The status of the air game as of 1.02.01

[Joel Billings]

That's because the code resolves what happens to the aircraft when it returns to land. Some of the aircraft damaged by flak would be lost enroute home, some would crash on the runway. The code doesn't know which is which, but generally I think if it's been damaged by flak or in air to air combat it generally gets counted as one of those instead of an op loss. The weather during the Op typhoon scenario is generally bad, and if so that increases the losses. My sense in general is that our sortie counts are low, but our losses per sortie are high. In a way it averages out, but I'd like to see more results from longer games played. Thanks for the feedback.

[KenchiSulla]

Hi Joel, I understand that you want more data. Just consider that it might average out in losses but not in (possible) impact of the VVS and Luftwaffe although I must admit that it is hard to quantify....

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

That's because the code resolves what happens to the aircraft when it returns to land. Some of the aircraft damaged by flak would be lost enroute home, some would crash on the runway. The code doesn't know which is which, but generally I think if it's been damaged by flak or in air to air combat it generally gets counted as one of those instead of an op loss. The weather during the Op typhoon scenario is generally bad, and if so that increases the losses. My sense in general is that our sortie counts are low, but our losses per sortie are high. In a way it averages out, but I'd like to see more results from longer games played. Thanks for the feedback.

The overall losses average out, but the impact of the air war is substantially reduced due to fewer sorties.

[AngularMan]

ORIGINAL: jubjub

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

That's because the code resolves what happens to the aircraft when it returns to land. Some of the aircraft damaged by flak would be lost enroute home, some would crash on the runway. The code doesn't know which is which, but generally I think if it's been damaged by flak or in air to air combat it generally gets counted as one of those instead of an op loss. The weather during the Op typhoon scenario is generally bad, and if so that increases the losses. My sense in general is that our sortie counts are low, but our losses per sortie are high. In a way it averages out, but I'd like to see more results from longer games played. Thanks for the feedback.

The overall losses average out, but the impact of the air war is substantially reduced due to fewer sorties.

I find it kind of ridiculous how ineffective level bombers are. Ju88 production alone, for example, consumes half of the armament points produced by the Axis in 1941, yet their impact on the battle field (and in the theater boxes) is marginal at best (yes I know, the production system is only a peripheral part of the game). I am pretty sure quite a lot of players just leave them in the reserves or theater boxes so that they do not suck up valuable supplies intended for the front line units. Or maybe I just haven't found their role.

[DeletedUser44]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

That's because the code resolves what happens to the aircraft when it returns to land. Some of the aircraft damaged by flak would be lost enroute home, some would crash on the runway. The code doesn't know which is which, but generally I think if it's been damaged by flak or in air to air combat it generally gets counted as one of those instead of an op loss. The weather during the Op typhoon scenario is generally bad, and if so that increases the losses. My sense in general is that our sortie counts are low, but our losses per sortie are high. In a way it averages out, but I'd like to see more results from longer games played. Thanks for the feedback.

Part of this I fully understand.

For example, OPS losses were incurred historically during aircraft rebase missions as well. Yet, in the game, there is 0 risk involved of an OPS loss while rebasing aircraft. So that difference has to be made up somewhere.

As has been noted, OPS loses start to increase after a certain Traveled(%) threshold, as well as a fatigue threshold.

But what is frustrating is the air system easily allows a user to inadvertently fly their aircraft into the ground by pushing aircraft over these thresholds.

Historically, OPS rates also increased during poor weather conditions. I presume the same occurs in WiTE2? But are those rates published anywhere? (and don't try to say nobody knew, because I know that they had statisticians who were updating OPS loss-risk rates on a continuous basis)

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: AngularMan

ORIGINAL: jubjub

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

That's because the code resolves what happens to the aircraft when it returns to land. Some of the aircraft damaged by flak would be lost enroute home, some would crash on the runway. The code doesn't know which is which, but generally I think if it's been damaged by flak or in air to air combat it generally gets counted as one of those instead of an op loss. The weather during the Op typhoon scenario is generally bad, and if so that increases the losses. My sense in general is that our sortie counts are low, but our losses per sortie are high. In a way it averages out, but I'd like to see more results from longer games played. Thanks for the feedback.

The overall losses average out, but the impact of the air war is substantially reduced due to fewer sorties.

I find it kind of ridiculous how ineffective level bombers are. Ju88 production alone, for example, consumes half of the armament points produced by the Axis in 1941, yet their impact on the battle field (and in the theater boxes) is marginal at best (yes I know, the production system is only a peripheral part of the game). I am pretty sure quite a lot of players just leave them in the reserves or theater boxes so that they do not suck up valuable supplies intended for the front line units. Or maybe I just haven't found their role.

They were very good in the ground attack - unit role until they decided to nerf it. You can get up to 4,000 disrupted with a sortie of 200 JU-88's. The key is to fly at 22,000 feet so 37 mm AAA can't hit and disrupt the bombing runs.

With the current state of things, I'm strongly considering moving all the German level bombers to the reserves. I may have to study a bit more about how much freight they consume per sortie to see if it's still worth it.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: jubjub

ORIGINAL: AngularMan

ORIGINAL: jubjub




The overall losses average out, but the impact of the air war is substantially reduced due to fewer sorties.

I find it kind of ridiculous how ineffective level bombers are. Ju88 production alone, for example, consumes half of the armament points produced by the Axis in 1941, yet their impact on the battle field (and in the theater boxes) is marginal at best (yes I know, the production system is only a peripheral part of the game). I am pretty sure quite a lot of players just leave them in the reserves or theater boxes so that they do not suck up valuable supplies intended for the front line units. Or maybe I just haven't found their role.

They were very good in the ground attack - unit role until they decided to nerf it. You can get up to 4,000 disrupted with a sortie of 200 JU-88's. The key is to fly at 22,000 feet so 37 mm AAA can't hit and disrupt the bombing runs.

With the current state of things, I'm strongly considering moving all the German level bombers to the reserves. I may have to study a bit more about how much freight they consume per sortie to see if it's still worth it.

It is "not" in my opinion. But that is just me.

[AlbertN]

In my experience German bombers are not really useful whilst IL2 are death-stars flying in huge numbers and without logistic constraints.
And if by disgrace your escorts are undercut in numbers, the Soviet swarms obliterate a huge chunk of German bombers.

Right now I concur with JubJub about moving bombers to the reserve. I wish the LW could create more fighter squadrons instead because bombers are risky to be used and when used not really tipping balance of anything at least going by the Ground Losses. It's very rare to see numbers that are no 0 in the Damaged or Destroyed columns whilst it is normal to see IL2 inflict destroyed and damaged assets.

[jubjub]

Stukas are good as long as there's not much flak, and they're part of a hasty attack. As I mentioned earlier, I think level bombers are best at ground attack - unit. They would be very useful at destroying enemy rail yards if AA wasn't so powerful, and they're pretty decent at naval patrol. Besides that, I don't really see a role for them.

Here's some examples of German bombers being good. Unfortunately, level bombers will miss ground attack about half the time now, so you have to halve the effectiveness. I will reiterate, this was the worst possible way to nerf ground attack, and it hurts the German air game much more than the Soviets.

Stukas in hasty attacks:





Level bombers in ground attack.

[jubjub]

Here's some examples of German bombers being good. Unfortunately, level bombers will miss ground attack about half the time now, so you have to halve the effectiveness. I will reiterate, this was the worst possible way to nerf ground attack, and it hurts the German air game much more than the Soviets.

Idk why they didn't just reduce accuracy of low experience bombers or something.

Also, let's be clear, running interdiction is a miss - it's a totally useless ability when run on a front line unit. It's even WORSE than doing nothing because of the freight consumption. To top it off, it's bugged, and uses the 'ground attack - unit' interdiction multiplier instead of the higher 'ground attack - interdiction' value.

[AlbertN]

Maybe I am unlucky but when I've tried to use German bombers besides T1 either A) They fly in loads with only a handful of escorts and get decimated or B) Fly in loads, destroy nothing, damage no more than fingers of a hand, disrupt something.

Ground Attack-Unit is a function I'd gladly erase from the game tbh. There is ground support to represent bombing of units before they get attacked, to soften the target up.
Without the possibilty to spam it as it was before (Now at least it converts in Interdiction, good grace...).

[jubjub]

Maybe I am unlucky but when I've tried to use German bombers besides T1 either A) They fly in loads with only a handful of escorts and get decimated or B) Fly in loads, destroy nothing, damage no more than fingers of a hand, disrupt something.

You have to manually set the requested aircraft, and fly at 22,000 feet or above. If you use auto settings, you're going to have a bad time. If you fly low, you'll get shredded by 37mm flak, and your bombers won't get anything done.

Ground Attack-Unit is a function I'd gladly erase from the game tbh. Without the possibilty to spam it as it was before (Now at least it converts in Interdiction, good grace...).

Bad take imo. Without GA-unit, you'll never be able to achieve the amount of sorties that were historically flown. Also, the Soviets will still spam it as before, it's just half as effective. It doesn't matter if they miss because the Soviets have infinite supply. It drastically changes the calculation of German bombing runs though since freight is so precious.

Flak is so strong that attaching a motorized army flak battalion to my panzers pretty much solves all my ground attack problems against level bombers, and significantly reduces the impact of IL-2's.

There is ground support to represent bombing of units before they get attacked, to soften the target up.

That's not what ground support is supposed to represent - it's just how the designers decided to model it. I would prefer it if they took a second (long) look at their model. For one, the sorties should happen after the initial bombardment round.

[AlbertN]

We definitely have a different perspective on what should be 'ground support' then.

Given I'd have kept the air war in the style of WITE, bundled in general with the ground movement, and with 'per week' mission and not some subsystem that goes in days while ground operations have a turn long stuff.

Nonetheless - maybe I am the one wrong but the Stukas are not doing 'much' either. Now much can be subjective, but the question is 'do the Luftwaffe bombers usage justify the freight they steal to the ground army?'

[AlbertN]

Other Stuka situation which is similar to above, to show a pattern.

[jubjub]

You're showing results from deliberate attacks, where GS is outshined by ground elements. IMO, they should fly at least two full sorties per deliberate attack and continue strafing throughout the combat.

The most effective use of GS is during hasty attacks, where they can double the amount of destroyed/disrupted from ground combat. Also, try not to use the drop tanks on stukas unless there's no way to get them in range. Their 500kg + 4x 50kg bombs is a much better payload.

[AlbertN]

In general 'hasty attacks' unless made with overwhelming odds punish the Germans a lot. Despite other threats that I am confident show deliberate attacks in general that consume time and effort. My CV should be at least 4:1 on the map or I should have other solid basis to go 'hasty'.
But that's just how I play maybe, past the first turns the Soviets are nifty and in general resilient to hasty attacks unless they sit in open clear terrain or so.

[jubjub]

We definitely have a different perspective on what should be 'ground support' then.

Yeah, ground support implies some sort of coordination and/or continued presence over the battlefield. Their formula is big dogfight -> drop payload -> go home. It seems over simplistic and not very realistic.

The problem is especially apparent when looking at the HS 127B, who's primary armament is the 30mm cannon. In their model, the HS 127B fires its cannon once and its machineguns once and then flies on home. It's totally useless in their model.

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

In general 'hasty attacks' unless made with overwhelming odds punish the Germans a lot. Despite other threats that I am confident show deliberate attacks in general that consume time and effort. My CV should be at least 4:1 on the map or I should have other solid basis to go 'hasty'.
But that's just how I play maybe, past the first turns the Soviets are nifty and in general resilient to hasty attacks unless they sit in open clear terrain or so.

They're excellent against units that have already retreated. Rifle divisions in lvl 1 fort in clear terrain also can't really stand up to two pz divisions in a hasty attack. The Stukas help these kind of attacks a lot. They also cause routs to be much worse.

[AlbertN]

Well - IF that is how the model works in general needs to be reworked. Supposedly ground support should be 'continuous' and proportionate to Hasty or Deliberate attack (the latter takes more MPs so more time?). But I cannot know how to quantify it there. As per how many sorties would it have to be to be 'right'? And how to position these sorties in the 'rounds'? Ultimately whilst forces wrestle over a hex - the combat model resolves to a 2D linear A to B range meter that determines which and what elements are entitled to fire.

I feel anyhow that aspect is conditional to have the fighter escorts sorted out, and LW has the issue anyhow to provide fighter cover in '41 so the Soviets would be the ones dominating the air as they do presently (due to LW fighters absence in general).

And yes on the hasty on single infantry divisions or stuff that retreated - 100% in agreement with that.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

[font="Trebuchet MS"]Any update on possible release date on the expected air changes up and coming?[/font]