GA

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: metaphore

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: metaphore



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.

I just tested the "Interceptor" method today on just the Southern Front Turn 1 and it still works just fine from my quick observations. I am not using the "Interceptor" method with my next AAR "Tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow. I am introducing something different in that game.

I personally love the detail in the Air game & haven't even scratched the surface on using it fully yet. But that is just me and I know many would love the abstraction.

[metaphore]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: metaphore

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain




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.

I just tested the "Interceptor" method today on just the Southern Front Turn 1 and it still works just fine from my quick observations. I am not using the "Interceptor" method with my next AAR "Tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow. I am introducing something different in that game.

I personally love the detail in the Air game & haven't even scratched the surface on using it fully yet. But that is just me and I know many would love the abstraction.

Hi HardLuckYetAgain,
I personnaly love the detail too... if the resulting model seems right (my own taste is accurate and immersive). So far, I find it relatively poor on my "rightometer" scale (I appreciate nonetheless all the effort put into it).

What version of the game are you actually playing? I've noticed the change after updating from 1.1.03beta to 1.1.09beta. Anyway, I need to do further methodical testing with the same sequence played like 3 times for each version, then, I'll bring back the results.

[metaphore]

Hi,
I've found the time to run auto-interception tests on T1 and the result confirm the change, but looking into it more closely, the results are not showing what I expected (a reduction of the auto-interception chance).

I did not keep the install file for the previous public beta, so I downloaded v.1.00.11 to compare with v.1.01.09beta. During my previous tests, I've never noticed any change until the latest public patch. There is nothing noted about it either in the Patch notes.

The test I've made is easy to reproduce on whatever version of the game:
1. Start a new campaign game (default settings)
2. Delete all Air Directives
3. Run Air Missions (empty)
4. Make a save file
5. From the starting position, regardless of the odds, attack every single Soviet frontline unit once, from North to South, (there is no visible effect on air Battles if it's a success or failure, a hasty or deliberate attack)
6. Record the results
7. Quit and Reload the save.

RESULTS*________ v.1.00.11_____ v.1.01.09b
(Soviet)
Air Losses:_________ 2,635______1,661
Air Combat:_________ 2,584______1,599
Pilot KIA:__________ 2,514______1,509

(*Those results have been averaged from several tries - there is globally very few variation between them)

As to what caused this drop of 40% efficiency of auto-interception, we'll have to look for a few clues into those Commander Reports

Exhibit 1. 33% less Soviet aircraft commited : they are sending less aircraft (v.1.01.09b) than before (v.1.00.11) in their Defensive Air Strikes, sustaining overall less losses. Less interceptors also on the German side -> The AI is sending proportional forces to intercept (and this may be capped by other factors like range, number avail., supply) - but in this test, all others factors would be equal.

AIRCRAFT COMMITED*________ v.1.00.11_____ v.1.01.09b
(Soviet)
Bomber + Fighter__________4,583___________3,053

(*Those results have been averaged from several tries - figures may vary much more between two tests; in this case, I've recorded 450+ var. for early version and 250+ for last patch)


Exhibit 2. More Defensive Ground Support with Bombers are NOT auto-intercepted in the last beta. Simply said, the rate of bomber interception was 100% for the early game tests but it's not the case anymore. On each test run on the beta, I've recorded strikes, amongst those including bombers, going thru without triggering any air battle.

Nonetheless, there is also a good number of Defensive Ground Support triggered without a single bomber on it and those, on both version, are NEVER intercepted (They don't cause any damage either . Let's then pretend that German metric radar is so good that they can tell the difference between a flight of the same Figher-Bombers with payload -> bombers => Interception, and another one without -> CAP => DO NOT INTERCEPT!

I don't have time for compiling further details and numbers. So, in final, just be aware that auto-interception is quite a complex piece of code and changing a single parameter in your ADs could result in some very unexpected things (like YHLA showed on his late AAR). I can tell myself that there are more loopholes than that and I really doubt that the whole system is actually "Working as Designed".

[tyronec]

I don't have time for compiling further details and numbers. So, in final, just be aware that auto-interception is quite a complex piece of code and changing a single parameter in your ADs could result in some very unexpected things (like YHLA showed on his late AAR). I can tell myself that there are more loopholes than that and I really doubt that the whole system is actually "Working as Designed".

Would concur that auto intercept is a complex area of the game. It's interaction with GS is difficult enough. It's interaction with GA is critical. As far as I can see most Soviet players are not using GA to it's maximum potential - mass bombings of individual units on the front line followed up by ground combat to force a retreat - which is just as well because given that intercept is not working fully I think this tactic unbalances the game.

[AlbertN]

@Tyronec - I do not believe that is an issue of intercept. In many turns of the Axis their spearheads can well be outside the range of the Bf109s, and even if intercepting works well enough, the Soviets simply bomb out of Luftwaffe air cover. By how the game is, presently, to rebase Bf109 forward -and- then air supply them is a limited way to go. That where there are airfields in range. But I dare say thta the issue here is not much the 'bombing' the Soviets do, more so the concerted attacks they can pull off.

[tyronec]

@Tyronec - I do not believe that is an issue of intercept. In many turns of the Axis their spearheads can well be outside the range of the Bf109s, and even if intercepting works well enough, the Soviets simply bomb out of Luftwaffe air cover. By how the game is, presently, to rebase Bf109 forward -and- then air supply them is a limited way to go. That where there are airfields in range. But I dare say thta the issue here is not much the 'bombing' the Soviets do, more so the concerted attacks they can pull off.

That is the question I have been puzzling about since starting this thread a week ago.
My experience in the two games I am playing is that intercepts are not happening, specifically in the one I am Axis there are fighters within range on supplied air bases and 100's of Soviet GA attacks going in with no intercept.
I set up a test bed to check it out and the Soviets can even destroy fighters on the ground on supplied air bases.
Yes, intercepts are happening on occasions but what the criteria are I don't know. If I don't know how to get intercepts to work I don't know how to play the game to give Axis any chance against a Soviet opponent who is making good use of GA.

[loki100]

current turn, lots of interceptions where the AI does GA missions.

I can give turn after turn examples of exactly why auto-intercept works as designed, incl hitting front line raids as well deeper missions (& some at range to my airbases)

Triggered by fighters with good supply at their base (& a bit of experimenting with the underlying AS mission parameters). Remember that auto-intercept uses your basic AS rules.

I'd agree with AlbertN here, you can't (& the Germans didn't) solve the problem of how to keep air cover over their spearheads - read the stuff by Stahel on how disruptive the VVS was as a result. The flaw is the massed organised bombing raids which simply didn't happen ( & were beyond the VVS' capacity to deliver).

ORIGINAL: metaphore
...
I don't have time for compiling further details and numbers. So, in final, just be aware that auto-interception is quite a complex piece of code and changing a single parameter in your ADs could result in some very unexpected things (like YHLA showed on his late AAR). I can tell myself that there are more loopholes than that and I really doubt that the whole system is actually "Working as Designed".

Your claim really isn't supported by your data. It also seems you are mixing up AD design with auto-intercept (which is outside the AD system).

Also auto-intercept works differently when it interactions with GA style missions compared to GS

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: loki100


I'd agree with AlbertN here, you can't (& the Germans didn't) solve the problem of how to keep air cover over their spearheads - read the stuff by Stahel on how disruptive the VVS was as a result. The flaw is the massed organised bombing raids which simply didn't happen ( & were beyond the VVS' capacity to deliver).

Show me a picture from early game for your fighter interception. Later in the war of course your interception is going to be good. My average is about 1 in 7 bombing raids if I had to guess on interception on GA. When I do intercept and there are Soviet fighters there I get eaten alive too

The mass bombings is a bit off the charts. I thought Soviet bombers were used for mostly ground support?

[DeletedUser1769703214]

BTW I am getting intercepts with improved supply. BUT.... If this rate keeps up you will have Soviet fighters on Par and exceeding German fighter experience. I guess that is true to life too? Sounds like it from others posting on the forums.

Curious do you get experience just for flying missions? Like if you just ran AS missions over and over again every turn what is the likelihood of gaining experience on your pilots?

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Another interception this turn. The 5 losses for the Soviets were flak, lol.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Another Auto intercept. So yeah, my problem was supply.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Releated but not related. What is the quickest way to get air support on an airbase? I figure prime it the turn before by sitting recon on the field then bring in the fighters the next turn. But I am at the point where I believe I put too many aircraft in reserve and my air support for the bases left too. (I wish there was a button to bring them in immediately )

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Also can we fix the Minor countries air units in Axis Reserves and Soviet Garrison? I can't get mine out of the vicious circle of not coming to the map once place in either of those two boxes

[DeletedUser1769703214]

These are at the end of my range but did not intercept. Which makes sense to me. Seems the Soviets are running the bombing campaign a bit too hot. The Soviets bombing losses from pretty much just bombing is getting pretty high. They may need a rest I think.

Anyway that brings me to my next question. What is round number to go by for Soviet TAC and bomber replacement rate I could go by? I know IL2's are astronomical.

But yeah, auto interceptions are starting to work for me with better supply. Now trying to convert rail hexes in a partisan controlled area is yet another adversity to overcome

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
...

Show me a picture from early game for your fighter interception. Later in the war of course your interception is going to be good. My average is about 1 in 7 bombing raids if I had to guess on interception on GA. When I do intercept and there are Soviet fighters there I get eaten alive too

The mass bombings is a bit off the charts. I thought Soviet bombers were used for mostly ground support?

I'm not arguing I could get that early game - which is the point. There is a lot of noise that auto-intercept is broken, its not it works exactly as it should. Well supplied fighters will intercept pretty much at range, poorly supplied fighters struggle.

Think of it this way. An airbase with plenty of fuel can scramble on the possibility that this time its for real, one lacking fuel etc has to be damn sure its identified a real raid. You can map the varying response of the RAF during the Battle of Britain onto this distinction.

AFAIK, you get experience either by training (in reserve, not resting, exp<NM)or via pilot wins. Not sure you get anything for just flying around?

which indirectly leads to an answer on this

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Also can we fix the Minor countries air units in Axis Reserves and Soviet Garrison? I can't get mine out of the vicious circle of not coming to the map once place in either of those two boxes

all I can do is report what I see. I make no claims to competence at the game, I'm certainly doing nothing special to get the results I report.

so, have no idea why you can't so here we are. Open a random air base, select a Hungarian bomber AOG and I can bring Hungarian LB to the map ... 3 clicks and there they are



edit: and as above (& I realise you aren't doing this), muddling up AS/AD, auto-intercept-GS and auto-intercept-GA really doesn't help understanding

edit 2: from Stahel's work using German combat diaries, interdiction was the main thing the VVS did in 1941. In our terms the German's over-reacted, there are reports of Pzr regiments deploying off road when threatened by a few SB-2s. Oddly I think the VVS abandoned this as it retrained in early 1942 to focus more closely on battlefield support, certainly by 1943 it seems they mostly (in game turns) ran GS.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Air interception in the North I didn't intercept NOTHING even though there were 5 Recon missions and/or bombing missions in the area within easy range. These fighters haven't flown in many turns against anything My numbers on the base are fine. It is as if the Germans have the Soviet table for interception....

Is the Air support experience really that low for the Germans? A 48? What is the Soviets?

[DeletedUser1769703214]

My rumanian Air support is through the roof. Maybe because it has been in place forever. WTF.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Even a Rumanian base I occupied 2 turns ago after vacating it is better than the German Smolensk Air base Air Support.... Something can't be right on German Air support experience I have had the air base in Smolensk for many turns now

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Ya, something can't be right on Air support Experience for Germans, a 43

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
...

Show me a picture from early game for your fighter interception. Later in the war of course your interception is going to be good. My average is about 1 in 7 bombing raids if I had to guess on interception on GA. When I do intercept and there are Soviet fighters there I get eaten alive too

The mass bombings is a bit off the charts. I thought Soviet bombers were used for mostly ground support?

I'm not arguing I could get that early game - which is the point. There is a lot of noise that auto-intercept is broken, its not it works exactly as it should. Well supplied fighters will intercept pretty much at range, poorly supplied fighters struggle.

Think of it this way. An airbase with plenty of fuel can scramble on the possibility that this time its for real, one lacking fuel etc has to be damn sure its identified a real raid. You can map the varying response of the RAF during the Battle of Britain onto this distinction.

AFAIK, you get experience either by training (in reserve, not resting, exp<NM)or via pilot wins. Not sure you get anything for just flying around?

which indirectly leads to an answer on this

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Also can we fix the Minor countries air units in Axis Reserves and Soviet Garrison? I can't get mine out of the vicious circle of not coming to the map once place in either of those two boxes

all I can do is report what I see. I make no claims to competence at the game, I'm certainly doing nothing special to get the results I report.

so, have no idea why you can't so here we are. Open a random air base, select a Hungarian bomber AOG and I can bring Hungarian LB to the map ... 3 clicks and there they are



edit: and as above (& I realise you aren't doing this), muddling up AS/AD, auto-intercept-GS and auto-intercept-GA really doesn't help understanding

edit 2: from Stahel's work using German combat diaries, interdiction was the main thing the VVS did in 1941. In our terms the German's over-reacted, there are reports of Pzr regiments deploying off road when threatened by a few SB-2s. Oddly I think the VVS abandoned this as it retrained in early 1942 to focus more closely on battlefield support, certainly by 1943 it seems they mostly (in game turns) ran GS.

Oh, THANK YOU. No I haven't tried that let me try real quick since I was just trying it from the TB boxes only. Why didn't anyone say anything?