome, in terms of whether or not you get a victory. I've seen people recommend artillery divisions to STAVKA or fronts in the past, but this seems to have a strong impact on CV. However, you're not using artillery for the raw CV to win a battle, right?

[jediael]

Another noob question from me:

Is there a way to see the super detailed combat log (i.e. what each unit did to other units, etc) after a battle has taken place?

What does the endurance stat for aircraft mean?

[Dinglir]

ORIGINAL: ringhloth

How much do changes in CV, from things like fort level, terrain, mud, and leader checks impact actual combat results and men lost? Obviously, they heavily impact the outcome, in terms of whether or not you get a victory. I've seen people recommend artillery divisions to STAVKA or fronts in the past, but this seems to have a strong impact on CV. However, you're not using artillery for the raw CV to win a battle, right?

Obviously, any given unit will be a lot harder to defeat if it sits in a level four fortification instead of being caught in the open. Fortification levels also matter when trying to inflict casualties. Try bombing a unit in the open with the early war Soviet aircraft dropping 100kg bombs, and then try to bomb the same unit in a level four fortification. The result should be very different. Makes sense, as dropping a 100kg bomb won't really matter if the target sits in a bunker protected by 12 feet of dirt and two feet of concrete.

In the appendixes of the manual (26.1.4) is a table showing the CV factor of the various elements. This table shows all artillery as having a CV factor of 0. Artillery is only there to kill or disrupt the enemy. Remember that a disrupted enemy element count for 0 when the final CV is calculated.

Often, when the Soviets attacks the Germans, the Soviets will have vastly superior numbers, but the CV comparisons may not reflect that. A German element is often five or ten times higher CV than their Soviet counterparts. So a Soviet heavy gun that disrupts a German element is actually very much part of the eqation to win the battle.

Heavy artillery can also destroy enemy fortifications but I have never really put much effort into analyzing the effectivemess, so someone else will have to give that one a go. I do have a feeling that it is not really that effective (at least not in the early war).

As for leaders, they can often double the CV of a unit in battle. I would argue that good leaders are the single most important factor in winning the battles.

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: Dinglir
Heavy artillery can also destroy enemy fortifications but I have never really put much effort into analyzing the effectivemess, so someone else will have to give that one a go. I do have a feeling that it is not really that effective (at least not in the early war).

The effect is only marginal when you have only regiments in play, usually 2%-4%. You might get higher results when you have hundreds of heavy artillery firing though.

In the later part of the war with artillery divisions I expect the fort levels may get lowered quite a bit more.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: jediael

Another noob question from me:

Is there a way to see the super detailed combat log (i.e. what each unit did to other units, etc) after a battle has taken place?

What does the endurance stat for aircraft mean?

It wold be very nice to be able to export to a spreadsheet a detailed combat log . alas .. only pressing 1-7 will give you real time messages ..
A big battle on '7' will take a long time and interfere with bodily functions [:'(] but does render a lot of good information ..

[Stelteck]

Having the detailled battles exported to log file would be a great feature.

[tyronec]

I feel some of the detail of the different equipment can become a distraction to playing the game - if you concentrate too much on getting the best weapon to a particular position you can miss out on the broader picture.

Aircraft: Upgrade when you can, my rule of thumb would be:

Soviet fighters - class as either modern (Migs or better) or outdated. The outdated ones are simply cannon fodder.
Soviet LBs - OK bombers are IL4s, DBD3s and a few others. SB2s poor.
Soviet Tacs. - U2VS are poor, others are OK.

German fighters - the 110s are better at night fighting, otherwise not as good as the 109s.
German LBs. - He are good, JU and Do OK.
German Dive Bombers. - deadly.

Generally Tacs do more damage than LBs but will take many more losses from AA.


Ground combat:

Artillery. There is a spreadsheet around of the CVs of different units. A good rule of thumb is to go by the manpower, more men means more strike power, I don't differentiate at all between the different weapon types. What matters is to get as many of them into combat as much as possible.
AA. Heavy AA (85mm +) is better against LBs.
The SU that may be worth moving around are pioneers because of their major impact against fortifications.