Air war is high effort

A complete overhaul and re-development of Gary Grigsby's War in the East, with a focus on improvements to historical accuracy, realism, user interface and AI.

Moderator: Joel Billings

User avatar
K62_
Posts: 1178
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 3:34 am
Location: DC

Air war is high effort

Post by K62_ »

This game requires a lot of effort for managing the air war. Reading the posts on "how much time do you take to do your WitE2 turn", many players spend almost as much time on air as on ground management! This is not normal for an Eastern Front game.

"But K62, just use AI Air Assist!" Unfortunately, this feature doesn't quite work for everyone. Learning how to use it is not much easier than learning how to do everything manually. And getting it to do what you want is, at best, a game of chance. The one time I've used AI Air Assist in a H2H game it sent the whole Soviet Air Force to reserve on T2! And then it proved impossible to bring anything back afterwards.

After some thinking and inspiration from one of my esteemed opponents, the following house rules may solve the problem in a different way:
  • The Axis player must use the existing air directives on T1, can't add or change anything.
  • After Axis T1, players may only use Ground Support (F2) and Air Recon (F5) directives.
  • No changes allowed in Air Doctrines.
I believe fiddling with ground attack, strategic bombing, interdiction etc. is a huge time sink, and removing these options would affect both sides about equally without significantly affecting the course of the war. These rules should dramatically reduce the Air Phase effort. They would also make the rest of the game more enjoyable by focusing on the ground war, which is how things should be on the Eastern Front!
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak" - John Adams
User avatar
malyhin1517
Posts: 2021
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:52 am
Location: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by malyhin1517 »

An aviation doctrine of a naval blockade is also needed. The rest I almost never use.
Sorry, i use an online translator :(
ShaggyHiK
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2021 12:38 pm

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by ShaggyHiK »

And here the saints of the cult of "Non-recognition of aviation" arrived.

If you don’t know, you don’t want and you can’t figure out why, for what and how aviation is needed and you are not able to influence the ground by aviation, changing the situation in your favor. That is only your troubles.

Stop projecting your manipulations onto all the players and the game.
TallBlondJohn
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:40 pm

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by TallBlondJohn »

The saints are just putting out an idea - house rules for players that don't want to go down the air micro-management road. Like me, so thanks.

If the UI for the air wasn't such a pain I might be interested in air, but I'm just not, and I don't want to play somebody who is. Sorry.
User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 9276
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by Zovs »

WITE2 air war is simple, without any AI help, it’s very basic and easy to use, I created a manual air guide to help withe first turn, after turn one all you really need is GS and Recon and then NP once in a while.

Now if you really want more in depth and complexity then jump into WITW it’s fantastic, you have strategic air war, tactical air war, strategic recon and tactical recon and NP and rail way interdiction and U-Boat, fuel, oil and arms, manpower, rail yard bombing and so much more, plus para and amph landings, it’s just awesome!
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
Tester for WDS games
ShaggyHiK
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2021 12:38 pm

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by ShaggyHiK »

Tactical bombing in this game can also be varied.

Strategic raids on Romania. Countering Soviet GAs with SUP missions, concentration of efforts. Carrying out local operations. Only those who are too lazy and who simply do not want to turn on their heads and act can say that there is nothing to do in the air.

Beethoven, using my experience, showed what could potentially be done with German aviation, almost 400 German fighters, I personally achieved 6k losses and 300 guns and about 20 tanks. From the work of Soviet attack aircraft in the airless German space.

At the same time, the air war at the moment requires serious improvements for the German side, because all the proposed fixes before this patch from Malykhin and other beta testers push the transfer of aviation to only 2-3 missions. GS, REC may be NP.

This is such a mediocre view, I'm not afraid to say, a harmful, absolutely ridiculous view of a complex and interesting process. And his vision to absolute simplification from his complete lack of understanding and lack of desire to understand.

Moreover, pulling all other players who want and can into the same conditions that do not fully correspond to the actual concept of "air warfare".
User avatar
K62_
Posts: 1178
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 3:34 am
Location: DC

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by K62_ »

ShaggyHiK wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:55 am This is such a mediocre view, I'm not afraid to say, a harmful, absolutely ridiculous view of a complex and interesting process. And his vision to absolute simplification from his complete lack of understanding and lack of desire to understand.
Lol. I understand the air war, thank you:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 5#p4977885
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 8#p4944028

I just don't want to spend half my time on it for an Eastern Front game.
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak" - John Adams
User avatar
malyhin1517
Posts: 2021
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:52 am
Location: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by malyhin1517 »

K62 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:53 pm
ShaggyHiK wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:55 am This is such a mediocre view, I'm not afraid to say, a harmful, absolutely ridiculous view of a complex and interesting process. And his vision to absolute simplification from his complete lack of understanding and lack of desire to understand.
Lol. I understand the air war, thank you:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 5#p4977885
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 8#p4944028

I just don't want to spend half my time on it for an Eastern Front game.
Likewise! I can play aviation, I just don't want to. In addition, this method of air warfare is recommended by the game developers. Accordingly, the possibilities of the game are created based on this point of view. Everything else in the game is leftovers from WITW, which do not always work correctly in WITE2. There are still bugs out there. And in general, I have already written more than once that I would be more satisfied with using aviation the way it was in WITE1. A separate air phase greatly complicates the use of aviation and is not intuitive. In general, the air war is too complicated.
Sorry, i use an online translator :(
User avatar
malyhin1517
Posts: 2021
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:52 am
Location: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by malyhin1517 »

ShaggyHiK wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 9:53 am And here the saints of the cult of "Non-recognition of aviation" arrived.

If you don’t know, you don’t want and you can’t figure out why, for what and how aviation is needed and you are not able to influence the ground by aviation, changing the situation in your favor. That is only your troubles.

Stop projecting your manipulations onto all the players and the game.
I'm talking about my style of play. You can tell your style of play. And don't get personal! Everyone has the right to their opinion and there is no need to be aggressive towards each other.
Sorry, i use an online translator :(
Rock64
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:46 am

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by Rock64 »

GS, Naval Interdiction, and some recon. Everything else seems to be a waste of time after turn 1 for the German side.
And some of the combat results (flak losses, unescorted bomber losses) are head scratchers.
I've played many games, exclusively against the AI, and stopped trying to get decent results from the other air directives.
User avatar
malyhin1517
Posts: 2021
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:52 am
Location: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by malyhin1517 »

Rock64 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 2:19 pm GS, Naval Interdiction, and some recon. Everything else seems to be a waste of time after turn 1 for the German side.
And some of the combat results (flak losses, unescorted bomber losses) are head scratchers.
I've played many games, exclusively against the AI, and stopped trying to get decent results from the other air directives.
This is the opinion of most players. But some like to use bugs and flaws in the game. Developers do not always have time to fix bugs in some types of air directives that are rarely used by players. Therefore, some players consider themselves smarter than the rest and are offended when these bugs are closed.
Sorry, i use an online translator :(
Stamb
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:07 pm

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by Stamb »

exactly
GA interception problems are known for ages
in 02.11 i already started to house rule it after Axis t1

now, it appears, that even fighters do not fly if there are only Soviet bombers in the air without escort
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7&t=387999

somebody might abuse it and declare that he is super pro in the air for killing helpless Axis guns
same is killing many fighters on the ground only because auto interception is broken

but is it a way to play the game, by using bugs?
Слава Україні!
Glory to Ukraine!
User avatar
malyhin1517
Posts: 2021
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:52 am
Location: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by malyhin1517 »

The biggest problem in air warfare is that the Soviet player can massively use aviation in 1941-1942 before the advent of air armies. At the beginning of the war, most of the Soviet aviation was subordinate to the field armies, and not to the fronts, as is done in the game. Therefore, Soviet aviation was used in small numbers and suffered huge losses. After the emergence of air armies, Soviet aviation gradually took over the air by 1944.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Воздушная ... нной_войны
The main part of the Soviet military aviation, according to the views prevailing in the leadership of the NPO of the USSR and the command of the USSR Air Force, was considered as front-line aviation, which in wartime was subject to transfer under the command of the front, which laid the foundation for the dispersal of aviation efforts and made it difficult, if not impossible, to maneuver aviation forces between fronts. During the Soviet-Finnish war (1939-1940), the emerging trend of dispersing aviation intensified: 49% of the entire aviation of the active army (Army Air Force) was transferred to the command of the combined arms armies, and another 36% of aviation remained subordinate to the front commander (Front Air Force). ). When summing up the results of this war, it was recognized as expedient tactical interaction with the troops of each army in the main direction in the Army Air Force, it was planned to allocate 2-3 air divisions of mixed composition, and in the Air Force of the armies in the secondary directions - one division each. The air force of the front should have been from 45 to 50% of all front-line aviation.[1]

By June 1941, organizationally, the Red Army Air Forces were divided into:

Long-range bomber aviation of the High Command, which could solve both independent tasks and act jointly with other branches of the Armed Forces
Frontal (district) aviation - Air Force of military districts (fronts), intended for joint combat operations with ground forces
Troop aviation - combined arms air force - corps squadrons at the disposal of rifle (mechanized and cavalry) corps and designed to correct artillery fire, aerial reconnaissance and communications.
Frontal (district) aviation was divided into two groups:

Army aviation, which was subordinate to the commander of the armies. The army had one, and sometimes two mixed air divisions, which consisted of two to three bomber regiments, two fighter regiments and one to two assault regiments.
The Frontal Aviation Group, which was led by the Commander of the Front (District) Troops through the Commander of the Air Force of the Front (District). The front (district) aviation group included one - two short-range bomber (bad), three - five fighter divisions (iad) and one or two mixed air divisions (garden).
The experience of combat operations in 1941-1942 showed[2] that the transfer of one or two divisions to each army leads to a dispersion of the Air Force's efforts, excludes centralized control and massive use of aviation in front-line operations. This made it impossible to realize in full the combat power of the aviation forces available in the fronts, since it made it impossible to concentrate front-line aviation in a short time in a decisive place to carry out the most important combat missions. At a time when part of the front-line aviation was conducting intense combat operations, the rest of the aviation, if not inactive, was engaged in secondary combat missions. The maneuver of aviation forces between the fronts was possible only with the permission of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command, which took a lot of time and had a negative effect on efficiency.[1]

Therefore, a number of aviation commanders at the beginning of 1942 put forward the idea of ​​​​creating large aviation associations. On April 3, 1942, the Commander of the Red Army Air Force, Colonel-General of Aviation P.F. Zhigarev, presented to the Supreme Commander-in-Chief I.V. Stalin a report “On the reorganization of the Red Army Air Force”, in which he proposed to concentrate the control of the entire aviation of the country in the hands of the Commander of the Red Army Air Force, who would teach tasks from the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command; five active aviation armies will be directly subordinate to it (each army must support the troops of several fronts), and in the fronts only reconnaissance, corrective and communication aviation will be left, which will be led by the aviation departments of the headquarters of the fronts and armies.[1]

As a result, in May 1942, changes were made to the organizational structure of Frontal Aviation: all aviation units and formations operating as part of armies and fronts were consolidated into one operational association - the air army. The first of these, by order of the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR dated May 5, 1942, was the 1st Air Army on the Western Front.[1]

In May - November 1942, 17 air armies were created on the basis of the air forces of the fronts and armies, in December 1944 - the 18th air army (long-range aviation).

The air armies of front-line aviation were part of the fronts and were subordinate to the commanders of the troops of the fronts, and in a special respect and when participating in air operations - to the commander of the Red Army Air Force. Sometimes some fronts operating in the most important directions had two VAs each. The new form of organization made it possible to centrally control all the aviation forces of the front, to maneuver widely within its boundaries, and to use large aviation forces where the situation required. The air armies had more opportunities to carry out operational tasks. But the creation of an air force on the principle of "one front - one air force" led to the fact that the capabilities of the Red Army Air Force command to carry out inter-frontal maneuvers by front-line aviation expanded slightly. By the end of 1942, a number of aviation chiefs proposed to continue the reorganization and transfer up to 90% of all front-line aviation to the direct subordination of the Supreme High Command Headquarters through the Air Force Commander, creating no more than 5 powerful air armies for the entire Soviet-German front, following the example of the Luftwaffe air fleets. But this was not done, instead of an inter-frontal maneuver in the Red Army Air Force, the reinforcement of the VA in the main directions by forces from the Stavka reserve was practiced.
Sorry, i use an online translator :(
User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 9276
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by Zovs »

malyhin1517 wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 2:34 pm The biggest problem in air warfare is that the Soviet player can massively use aviation in 1941-1942 before the advent of air armies. At the beginning of the war, most of the Soviet aviation was subordinate to the field armies, and not to the fronts, as is done in the game. Therefore, Soviet aviation was used in small numbers and suffered huge losses. After the emergence of air armies, Soviet aviation gradually took over the air by 1944.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Воздушная ... нной_войны
The main part of the Soviet military aviation, according to the views prevailing in the leadership of the NPO of the USSR and the command of the USSR Air Force, was considered as front-line aviation, which in wartime was subject to transfer under the command of the front, which laid the foundation for the dispersal of aviation efforts and made it difficult, if not impossible, to maneuver aviation forces between fronts. During the Soviet-Finnish war (1939-1940), the emerging trend of dispersing aviation intensified: 49% of the entire aviation of the active army (Army Air Force) was transferred to the command of the combined arms armies, and another 36% of aviation remained subordinate to the front commander (Front Air Force). ). When summing up the results of this war, it was recognized as expedient tactical interaction with the troops of each army in the main direction in the Army Air Force, it was planned to allocate 2-3 air divisions of mixed composition, and in the Air Force of the armies in the secondary directions - one division each. The air force of the front should have been from 45 to 50% of all front-line aviation.[1]

By June 1941, organizationally, the Red Army Air Forces were divided into:

Long-range bomber aviation of the High Command, which could solve both independent tasks and act jointly with other branches of the Armed Forces
Frontal (district) aviation - Air Force of military districts (fronts), intended for joint combat operations with ground forces
Troop aviation - combined arms air force - corps squadrons at the disposal of rifle (mechanized and cavalry) corps and designed to correct artillery fire, aerial reconnaissance and communications.
Frontal (district) aviation was divided into two groups:

Army aviation, which was subordinate to the commander of the armies. The army had one, and sometimes two mixed air divisions, which consisted of two to three bomber regiments, two fighter regiments and one to two assault regiments.
The Frontal Aviation Group, which was led by the Commander of the Front (District) Troops through the Commander of the Air Force of the Front (District). The front (district) aviation group included one - two short-range bomber (bad), three - five fighter divisions (iad) and one or two mixed air divisions (garden).
The experience of combat operations in 1941-1942 showed[2] that the transfer of one or two divisions to each army leads to a dispersion of the Air Force's efforts, excludes centralized control and massive use of aviation in front-line operations. This made it impossible to realize in full the combat power of the aviation forces available in the fronts, since it made it impossible to concentrate front-line aviation in a short time in a decisive place to carry out the most important combat missions. At a time when part of the front-line aviation was conducting intense combat operations, the rest of the aviation, if not inactive, was engaged in secondary combat missions. The maneuver of aviation forces between the fronts was possible only with the permission of the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command, which took a lot of time and had a negative effect on efficiency.[1]

Therefore, a number of aviation commanders at the beginning of 1942 put forward the idea of ​​​​creating large aviation associations. On April 3, 1942, the Commander of the Red Army Air Force, Colonel-General of Aviation P.F. Zhigarev, presented to the Supreme Commander-in-Chief I.V. Stalin a report “On the reorganization of the Red Army Air Force”, in which he proposed to concentrate the control of the entire aviation of the country in the hands of the Commander of the Red Army Air Force, who would teach tasks from the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command; five active aviation armies will be directly subordinate to it (each army must support the troops of several fronts), and in the fronts only reconnaissance, corrective and communication aviation will be left, which will be led by the aviation departments of the headquarters of the fronts and armies.[1]

As a result, in May 1942, changes were made to the organizational structure of Frontal Aviation: all aviation units and formations operating as part of armies and fronts were consolidated into one operational association - the air army. The first of these, by order of the People's Commissar of Defense of the USSR dated May 5, 1942, was the 1st Air Army on the Western Front.[1]

In May - November 1942, 17 air armies were created on the basis of the air forces of the fronts and armies, in December 1944 - the 18th air army (long-range aviation).

The air armies of front-line aviation were part of the fronts and were subordinate to the commanders of the troops of the fronts, and in a special respect and when participating in air operations - to the commander of the Red Army Air Force. Sometimes some fronts operating in the most important directions had two VAs each. The new form of organization made it possible to centrally control all the aviation forces of the front, to maneuver widely within its boundaries, and to use large aviation forces where the situation required. The air armies had more opportunities to carry out operational tasks. But the creation of an air force on the principle of "one front - one air force" led to the fact that the capabilities of the Red Army Air Force command to carry out inter-frontal maneuvers by front-line aviation expanded slightly. By the end of 1942, a number of aviation chiefs proposed to continue the reorganization and transfer up to 90% of all front-line aviation to the direct subordination of the Supreme High Command Headquarters through the Air Force Commander, creating no more than 5 powerful air armies for the entire Soviet-German front, following the example of the Luftwaffe air fleets. But this was not done, instead of an inter-frontal maneuver in the Red Army Air Force, the reinforcement of the VA in the main directions by forces from the Stavka reserve was practiced.
+1 I have been saying this for about 4 years
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
Tester for WDS games
ITAKLinus
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:56 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by ITAKLinus »

I might be a black sheep, but I don't like at all the entire air system with the separate phase.


My feeling is that there is: no flexibility, rather odd mechanics and the planes themselves do relatively little a part from blowing up.


WITE-1 had a better air system, even if quite abstract and with many obvious shortcomings. I find extremely bizarre the fact that you can't do recon during the ground phase, for example.

If I look at the missions... :
A) Naval interdiction is extremely important but with some conceptual shortcircuits ;
B) Air Superiority is ok-ish ;
C) Recon is ok ;
D) Interdiction is fairly useless, especially because you take billions of losses for very questionable returns ;
E) Strategic bombing is useless as far as I can tell and economy in general is very poorly simulated
F) Ground support seems ok? Frankly, I do see a remarkable difference in open terrains only where you need it the least



Accordingly to me, the system itself is flawed, but I've always hated it since its introduction in WITW. Probably it's just my poor skill and my WITPAE's heritage (where micromanaging up to the single named pilot gives you massive advantages over the course of time), but that's how I do feel regarding air war.


Most of the ADs have very poor returns on investment and micromanaging the air war makes you only go mad since there is no real added value.
Francesco
User avatar
malyhin1517
Posts: 2021
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:52 am
Location: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by malyhin1517 »

ITAKLinus wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 4:07 pm I might be a black sheep, but I don't like at all the entire air system with the separate phase.


My feeling is that there is: no flexibility, rather odd mechanics and the planes themselves do relatively little a part from blowing up.


WITE-1 had a better air system, even if quite abstract and with many obvious shortcomings. I find extremely bizarre the fact that you can't do recon during the ground phase, for example.

If I look at the missions... :
A) Naval interdiction is extremely important but with some conceptual shortcircuits ;
B) Air Superiority is ok-ish ;
C) Recon is ok ;
D) Interdiction is fairly useless, especially because you take billions of losses for very questionable returns ;
E) Strategic bombing is useless as far as I can tell and economy in general is very poorly simulated
F) Ground support seems ok? Frankly, I do see a remarkable difference in open terrains only where you need it the least



Accordingly to me, the system itself is flawed, but I've always hated it since its introduction in WITW. Probably it's just my poor skill and my WITPAE's heritage (where micromanaging up to the single named pilot gives you massive advantages over the course of time), but that's how I do feel regarding air war.


Most of the ADs have very poor returns on investment and micromanaging the air war makes you only go mad since there is no real added value.
+1
I like the new system of fixed airfields and AOG, but I don't like the idea of an air phase. I would prefer that all actions take place simultaneously in one phase. But no one will change this. It remains only to get used to or play WITE1! :)
Sorry, i use an online translator :(
ITAKLinus
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:56 pm
Location: Italy

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by ITAKLinus »

Yeah! The air bases and AOGs are very very important and I'm glad they've been put into the game.

The separate phase however... Again, it's probably just my poor skill, however I don't see any kind of light at the end of the tunnel...


I ask myself why should I lose precious freight for bombers if they bring so little to the fight. In my PBEM I adopted a drastic approach. I've something like 1.500 bombers ready to smash everything and I use them for single battles where I need them: Odessa (1) + Leningrad (2) + Sebastopol (3).

Nothing more.

They spend most of the time in reserve and for each of these three battles they were needed mostly for the naval interdiction. I don't bother to use them for ground attack either since I'm permanently short of freight for ground forces and they don't seem to do anything relevant a part from giving enemy AA gunners practice.


I've managed to lose an average of 60 level bombers per turn nevertheless.
Francesco
User avatar
malyhin1517
Posts: 2021
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:52 am
Location: Ukraine Dnepropetrovsk

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by malyhin1517 »

Most of the time, I keep heavy bombers in reserve and other theaters to provide the necessary strength for all branches of the troops. Sometimes I use rail bombardments or naval blockades, then I bring them out of reserve onto the map. I do the same with scouts and patrol aircraft. I keep only fighters and tactical bombers on the map at all times. But I periodically remove tactical bombers from the map to restore losses to the reserve.
Sorry, i use an online translator :(
ShaggyHiK
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2021 12:38 pm

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by ShaggyHiK »

I don't see German players trying to use SUP against Soviet GAs, usually you know where you can be assaulted, it's rarely completely random hexes, it's infantry on the plains that are far away from the fighters. Vulnerable parts without cover, and tanks breaking through. Usually it will not be difficult to lead a SUP directive over this area with 2-4 cover planes to destroy the Soviet planes.

I say this from time to time and yet not a single German player has even tried in my games. Everyone wants passive, put GS fighters, hope they intercept themselves.

My arguments why it should not work through GS do not pay such a feeling at all.
Rock64
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:46 am

Re: Air war is high effort

Post by Rock64 »

ITAKLinus wrote: Tue Sep 13, 2022 4:07 pm I might be a black sheep, but I don't like at all the entire air system with the separate phase.


My feeling is that there is: no flexibility, rather odd mechanics and the planes themselves do relatively little a part from blowing up.


WITE-1 had a better air system, even if quite abstract and with many obvious shortcomings. I find extremely bizarre the fact that you can't do recon during the ground phase, for example.

If I look at the missions... :
A) Naval interdiction is extremely important but with some conceptual shortcircuits ;
B) Air Superiority is ok-ish ;
C) Recon is ok ;
D) Interdiction is fairly useless, especially because you take billions of losses for very questionable returns ;
E) Strategic bombing is useless as far as I can tell and economy in general is very poorly simulated
F) Ground support seems ok? Frankly, I do see a remarkable difference in open terrains only where you need it the least



Accordingly to me, the system itself is flawed, but I've always hated it since its introduction in WITW. Probably it's just my poor skill and my WITPAE's heritage (where micromanaging up to the single named pilot gives you massive advantages over the course of time), but that's how I do feel regarding air war.


Most of the ADs have very poor returns on investment and micromanaging the air war makes you only go mad since there is no real added value.
The separate air phase was okay in WITW but in WITE2 it seems odd, especially interdiction. The whole air game seems designed to make the air war a minor aspect of the game, at least from the german side.
And I don't know why flak losses and unescorted bomber losses were ramped up so much from WITW.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2”