How much difference does it make to micro the Air war?

[mikael333]

I am a Wite2 player with some experience including winning the 41 campaign on normal at the latest sudden victory date. I am no grognard but no complete newbie. I know that the air is important in some respect, in particular to isolate cities such as Sevastopol or Leningrad. I have largely used the air assist so far with few manual overrides. How much difference can it make to micro the air war, e.g. manual doctrines, manual rebase, loadout, pilot and air craft change? What micro management is the most fun for you and what gives the biggest bang for the bug? What would be a good balance between complete micro and complete air assist? How do you even judge that your micro makes a difference on the ground?

[loki100]

problem is that manual control can mean a lot of things.

At one level, its still mostly GS+recon with specific GA/naval missions. But mostly run using relatively default settings (eg GS at the Soviet Front, German Army Grp level). Say manual control of upgrades but mostly accept auto loadouts. In that framing, perhaps the key is how you locate formations, esp the fighters.

Purely my view, the breadth of the theatre, and limits due to the types of planes, makes the detailed control that paid off in WiTW (esp with the allies) less valuable. But look at Zovs' T1 guide, while its notionally about Axis T1 it has a wealth of ideas as to how to get the best out of the range of mission setting tools you have to hand.

So some would create say a layered set of AS missions with fighters at different heights and so on, others would rely on auto-intercept and concentrate on placing their fighters were it seems most valuable

[DarkHorse2]

In general, WiTE2 rewards players who have a good grasp on the underlying logistics.

Part of this, unfortunately, includes managing the air-war.

I would, personally, be scared to let the AI handle this for me.

[rick trembley]

From the German point of view, I have been trying to understand just exactly how GAs work in this game from a tactical sense. From a strategic standpoint for me it is a little clearer. I have been reading different accounts on various approaches to the air war, but I haven't found any definitive tactics like one post that laid out in detail how the German air arm should prosecute their first turn attacks. What about turn 2 and beyond? I realize historically speaking the Luftwaffe was a mixed bag of different concepts and never really focus on what was best for prosecuting the Russian campaign. Is at simple as selecting the GS button for each attack and leave it at that? Surely the GAs can play some part in attacks I just haven't figured how.

[Jango32]

Ground attacks will likely turn into interdiction missions, so they're not very useful for the Luftwaffe. You could use GAs for some aggressive recon (see if anything is in a hex if recon is not going to spot it; i.e. range problems) or wasting the defenders' ammunition.

The Soviets benefit more from ground attacks because they have a larger air force and can fly more often than the Luftwaffe with the recent changes. They can afford targeting Axis airbases.

[loki100]

my feeling with the axis is that GA is a very specific choice. it has to fit exactly what you want to do.

In part as Jango32 says, GA-unit can bounce to GA-interdiction and that is rarely that much use to you. The other is how the missions interact with ground combat.

For GA-unit, you may destroy or damage a few elements, they are not then available for any combat in that phase. Mostly you will disrupt elements, the air phase ends and that disruption clears to a degree of extra fatigue (not a total loss as fatigue comes off cv).

For GS, its the first thing that happens in the battle, you get a mix of destroyed/damaged/disrupted. None of these elements then takes part in the battle or counts for the final odds calculation. Even better already disrupted or damaged are more vulnerable to being destroyed in the ground fighting. Also those elements don't attack your elements in the next phases. So as a force multiplier, in the main GS trumps GA. Once the battle is resolves, disrupted elements recover and gain fatigue - but by then the enemy may be in full retreat.

its a matter of geography, in that there are so few choke points were interdiction really works. Also I'm coming to the view that low level interdiction should have more of an impact as it seems the Luftwaffe in the earlier Ukrainian battles disrupted Soviet movement far more than is feasible in the current game engine. The Western Allies can run up scores of 6+ which kills movement and starts to kill moving units, neither side in WiTE2 have the assets (or geography) to match that

[rick trembley]

I am coming to the conclusion that GAs after the first turn just aren't worth the time or effort to execute. I have conducted GA attacks and the results are not readily visible to me in reviewing the combat results. In addition, the losses suffered far outweigh the results achieved. So, what is the point of having these bomber forces if they can't inflect losses (I have seen few losses, if any) on the enemy, maybe you just relegate them to GS and forget GAs? I am also hesitant to use them in the interdiction or strategic bomber role, I can only imagine the losses would be just as great if not more! Should I just let the AI handle everything and delete all the GAs, I don't know.

[loki100]

direct hits (ie a destroyed element) really isn't the purpose of air power, its all about interdiction and disruption. So yes, you see relatively few kills but a lot of disruptions.

As a point of comparison, note how little damage NATO did the Yugoslav army in the Kosovo campaign despite modern munitions, intelligence and complete air superiority. But what they did was to immobilise the Serb forces nearly completely.

[fcam1387]

This has been a useful discussion. It would be helpful to have an idea of the optimal settings to use for ground support doctrine. I note that most soviet units have up to decent low altitude flack and poor high altitude flack - on this basis does it make sense to set altitude to over 21k for these missions?

[loki100]

2 bits to bear in mind

a) FB and tactical bombers arrive over the battlefield at your set height, if this is over 5k (not totally sure this is the precise value), they drop to 1k to carry out their mission

- so in effect they have to come into flak range to attack effectively

b) there is a pretty harsh trade off between height and accuracy, esp if the target is mobile and if the weather is anything but clear.

So at 21k, your level bombers are safe from most tactical flak but will miss almost all their targets.

21k is the sort of altitude I'd use for the Western Allies in WiTW if I wanted to bomb a city

The default 9k is a decent compromise, like a lot of compromises it can be very wrong but be careful to understand exactly why you are resetting it.

[PeteJC]

I play the Axis vs. AI GC as well, been doing so steadily since the game release last spring. I have gone from letting the AI do everything to taking over the air war myself but, I would not call it micro. like most folks (I believe) I do the following:

1. Use Zovs first turn guide on how to set-up the GA airfield attacks. I have modified it some to good result but, simply following his guide to the letter will get you very good results. Thanks again Zovs.

2. After turn 1 I pretty much do the following every single turn:
a. manually advance my air units as needed. I admit I am a bit lazy with this. I just really want to ensure that my fighter cover is keeping up with the spearhead areas and that the bombers and Koluft recon units are within range. Pretty much just use immediate transfer for this which I am guessing is not the most efficient way, but I am still in the "lazy" stage in regard to controlling the air.

b. run recon in multiple boxes that will produce a solid picture of where the Russian line is. Does not give me much if any detail on units but I can pretty much start each turn having a very good idea (in the critical sectors) where the main defensive line is.

c. turn on the GS button on attacks where I think I need help.

d. I utilize naval patrol for isolation of Odessa and Sevastopol along with GA of the cities to help reduce the supply that is already in the city. I used to do naval interdiction around Leningrad especially if the Soviet northern ports have fallen but it is tough to really gain enough interdiction up there for some reason. Pretty easy down south.

e. I never use interdiction and don't GA anything other than what I stated above.

f. I do not do any air transporting as I typically quit my games by the T16 VP check date, and I have simply been too lazy to really delve into the mechanics and thinking/testing on what the optimal cycle and situation. Given my relative lack of knowledge and the fact that I have only been going to T16 so no one is ever surrounded I have shied away from doing any AT as I figure I would just be robbing Peter to pay Paul. With that said, Loki has alluded to using AT to very good effect in helping his overall supply efficiency. I will be finally starting a committed long term GC game so I know I will have to figure out the details on AT to help with the war effort after T16. Any details on the mechanics or cycle of how you use AT Loki would (as always) be greatly appreciated .

[PeteJC]

One other thing I missed in my reply is that I do not use Air Superiority. I believe it is supposed to hinder or stop enemy missions within the AS zone. I tried it a couple of times over Moscow when I had it surrounded to stop air transport. It did not seem to do anything as the AI sent AT at pretty much the same rate as when I did nothing. Further, there is relatively little talk about it in the forum, so I am thinking that it is not used much by others as well. Just me speculating but that would be my guess.

[rick trembley]

Yeah. I have come to the conclusion that for the Germans GA is not worth the planes after turn 1; I don't know about interdiction it might be useful in the first couple of turns to slow the Russian retreat don't know. Once the lines are established around turn 4 GA is not worth the price the Germans pay. I haven't played around with strategic bombing of cities or rail net yet, but I suspect the same result, too big of price to pay.

[ADB_Iceman]

Yeah. I have come to the conclusion that for the Germans GA is not worth the planes after turn 1; I don't know about interdiction it might be useful in the first couple of turns to slow the Russian retreat don't know. Once the lines are established around turn 4 GA is not worth the price the Germans pay. I haven't played around with strategic bombing of cities or rail net yet, but I suspect the same result, too big of price to pay.

This is actually a strategic game problem .. for example the hoarding of artillery units IRL would be countered by operational (.e. Ground attack) missions to strike overly concentrated positions. Not having an effective counter to concentrated artillery means the Russians get rolling arc light missions with little risk ..

IRL in 1944 when this tactic was in full fruition the Luftwaffe was done .. that does not mean me as a player will not have a Luftwaffe .. unless the object is a historical replay rather than a game resulting from strategic decisions and game play ..

[DarkHorse2]

Pretty much agree with every one else's assessment of the Luftwaffe GA missions.

Rather disappointing at best and seem to be a waste of air assets (and the associated fuel and ammo expenditures).

After Turn 1, pretty much just use the Luftwaffe as previously described - GS, Recon and situational Naval Interdiction.

However, I do make heavy use of the air transport assets to augment German supply deliveries.