Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
Nick, to the best of my knowledge every interdiction attack causes 10% readiness loss. Now you realy need RickyB or Ed to say if this has been changed but that is what is in the rules. I am glad you understand my pov here that was perhaps the most frustrating thing for me.
I too use medium setting and had wondered what was up with those disruption messages. If it turns out that the game now works more like PACWAR then I withdraw the rule proposal for limiting strikes. I have no objection to planes assigned to 1 HQ supporting another, so far as I am aware it happened fairly often if the 2 HQs were engaged in a combined operation.
What I find disturbing though is the fact that the losses you see in combat are never the same as the losses reported in the post action report. I am never very sure what to believe.
On the topic of mules I find it difficult to imagine having 10 korps assigned to an HQ and not having difficulties with OPs. I find it hard with 3 Pz Korps and 3 Inf Korps and for the germans I rarely if ever have more than 6 Korp assigned to a single HQ. For the russians at the start the first thing I do is create a number of HQs near the front line and start transfering Armys to them. The point is to get the number down to around 8 or so and later that will drop more. Rear area Korps are always assigned to the various army group commands (AGN, ACG, AGS). I also tend to stage my transfers through those commands...rail from germany to AGC, wait a week or two then rail from AGC to the Army HQ wait a week or two and then rail/transfer to the Korps. So far as I understand the AGx are also supposed to transfer OPs to HQs under there command that are low in OPs plus they sometimes stick their noses in and take over (and so the operation comes out of their OP total). This is at least not as bad for the german as the Infamous "STAVKA takes a hand at command" is for russian.
Paul
I thought the mater was blown out of proportion
because a lot of times 3 interdiction attacks of one bomber group each would result in say, 250 men +no disruption, 400 men +light disruption to 1 divs and 600 men+ medium disruption to 2 divs.
If all 3 were combined i would probably achieve something like 1100 men and medium to heavy disrpt to 2 or 3 divs. All in all it seemed the end results were pretty much the same but if every attack causes disruption then yes, multiple attacks have the upper hand.
but....
There is method in my madness.. the actual reason i generally prefer to use the 3 attacks in the above case instead of 1 big one has nothing to do with the effects on the ground target and never has.
I'd do it to KILL MORE DEFENDING FIGHTERS while also giving the escorts 3 chances to increase training insread of 1.
If no fighters showed up in the above case i would combine the second 2 attacks into one and put the escorts on training for that attack only.
This tactic plus select suprise turns where the luftwaffe does few interdictions but many Airbase attacks can result in heavy sov air casualties.
A prime agenda for the Luftwaffe.
So from now on i can continue the above tactics
but the interdictions will come from seperate HQ's to each target.
Regarding the mules and # of units per HQ.
I no longer use mules and some thought on the units per HQ mater leads me to believe the the BigHQ tactic (which i used mainly to increase airpower while coveribg the whole front) was a bit of overkill compared to say 7 to 8 HQ's with smaller air groups and 5-6 subordinate corps/armies each. The one advantage of the BigHQ and 10 air groups is that i NEVER had a soviet airbase attack reach it's target.(if i remember right) And sov interdiction attacks might get lucky once in a blue moon. The whole concept for me was airpower driven, obviously at the expense of realism of command and control it seems.
Learning and adapting is a big part of the fun of this game (as in PacWar)
Matt and Muz, here comes the new 'improved formula' Wehmacht. Grinds finer..Scorches cleaner.
Nick
