Operational losses very high (Axis side '41 Campaign)

[jarraya]

Having only played WITW, it seems to me that German air operational losses are very high (compared to a WITW scenario) in the first four turns. For the veterans, is this normal?

[Bamilus]

Not a vet, but have played WITW. If you use default AI AD's set up on turn 1, yes. You will get anywhere from like 200-600 losses, which is insane. You can spend one minute and just move the AD's back into escort range and dial those losses down to 200 max. Also can reduce intensity. If you play with it even more you can get better results.

I'm not a Luftwaffe expert but over course of campaign using mainly ground support and recon, I can't say my planes were hurt that badly. Here's an SS from Turn 28 (Dec 28th 1941 I think) of my game vs AI on normal. Doing manual air ware but nothing fancy, just resting units below 50 morale, rotating depleted units, and not abusing ground support or recon. I'm a few hundred more aircraft lost than historically but my pilots are only like -100 vs full amount needed. With a lot more time focused on air war I could do a lot better, but just showing what even a small amount of manual can do. I never use AI assist.

I think my first turn air phase, spending only 5 minutes making broad stroke AD's, was like 200 losses to 2.5K Soviets, which isn't even that good, but leaps better than AI.

[Sly]

It's nice to meet WitW veterans.

I also have the impression that the level of losses due to any activity in the air is too high. I read the manual under this account, it is specifically written that two missions, i.e. naval interdiction and superiority, are less vulnerable to anti-aircraft ground fire.
But what about Recon Missions?
They are easily intercepted and suffer heavy losses from fighters (compared to Witw) and are under heavy fire from anti-aircraft fire.
I practically limited them to two days a week and for that a fighter escort is needed, which of course is needed elsewhere.

Overall, the game looks very good, but in my opinion there is something wrong

[stryc]

Air ops losses do seem rather on the hot side, for both sides.

Not just ops. There doesn't seem to be any point at which a flight bugs out due to mounting losses; they just keep on going until they're all down.

[Bamilus]

ORIGINAL: stryc

Air ops losses do seem rather on the hot side, for both sides.

Not just ops. There doesn't seem to be any point at which a flight bugs out due to mounting losses; they just keep on going until they're all down.

This is definitely an issue. The Soviet AI also likes to run long range strategic bombing in July/August and each of my campaigns they end up losing like 1-2K aircraft from that alone. They'll send 200 aircraft on a single bombing run to Konigsberg and all will get shot down.

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: Bamilus

This is definitely an issue. The Soviet AI also likes to run long range strategic bombing in July/August and each of my campaigns they end up losing like 1-2K aircraft from that alone. They'll send 200 aircraft on a single bombing run to Konigsberg and all will get shot down.

I would report this as a bug, that kind of suicidal bombing runs do not sound intentional.

Could be that the air losses in general are tuned up quite high. AA losses seem ok to me, but haven't really done any experiments.

[Bamilus]

It's been reported in tech support and other places. I made a post on the Soviet runs and Joel respond and someone else made a post on bombers not disengaging. I really don't have a problem with Soviets doing strategic bombing in 41, per se, but that combined with the disengagement logic ostensibly not working makes for massive suicide losses.

It sounds like the disengagement thing might be harder to tweak/fix, so Gary just probably needs to tone back the AI logic in strategic bombing in 41.

Honestly though, I disagree with the above posters. I don't have find Axis air losses to be that high, at least compared to historically. I also disagree that recon are easily intercepted. If you run recon on 17K altitude I never get intercepted. All my recon losses are operational and I think they make sense given A) the Axis recon planes suck B) I run a decent amount of recon.

[jacktimes2]

ORIGINAL: Bamilus

If you run recon on 17K altitude I never get intercepted.

Interesting. I’ll have to try that. How effective are recon directives at that altitude?

[Bamilus]

Effective enough to find their lines. I normally run interdiction vs unit recon missions. I haven't played a ton of WITW but I think people need to understand that historically there was a lot less recon in the East than there was in France/Italy in 43/44. I think it's wrong expect to have the same results as WITW which is an entire different theater with entirely different circumstances and different aircraft.

The Germans were frequently blind-sided by Soviet formations throughout the entire war and also had notoriously terrible pre-war intelligence/recon of Soviet positions.

[carlkay58]

Recon directive altitudes are used by the aircraft assigned in transit to/from the target hex. When they reach the target hex they will change altitude to the proper one for the observation equipment (low level camera, mid level camera, high level camera, MK I eyeball, etc.) the aircraft has. I will note that it is usually best to have the path altitude somewhat close to a good altitude for cameras as the recon aircraft will perform recon from and to the target hex. 17,000 altitude is a good mix for the camera systems - not optimal but good enough type thing. Too high or low and the aircraft may not be performing as well for range and speed. 17,000 also has the benefit of being above what most people set their Air Superiority at and there is an altitude difference where the fighters will not be able to intercept (I think 5,000 but I could be totally wrong here).

[MechFO]

Effective height for Low Alt Level camera is 16800, so 17k is good for those. Units with High Alt have an effective height in the 30's, so I go with mid 20's for those.

In general Ops losses may seem high but a lot of sources of regular ops losses are missing in the game f.e. movement of air groups. After a few dozen turns it doesn't seem out of place, maybe even on the low side. The first few turns are a bit deceptive due to the long ranges and very intensive operational pace.

[Rexzapper]

ORIGINAL: MechFO
Effective height for Low Alt Level camera is 16800, so 17k is good for those. Units with High Alt have an effective height in the 30's, so I go with mid 20's for those.

Effective height for Low Level camera is 12000, 16800 is max ceiling.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Rexzapper

ORIGINAL: MechFO
Effective height for Low Alt Level camera is 16800, so 17k is good for those. Units with High Alt have an effective height in the 30's, so I go with mid 20's for those.

Effective height for Low Level camera is 12000, 16800 is max ceiling.

doesn't actually matter [;)]

altitude is what the planes use to/from the target area, they adjust height over the actual target zone to the best fit to their current load out

[Rexzapper]

But in the case of reconnaissance missions it is different. They will observe everything on their way from staging base to target. If this route is carried out at an unsuitable height for their cameras, they will not carry out reconnaissance "en route" (or not effectively).

[jarraya]

Thanks for all the replies. I hope the devs will have a look at this issue.

[Joel Billings]

This has been a subject of great debate for months/years in the test forum. Op losses are high, intentionally so. For some of the reasons mentioned in this thread. Are they too high, maybe. However, during the war well over half of Soviet air losses were operational losses. I'm actually of the belief that the massive (80-100%) losses that the Soviets can suffer in their missions that get intercepted are likely more unrealistic than the high op losses. We will continue to monitor the results we see in AARs and various posts, but no changes are in the works or anticipated anytime soon.

[fritzfarlig]

I understand recon altitude come automatic not like WITW, I will go for the highest

[Karri]

Operational losses are quite low when the mission ranges are short. During Barbarossa, the planes suffer just like the rest of the units.

OTOH, ground support causes way too high casualties. For Axis, because from time to time you forget to turn it off when doing attacks far ahead, which means that the planes fly without escorts and get shot down. For the Soviets, any battle where Axis can bring sufficient numbers will result in an almost total wipeout. There should always be air superiority resolution in the hex that is attacked, and if the results are skewed too hard in either direction then the mission should be cancelled.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Karri
There should always be air superiority resolution in the hex that is attacked, and if the results are skewed too hard in either direction then the mission should be cancelled.

It would be nice if fighter units projected a kind of air inderdiction value like what is done for naval interdiciton for sea hexes. This would lead to some kind of value of absolute friendly control, contested and absolute enemy control. If in contested, unescorted might still fly, but will avoid absolute enemy controlled areas. As I understand it, this already happens for Air Superiority missions, but there needs be a passive generation of this value by fighter units.

[dudefan]

ORIGINAL: MechFO

ORIGINAL: Karri
There should always be air superiority resolution in the hex that is attacked, and if the results are skewed too hard in either direction then the mission should be cancelled.

It would be nice if fighter units projected a kind of air inderdiction value like what is done for naval interdiciton for sea hexes. This would lead to some kind of value of absolute friendly control, contested and absolute enemy control. If in contested, unescorted might still fly, but will avoid absolute enemy controlled areas. As I understand it, this already happens for Air Superiority missions, but there needs be a passive generation of this value by fighter units.

Interesting idea