GA

[AlbertN]

Well there are many targets for GA - though I've only seen railyards and unit.
And rarely Interdiction.

I've thought of another way to use Interdiction if I've well studied the rules - but it will have to wait time before I can practice it.

[metaphore]

I have noticed something changed with auto interception since the last patch. Now, I can't cause half the losses I was used to inflict during the GC41 first turn with all the Bf109 groups set to auto intercept soviet missions (while nothing else flying). Not sure if it's GA the issue.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

Im no expert but my understanding was that GAs wasnt detected until entering enemy territory (air supply missions on the other hand seems to be detected far into friendly territory...). So i guess the difference might be that in Lokis AI game the AI often bomb stuff further into his territory while humans in a MP game will only bomb the spearheads with no territory buffer in front. Perhaps if Tyronec reran his experiment while taking a few hexes around Memel it would end up different?

Could be that is the reason. I suspect that the combat Loki posted was a GS rather than a GA because the combat result is 'Held', but that is not to say that he isn't getting some GA intercepts.

In the game the most effective use of GA, in my opinion, is to heavily bomb a small number of units that are going to be subject to critical combats during the ground phase. If you bomb them enough you can reduce them to a fraction of their starting CV, in some cases down to zero (specifically at the start of the VtB scenario if anyone wants to confirm this).
For Axis early war this is not good tactics because you can get better results using GS.

However with the early Soviets their GS will generally get intercepted and so is far less effective.
If the Soviets can win say 1 or 2 combats a turn that they wouldn't otherwise have won, say from T5 onwards in the '41 Campaign, then that is going to have a significant effect on game balance. Especially if you are thereby opening up a pocket or two.

My experience in the two games I am playing, StB as Soviets and the '41 Campaign as Axis, is that this kind of GA on the front line is immune to 'default' interception. The AS test bed didn't get any interception either, I did manage to get some 'default' interception from it but am not sure exactly what the conditions are to trigger it. Maybe a hex adjacent to an airfield with a glut of supplies on it.

I have asked Gundam to stop using GA in our '41 game and I will stop using it in the StB game (though we are waiting for the next patch to continue with that game).
Actually I think at present that 'no GA' would be a good house rule for any game, excepting maybe Barbarossa T1 but it seems that GA is not really necessary even for that.

I have auto intercepted everything but Jubjub's Ground Attack's in my current game and we are on Turn 9 and he has been GA'ing since turn 3 or 4(don't remember which turn it was for sure).

[metaphore]

I can only compare one save from 01.03beta vs another from 01.09beta (but I've made plenty).

Air Losses of Turn 1, GC41 -> the opening move is roughly the same and I have obtained consistant results accross several tests

103b vs 109b

***** AXIS Losses *****
97_____45_____Pilots KIA
95_____49_____Fighter Bomber
17_____11_____Transport

_89_____41_____Air Combat Losses
__7______1_____Flak Losses
_16_____18_____Operational Losses
112_____60_____TOTAL Losses


***** SOVIET Losses *****
2,210_____1,062_____Pilots KIA
__446_______305_____Fighter
1,270_______731_____Fighter Bomber
__251_______299_____Tactical Bomber
1,083_______940_____Level Bomber
____4_______37_____Recon

2,797_____1,363_____Air Combat Losses
____0________6______Flak Losses
_187_______719______Lost On The Ground
__70_______224______Operational Losses
3,054_____2,312_____TOTAL Losses


What matter here is not the total of airframes destroyed -in excess of 500+ were due to airfields being overun in the second game on top of serious operational losses) but the number of Air Combat Losses and the number of Pilots KIA (which are closely correlated). Where I could previously reach easily 2,500+ Air Combat kills, I'm actually struggling to get more than 1,000 since the current release.

Consequently, either the odds for launching Ground Support missions were changed for the Soviet, either the chance for the German fighters to intercept were altered. My bet is on the later.

[tyronec]

I can only compare one save from 01.03beta vs another from 01.09beta (but I've made plenty).

Air Losses of Turn 1, GC41 -> the opening move is roughly the same and I have obtained consistant results accross several tests

103b vs 109b

***** AXIS Losses *****
97_____45_____Pilots KIA
95_____49_____Fighter Bomber
17_____11_____Transport

_89_____41_____Air Combat Losses
__7______1_____Flak Losses
_16_____18_____Operational Losses
112_____60_____TOTAL Losses


***** SOVIET Losses *****
2,210_____1,062_____Pilots KIA
__446_______305_____Fighter
1,270_______731_____Fighter Bomber
__251_______299_____Tactical Bomber
1,083_______940_____Level Bomber
____4_______37_____Recon

2,797_____1,363_____Air Combat Losses
____0________6______Flak Losses
_187_______719______Lost On The Ground
__70_______224______Operational Losses
3,054_____2,312_____TOTAL Losses


What matter here is not the total of airframes destroyed -in excess of 500+ were due to airfields being overun in the second game on top of serious operational losses) but the number of Air Combat Losses and the number of Pilots KIA (which are closely correlated). Where I could previously reach easily 2,500+ Air Combat kills, I'm actually struggling to get more than 1,000 since the current release.

Consequently, either the odds for launching Ground Support missions were changed for the Soviet, either the chance for the German fighters to intercept were altered. My bet is on the later.

I would suspect that the reduction in Soviet A2A losses is due primarily to their GS being intercepted by Axis fighters.
In my games the Soviets do get some intercepts of Axis air base bombing GAs, and that has changed under recent patches compared to what was happening some time ago.
This would seem to reinforce the idea that the chance of a GA intercept is related to the distance behind enemy lines that the bombing attack occurs.
Personally I think this may be wrong logic. If it means that you have a better chance of intercepting 5 LBs attacking a rail yard far behind the front line than of intercepting 2000 sorties against a Panzer division on the front line.

[metaphore]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

I can only compare one save from 01.03beta vs another from 01.09beta (but I've made plenty).

Air Losses of Turn 1, GC41 -> the opening move is roughly the same and I have obtained consistant results accross several tests

103b vs 109b

***** AXIS Losses *****
97_____45_____Pilots KIA
95_____49_____Fighter Bomber
17_____11_____Transport

_89_____41_____Air Combat Losses
__7______1_____Flak Losses
_16_____18_____Operational Losses
112_____60_____TOTAL Losses


***** SOVIET Losses *****
2,210_____1,062_____Pilots KIA
__446_______305_____Fighter
1,270_______731_____Fighter Bomber
__251_______299_____Tactical Bomber
1,083_______940_____Level Bomber
____4_______37_____Recon

2,797_____1,363_____Air Combat Losses
____0________6______Flak Losses
_187_______719______Lost On The Ground
__70_______224______Operational Losses
3,054_____2,312_____TOTAL Losses


What matter here is not the total of airframes destroyed -in excess of 500+ were due to airfields being overun in the second game on top of serious operational losses) but the number of Air Combat Losses and the number of Pilots KIA (which are closely correlated). Where I could previously reach easily 2,500+ Air Combat kills, I'm actually struggling to get more than 1,000 since the current release.

Consequently, either the odds for launching Ground Support missions were changed for the Soviet, either the chance for the German fighters to intercept were altered. My bet is on the later.

I would suspect that the reduction in Soviet A2A losses is due primarily to their GS being intercepted by Axis fighters.
In my games the Soviets do get some intercepts of Axis air base bombing GAs, and that has changed under recent patches compared to what was happening some time ago.
This would seem to reinforce the idea that the chance of a GA intercept is related to the distance behind enemy lines that the bombing attack occurs.
Personally I think this may be wrong logic. If it means that you have a better chance of intercepting 5 LBs attacking a rail yard far behind the front line than of intercepting 2000 sorties against a Panzer division on the front line.

Hi Tyrone,
I would suggest that you try it yourself: 100% of the air losses I've recorded above happened during the German movement phase when Soviet GS might be triggered and intercepted (or not) by German fighters.

During those tests I've made for turn 1 opening moves, there wasn't a single German AD flown during the Air Phase (not a single Axis bomber/recon left on the map, only Bf 109 fighters set in auto-interception mode).

As you are saying that GA results might have been altered too, I'm just pointing that auto-interception is part of the process and was definitively altered.

[tyronec]

As I see it there are three aspects here:

AS has a bug and is not working against at least some GA. This should be resolved in a future patch. It does work against naval patrol.

Auto-intercept is not being triggered against some GA attacks. I think this is a design feature, it was raised as an issue a long time ago during testing but has never been recorded as a bug. It seems that the probability of an intercept is related to the distance the GA aircraft fly over enemy terrain. I don't know if range to the intercepting fighters air field is a factor. In practice this means that if you bomb far behind the enemy front line you may well be intercepted but if you only bomb front line units then you may be immune to interception.

The algorithm for intercepts looks to have been changed in recent patches. As reported by metaphore above and I also noticed that T1 long range air base bombings were being intercepted more often.

[AlbertN]

On T1 I personally feel that Soviets should not intercept at all. But it may go bogus.
It means more planes destroyed on the ground but more pilots saved.

Currently it's almost a no brainer to keep German planes from bombing airfields and let the Soviets just fly en mass to suicide.

At the same time it allows a proper and not luck reliant airfield bombing in depth as well.

[metaphore]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

As I see it there are three aspects here:

AS has a bug and is not working against at least some GA. This should be resolved in a future patch. It does work against naval patrol.

Auto-intercept is not being triggered against some GA attacks. I think this is a design feature, it was raised as an issue a long time ago during testing but has never been recorded as a bug. It seems that the probability of an intercept is related to the distance the GA aircraft fly over enemy terrain. I don't know if range to the intercepting fighters air field is a factor. In practice this means that if you bomb far behind the enemy front line you may well be intercepted but if you only bomb front line units then you may be immune to interception.

The algorithm for intercepts looks to have been changed in recent patches. As reported by metaphore above and I also noticed that T1 long range air base bombings were being intercepted more often.

Hi,
Looking deeper into those T1 Commander Reports for 103b and 109b, it might be that the Attaker chance to intercept Defender Ground Support was roughly halved in the last patch.

Discounting half a dozen "supplies" missions flown by Axis Ju 52s:

__ 103b__
"Air Battle" Reported: 128
"No Aircraft" Bogus Battle Reported: 54 ("Air Battle" where there was no aircraft involved - oddly, an aircraft loss is recorded in two cases)
Defender Ground Support Battle Triggered: 74 (Real number of Defensive Ground Support)
Defender Ground Support Battle Intercepted: 38 => 51%

Defender Ground Support Aircraft Flown: 5,386 (Total) 2,325 (Bombers) 3,061 (Fighters)
Defender Ground Support Aircraft Intercepted: 4,236 (*** 79%) 2,070 (Bombers) 2,166 (Fighters)
Fighter Intercepting: 1,774

__109b__
"Air Battle" Reported: 99 (all Soviet Defensive Ground Support)
"No Aircraft" Bogus Battle Reported: 0 -> fixed?
Defender Ground Support Battle Intercepted: 26 => 26%

Defender Ground Support Aircraft Flown: 5,470 (Total) 3,326 (Bombers) 2,144 (Fighters)
Defender Ground Support Aircraft Intercepted: 2,175 (*** 40%) 1,629 (Bombers) 546 (Fighters)
Fighter Intercepting: 1,032

[metaphore]

From those data above, I might say that the size of the Striking force is also a factor for triggering interception: 51% of the Defender Strikes are intercepted but it result of 79% of the total Aircraft flown in the first case, which is proportionnaly confirmed in the second case with 26% of the Strikes but 40% of the aircraft.

[tyronec]

On T1 I personally feel that Soviets should not intercept at all. But it may go bogus.
It means more planes destroyed on the ground but more pilots saved.

Currently it's almost a no brainer to keep German planes from bombing airfields and let the Soviets just fly en mass to suicide.

At the same time it allows a proper and not luck reliant airfield bombing in depth as well.

What kills were you getting without flying air base bombing ?

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

On T1 I personally feel that Soviets should not intercept at all. But it may go bogus.
It means more planes destroyed on the ground but more pilots saved.

Currently it's almost a no brainer to keep German planes from bombing airfields and let the Soviets just fly en mass to suicide.

At the same time it allows a proper and not luck reliant airfield bombing in depth as well.

What kills were you getting without flying air base bombing ?

If you look at the beginning of these two AAR's of mine you will see no airfield bombing and just auto-intercepting with fighters.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5054724

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=2&key=

[metaphore]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

On T1 I personally feel that Soviets should not intercept at all. But it may go bogus.
It means more planes destroyed on the ground but more pilots saved.

Currently it's almost a no brainer to keep German planes from bombing airfields and let the Soviets just fly en mass to suicide.

At the same time it allows a proper and not luck reliant airfield bombing in depth as well.

What kills were you getting without flying air base bombing ?

About 2,000-3,000 (Soviet pilots KIA) in previous versions, which is arguably a better result than destroying 4,000+ airframes on the ground with a lot less Soviet crew being killed. The rationale being that the Luftwaffe will suffer a very low attrition rate (op losses) from those interception (and lose only fighters), spending a lot less fuel and ammo.

Moreover, the largest part of the VVS is equiped with obsolete aircraft that will be dumped anyway... So why bother to destroy them by spending a lot of ressources doing so?

(*edit typos)

[malyhin1517]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

On T1 I personally feel that Soviets should not intercept at all. But it may go bogus.
It means more planes destroyed on the ground but more pilots saved.

It won't be right! Soviet aviation tried to repel German bombing! Moreover, it was on June 22, 1941 that the first ram of a German aircraft occurred!

Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov (October 8, 1909, Chizhovo village - June 22, 1941, Dubno) - Soviet military pilot, participant in the Polish campaign of the Red Army, Soviet-Finnish and World War II. Senior lieutenant.
By June 1941, he commanded a link of I-16 fighters of the 46th Fighter Aviation Regiment of the 14th Mixed Aviation Division of the Kiev Special Military District. Non-partisan.

On June 22, 1941, on the first day of the Great Patriotic War, in the skies over the Rivne region with his flight, he entered into battle with a group of German Heinkel-111 bombers from the KG55 Grif squadron. Having shot all the ammunition, he destroyed one of the enemy aircraft with a ram. It was one of the first air rams in the history of the Great Patriotic War. After a mid-air collision, it made an emergency landing near the village of Zagortsy. He died of his injuries and wounds in a hospital in the city of Dubno.

By the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of August 2, 1941, Senior Lieutenant Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union posthumously.

[metaphore]

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

On T1 I personally feel that Soviets should not intercept at all. But it may go bogus.
It means more planes destroyed on the ground but more pilots saved.

It won't be right! Soviet aviation tried to repel German bombing! Moreover, it was on June 22, 1941 that the first ram of a German aircraft occurred!

Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov (October 8, 1909, Chizhovo village - June 22, 1941, Dubno) - Soviet military pilot, participant in the Polish campaign of the Red Army, Soviet-Finnish and World War II. Senior lieutenant.
By June 1941, he commanded a link of I-16 fighters of the 46th Fighter Aviation Regiment of the 14th Mixed Aviation Division of the Kiev Special Military District. Non-partisan.

On June 22, 1941, on the first day of the Great Patriotic War, in the skies over the Rivne region with his flight, he entered into battle with a group of German Heinkel-111 bombers from the KG55 Grif squadron. Having shot all the ammunition, he destroyed one of the enemy aircraft with a ram. It was one of the first air rams in the history of the Great Patriotic War. After a mid-air collision, it made an emergency landing near the village of Zagortsy. He died of his injuries and wounds in a hospital in the city of Dubno.

By the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of August 2, 1941, Senior Lieutenant Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union posthumously.

I agree that it won't be right.
But how to reflect the appaling state of most Soviet frontline Regiments?
There were shortages everywhere: supplies, support, operational crews, operational aircraft, communications network (alert system), etc.

As far as I know, the main cause of wastage for the VVS, at the begining of Barbarossa was, by far, all those aircraft which were or became quickly not operational, then destroyed by their own crew before their airfield was overun by German ground forces. It was exactly the same in France during the 1940 campaign as the bombing of airfields by the Luftwaffe was at first largely ineffective.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

As I see it there are three aspects here:

AS has a bug and is not working against at least some GA. This should be resolved in a future patch. It does work against naval patrol.

Auto-intercept is not being triggered against some GA attacks. I think this is a design feature, it was raised as an issue a long time ago during testing but has never been recorded as a bug. It seems that the probability of an intercept is related to the distance the GA aircraft fly over enemy terrain. I don't know if range to the intercepting fighters air field is a factor. In practice this means that if you bomb far behind the enemy front line you may well be intercepted but if you only bomb front line units then you may be immune to interception.

The algorithm for intercepts looks to have been changed in recent patches. As reported by metaphore above and I also noticed that T1 long range air base bombings were being intercepted more often.

Losses for a Soviet air phase, some of the GA missions were on the front line, some a bit deeper. Yes the AI doesn't tailor its mission that well ... but yes I get a lot of interceptions.

I think, my fighters are all at well supplied airfields.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: metaphore

ORIGINAL: tyronec

On T1 I personally feel that Soviets should not intercept at all. But it may go bogus.
It means more planes destroyed on the ground but more pilots saved.

Currently it's almost a no brainer to keep German planes from bombing airfields and let the Soviets just fly en mass to suicide.

At the same time it allows a proper and not luck reliant airfield bombing in depth as well.

What kills were you getting without flying air base bombing ?

About 2,000-3,000 (Soviet pilots KIA) in previous versions, which is arguably a better result than destroying 4,000+ airframes on the ground with a lot less Soviet crew being killed. The rationale being that the Luftwaffe will suffer a very low attrition rate (op losses) from those interception (and lose only fighters), spending a lot less fuel and ammo.

Moreover, the largest part of the VVS is equiped with obsolete aircraft that will be dumped anyway... So why bother to destroy them by spending a lot of ressources doing so?

(*edit typos)

I have been doing the auto-intercept in a few of my AAR's as shown in a previous post in this thread. Yes, I did it to get more pilot losses but if done right you can get those through the course of the game pretty quickly. I am starting to come to a different understanding and bombing of the Soviet Bombers may have a better benefit long term by getting rid of the bombers early. So I have a new bombing technique I will be showing in my next AAR which I am sure "historical" people will have a problem with. 100% sure of it to be exact But it will open up a whole slew of "you shouldn't be able to do that". Standby for the AAR.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: tyronec

As I see it there are three aspects here:

AS has a bug and is not working against at least some GA. This should be resolved in a future patch. It does work against naval patrol.

Auto-intercept is not being triggered against some GA attacks. I think this is a design feature, it was raised as an issue a long time ago during testing but has never been recorded as a bug. It seems that the probability of an intercept is related to the distance the GA aircraft fly over enemy terrain. I don't know if range to the intercepting fighters air field is a factor. In practice this means that if you bomb far behind the enemy front line you may well be intercepted but if you only bomb front line units then you may be immune to interception.

The algorithm for intercepts looks to have been changed in recent patches. As reported by metaphore above and I also noticed that T1 long range air base bombings were being intercepted more often.

Losses for a Soviet air phase, some of the GA missions were on the front line, some a bit deeper. Yes the AI doesn't tailor its mission that well ... but yes I get a lot of interceptions.

I think, my fighters are all at well supplied airfields.

Ya, supply, AD settings, and range matter. Supply is the big one early game. As my supply has increased in my game from turn 7 to turn 9 I have steadily intercepted more.

[malyhin1517]

ORIGINAL: metaphore

ORIGINAL: malyhin1517

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

On T1 I personally feel that Soviets should not intercept at all. But it may go bogus.
It means more planes destroyed on the ground but more pilots saved.

It won't be right! Soviet aviation tried to repel German bombing! Moreover, it was on June 22, 1941 that the first ram of a German aircraft occurred!

Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov (October 8, 1909, Chizhovo village - June 22, 1941, Dubno) - Soviet military pilot, participant in the Polish campaign of the Red Army, Soviet-Finnish and World War II. Senior lieutenant.
By June 1941, he commanded a link of I-16 fighters of the 46th Fighter Aviation Regiment of the 14th Mixed Aviation Division of the Kiev Special Military District. Non-partisan.

On June 22, 1941, on the first day of the Great Patriotic War, in the skies over the Rivne region with his flight, he entered into battle with a group of German Heinkel-111 bombers from the KG55 Grif squadron. Having shot all the ammunition, he destroyed one of the enemy aircraft with a ram. It was one of the first air rams in the history of the Great Patriotic War. After a mid-air collision, it made an emergency landing near the village of Zagortsy. He died of his injuries and wounds in a hospital in the city of Dubno.

By the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of August 2, 1941, Senior Lieutenant Ivanov Ivan Ivanovich was awarded the title of Hero of the Soviet Union posthumously.

I agree that it won't be right.
But how to reflect the appaling state of most Soviet frontline Regiments?
There were shortages everywhere: supplies, support, operational crews, operational aircraft, communications network (alert system), etc.

As far as I know, the main cause of wastage for the VVS, at the begining of Barbarossa was, by far, all those aircraft which were or became quickly not operational, then destroyed by their own crew before their airfield was overun by German ground forces. It was exactly the same in France during the 1940 campaign as the bombing of airfields by the Luftwaffe was at first largely ineffective.

On the first day of the war, June 22, the Luftwaffe lost 69 combat aircraft on the Eastern Front. For 27 days of fighting from June 22 to July 19, 1941, German aviation lost 1284 aircraft of all types, which was more than two months of fighting in the "Battle of England"

In many Soviet books and documents, the losses of the Red Army Air Force for June 22, 1941 are usually estimated at 1200 aircraft, and it is indicated that most of them were destroyed on the ground {169}. At the same time, the factor of surprise is very often emphasized. For example, a former employee of the Air Force headquarters M.N.Kozhevnikov named among the main reasons the fact that the telegram of the NKO, in which the commanders of military districts were warned of the time of a possible attack by Nazi Germany, gave orders to bring the troops to combat readiness and to disperse aviation to field airfields. , was transferred to the border districts only 4 hours before the invasion {170}.

Of course, the surprise factor played a role. Some of the pilots and commanders rested that Sunday morning, others were outside their units. At the same time, among the Soviet pilots, especially those who fought in Spain, many understood that war could not be avoided, and expected an attack [147] by Germany. For all of them, the nature of the air war, which the Luftwaffe imposed on us from the first hours, was unexpected. How did it manifest itself?

First of all, the Germans proved to be very persistent in achieving their goals. So, in the 10th garden, the first blow caught by surprise only the 74th captain of Major BM Vasiliev. The rest of the regiments managed to disperse the material part. The 123rd IAP suffered the main losses during the fifth raid, and the 33rd IAP - during the fourth. In the latter case, the nine Bf109 managed to deceive the vigilance of the VNOS posts, sneaking up at an extremely low altitude, and burned 21 I-16s and 5 I-153s in a 40-minute attack. The regiment has lost its combat capability {171}.

The tactics of the German aviation consisted of alternating attacks on airfields by fighters and bombers in small and medium groups, depending on the Soviet opposition. And since many airfields did not have any air defense systems at all, and others had one or two anti-aircraft machine guns, there were no [148] elementary shelters for the flight and technical personnel, the aircraft were everywhere crowded and not camouflaged, the Luftwaffe acted very effectively and with almost impunity. As already noted, the airfield of the 122nd iap near Lida was subjected to four raids by German bombers (in one case fighter-bombers operated) without any fighter cover {172}. The air victories announced on this day by the regiment's pilots raise serious doubts.

A very significant factor that influenced the sharp decline in the combat effectiveness of the Air Force was the loss of control in most areas in the district (army) air force - aviation formations, units. The situation was especially bad on the Western Front, where the front air force headquarters was practically inactive during the first three (!) Days of the war. Many commanders of air regiments assigned tasks to their subordinates to conduct combat operations without coordination with the higher headquarters {173}.

There was no general plan for the withdrawal of units from the blow. Under these conditions, not all commanders made decisions that were appropriate to the current situation, tried to maneuver their forces on that fateful day. But they also failed, as it turned out that the enemy was well aware of the location of our base and alternate airfields, as well as field sites near the border. Therefore, those units that were able to relocate on June 22 suffered no less than the rest.

We have already noted that at many Soviet airfields (primarily in the Western OVO) at a distance of 12-50 km from the state border there were approximately 100 aircraft [149], which was caused by the retraining of flight personnel for new materiel. Even in those cases when the air regiment had a staff of 62 aircraft, the placement of all this equipment on one site made the basing very tense. Let us add to what has been said that belated and not always sufficient measures to camouflage airfields did not allow us to protect our vehicles placed with lines from air attacks. The lack of reliable means of controlling units at a distance (radio) and the skills to use them did not allow the regiment to be located at several airfields.

[metaphore]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: metaphore

ORIGINAL: tyronec


What kills were you getting without flying air base bombing ?

About 2,000-3,000 (Soviet pilots KIA) in previous versions, which is arguably a better result than destroying 4,000+ airframes on the ground with a lot less Soviet crew being killed. The rationale being that the Luftwaffe will suffer a very low attrition rate (op losses) from those interception (and lose only fighters), spending a lot less fuel and ammo.

Moreover, the largest part of the VVS is equiped with obsolete aircraft that will be dumped anyway... So why bother to destroy them by spending a lot of ressources doing so?

(*edit typos)

I have been doing the auto-intercept in a few of my AAR's as shown in a previous post in this thread. Yes, I did it to get more pilot losses but if done right you can get those through the course of the game pretty quickly. I am starting to come to a different understanding and bombing of the Soviet Bombers may have a better benefit long term by getting rid of the bombers early. So I have a new bombing technique I will be showing in my next AAR which I am sure "historical" people will have a problem with. 100% sure of it to be exact But it will open up a whole slew of "you shouldn't be able to do that". Standby for the AAR.

Hi,
Actually, with chance of interception halved, this will compromise the previous "Über-Interceptor" method. I'm also suspecting what you are planning to do as I've made a lot of testing on this matter. Even if it's historically "ugly", it's fair to use it when it's allowed by the game mechanics - the devs will probably fix it if they don't like it, as they did for Interception abuse.

My personnal feeling is that the scale, time and space of the ground war doesn't match those of the air war (same for naval ops to a lesser degree) and something much more abstract should be modeled for the air battles instead of having to deal with such a level of detail.