Interception of small missions.

[tyronec]

As I understand it there is less chance of intercepting a mission with just a few aircraft than intercepting one with several hundred.

Here is an example from T8 of my game with K62.
The Soviets launch some 90 Naval Interdiction missions of 6 aircraft each around Odessa. Axis have an AS covering the area.
I count 25 intercepts, generally shooting down 2-3 bombers with 12 fighters, which is not a great kill ratio of 109s against SB-2s. So maybe 80-90% of the bombers get through.

There is still fuel/ammo at the Axis air base and the fighters have very few air miles.

To me this makes no sense. Why are say 100 missions of 5 aircraft harder to intercept than 5 missions of 100 aircraft when they are all flying on the same time slot ?
It is probably easier to intercept multiple missions to the same position than one large one because if the fighters miss the first batch they will be in position to hit the next lot on the conveyor belt.

If there is to be any calculation on the density of aircraft to be intercepted then it can only work if the calculation is done for the TOTAL number of sorties over the turn. Maybe that is not possible in the game mechanics, if so then best to drop any calculation and make all sizes of sorties have the same probability of intercept.

[ShaggyHiK]

Because planes can't stay in the air indefinitely? You have, on average, about 40-60 minutes of flight time for your fighter before running out of fuel.
This forces you to return to base. It is easier to intercept exactly 1 large raid than 10 small ones because of this feature.

Also, if it's 1 hex sorties, that's still a large enemy search area for you.
They can approach from different sides, using different landmarks and approach routes. Even if it's still 1 hex.
Not to mention the fact that if small sorties occur at the same time, then while you are breaking up one group and wasting your time on it, the other strikes with impunity.

[ShaggyHiK]

I will also add that if the raids occur in 41-42. Then the German troops cannot have an established raid warning service. You will learn that the raid comes directly from the troops who will report their losses to you.
And even if you quickly take off and arrive in the area, let it take 15-20 minutes. The enemy may not be there for 10 minutes, but even such a quick reaction can be thwarted. And you will arrive an order of magnitude later than the enemy leaves the area.

[ShaggyHiK]

That is, your logic and the message from which you proceed is not correct.

And everything is up to the turn, on the other hand, German pilots had well-established communications for free hunting, they could, knowing where the active Soviet airfield was located, lead take-off groups directly from it and shoot down Soviet aircraft not at the stage of the raid on the troops, but at the stage of approach to goals, but there are other mechanisms at work. And in this case, you should use the directive of air superiority, and not count on the departure of fighters from the airfield.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

And in this case, you should use the directive of air superiority, and not count on the departure of fighters from the airfield.

He has AS flying and mentioned it in his first post. That is the issue.

[Stephan61]

Kudos to your opponent for creating 90 Naval Patrols!![&o][&o][&o][&o]

[tyronec]

Because planes can't stay in the air indefinitely? You have, on average, about 40-60 minutes of flight time for your fighter before running out of fuel.
This forces you to return to base. It is easier to intercept exactly 1 large raid than 10 small ones because of this feature.

I am no expert on this but it would seem logical that it is easier to intercept 30 missions going to the same area than it would be to intercept one large one. History supports this point of view if we consider the massed Allied bombing campaigns or the Battle of Britain to take a couple of examples.

Kudos to your opponent for creating 90 Naval Patrols!!

I think 3 Naval Patrols of 30 missions each. But yes, he is making a good job of his ADs.

The issue here is that there are two interception systems running in parallel. We have GS which often has fairly large numbers of aircraft involved (at least that is how my opponents are playing). Then there is GA and Naval Patrol where the player can specify the mission size, and if they specify small missions then the interception rate may only be a few percent of what it would be against large missions or GS.

So the two interception systems are out of sync and I don't see how it is possible to balance them when the interception rate is dependent on the mission size.

[Stephan61]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

Because planes can't stay in the air indefinitely? You have, on average, about 40-60 minutes of flight time for your fighter before running out of fuel.
This forces you to return to base. It is easier to intercept exactly 1 large raid than 10 small ones because of this feature.

I am no expert on this but it would seem logical that it is easier to intercept 30 missions going to the same area than it would be to intercept one large one. History supports this point of view if we consider the massed Allied bombing campaigns or the Battle of Britain to take a couple of examples.

Kudos to your opponent for creating 90 Naval Patrols!!

I think 3 Naval Patrols of 30 missions each. But yes, he is making a good job of his ADs.

The issue here is that there are two interception systems running in parallel. We have GS which often has fairly large numbers of aircraft involved (at least that is how my opponents are playing). Then there is GA and Naval Patrol where the player can specify the mission size, and if they specify small missions then the interception rate may only be a few percent of what it would be against large missions or GS.

So the two interception systems are out of sync and I don't see how it is possible to balance them when the interception rate is dependent on the mission size.

Thinking of the logic, could you not counter this by creating several small AS missions and leave some fighters free for the intercept protocol? (just thinking aloud)...

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

...
I think 3 Naval Patrols of 30 missions each. But yes, he is making a good job of his ADs.

The issue here is that there are two interception systems running in parallel. We have GS which often has fairly large numbers of aircraft involved (at least that is how my opponents are playing). Then there is GA and Naval Patrol where the player can specify the mission size, and if they specify small missions then the interception rate may only be a few percent of what it would be against large missions or GS.

So the two interception systems are out of sync and I don't see how it is possible to balance them when the interception rate is dependent on the mission size.

this came up as an issue in WiTW, its partly by design but can be exploited. The code does indeed make small missions harder to spot or less likely to trigger a response but some Allied players abused it.

The intent was to stop an allied player opening the strategic airphase with minimal raids and basically consuming all the axis air miles in a response, then later in the week having a free hand. The abuse was in breaking say a 200 plane raid into 6 or 7 raids, each of which was under the interception level. It was a bit harder to do in WiTW as the limit on AD is stricter but it was game breaking.

The problem seems to be that each mission is tested individually for interception and there is no anticipation (or memory) of any other similar mission.

None of us would want the consequence if this linkage to mission size was lost (as above its wide open to abuse), so its one of those things that falls back on players being reasonable. Quite simply, it is not intended to run the same mission using multiple ADs so don't do it. But as ever there are fair exceptions such as running GA with one holding your FB/tac bombers and the other the LBs, or one coming from a different air command etc.

In other words, its a common sense rule as its not feasible to do anything more hard wired

[tyronec]

Thanks Roger.
I hadn't realised this went as far back as WITW, can remember it coming up during testing but that was in reference to GA rather than Naval Patrol - it is of course the same for both.