Matrix Games Forums

Regarding auto-planning, yes it can be frustrating. The AI is very picky with it's checklist of perfect raid conditions and "not enough resources" is not telling the whole story.

Try starting with a low 100-200 mile max range and work outward. Spam auto-recon flights the same way. For bombing runs, the AI likes reconned targets located safely within escort range.

Curious how you guys are structuring your raids.

In my case I avoid close-escort unless I'm willing to accept higher escort attrition as a payoff for inhibiting interceptor attacks on the bombers. I usually stack multiple units of high escorts at 2-6,000 ft above the bombers, with more at 8 and 10,000 feet where I have additional high cover units to compensate for the general uselessness of Sptifire IX-variant escorts dealing with 190 A-5's and 109 G-6's on 'bounce-fighter'-doctrine intercepts against 2TAF medium bomber and fighter-bomber missions.

To try and get interceptors to react to the bombers rather than the escorting fighters I'll time recce missions to activate Luftwaffe readiness before using fighter-bomber and medium bomber raids to trigger intercepts. I'll then plot sharp turns on the bomber's initial ingress route to allow staggered waves of later escorts to arrive, avoiding them being targeted by the initial interception scrambles which should then focus on the bombers.

I'll also stagger Spitfire fighter sweeps in between closely-plotted medium bomber raids to complicate the interception of egressing tactical raids, each with at least one unit on high-escort (2-3,000 ft) on each sweeping unit. Units on sweeps seem to be a little more aggresive than escorts, but are still fairly ineffective in combat when attacking or bouncing.

50-100 escorts is like 2 or 3 USA fighter groups which seems too low. You should have at least 1.5:1 or even 2:1 escort/bomber ratio.

That's not possible early in the 1943 game, though, when there aren't enough escort units with sufficient range and endurance to stay with the bombers even on relatively shallow penetration raids. For instance, I stagger the arrival of P-47D-6 high escorts to 8thAF B-17's to sequence their coverage in order to deal with early interceptions which cause external tanks to be jettisoned and fuel burned in combat. Having follow-up waves to the initial pentration escort allows the maximum penetration depth coverage, as I think most playing the game will know well. That generally gives me a maximum of 2 fighter groups in contact with any individual formation of 8th AF bombers at any one time early in the game.

If I'm attacking more than one target, I'll plot the raids to track in simultaneously with the same ingress route to share plotted escort coverage and then split to hit targets clustered in the same area before rejoining and sometimes crossing tracks on the egress route. That can allow escorts to attack interceptor units breaking off attacks on the other bomber formations to be exposed to bouncing by the escorts for formations on parallel or following courses.

I don't have any complaint about interceptors sometimes hitting the bombers before the escorts can react, which could and did happen, sometimes to the extent of getting away without any effective escort reaction. I don't have any complaint about interceptors concentrating on unescorted formations or cripples, all of which model the historical reality. What does frustrate is seeing multiple interceptions of bombers being escorted by capable escorts, within their escort range, often with low or no fatigue and high morale, and with a height advantage yet who seldom engage, even when not being distracted by attack or potential attack themselves.

At least when the Thunderbolts do fight back they can shoot down some 109s, while the Spits just seem to shoot themselves down more often than not.

My problem with this is that is not historically accurate for the air war as experienced in 1943, where the Spit IX variants were arguably the most capable allied escort fighters within their limited escort range, and were used as such by everybody including the USAAF. This is not special pleading: Spits at a tactical disadvantage should be clobbered by 109s and 190s; but 109s and 190s at a tactical disadvantage should be clobbered by Spits.

The actual track record of Spitfire IXs on 17 August 1943 was that 341 and 485 RNZAF sqns on a diversionary raid got 2:1 against 109s from III. JG 26, with Jack Rae of 485 attributing his kill to the performance advantage of the Spitfire LFIXs his unit had; 222 Squadron then bounced III.JG 3 and shot down 3 109s, with 129 Squadron claiming one FW 190 from an unknown unit and 303 Squadron shooting down an FW 190A-4 from I. JG 26, all from LFIXC-equipped units, and all without loss bar the one from 341 Squadron. A result of 7:1 like this for escorting Spitfire LFIXCs against 109G-6s and FW190 A-5's and A-6's would be truly exceptional in my experience of the game so far.

To be fair, I should add that 403 RCAF Squadron did lose another Spitfire LFIXC to collision when 2 attacked an FW 190 of II. JG26 on 17 August 1943. I suppose this does give some historical support to the '2 Spitfire LFIXCs bouncing FW 190 - I Spitfire LFIXC damaged. I Spitfire LFIXC destroyed'-type of messages I've seen often enough in the game so far.

Taken alongside the lack of H2S capability in Bomber Command rendering any attempt at replicating the historical Peenemunde raid of 17 August 1943 fantastical, the relative combat ineffectiveness of the main RAF day fighter means that the game is not modelling significant elements of historical RAF capability accurately.

Close escorts will not engage nearly as often as a well stacked high escort screen. Also with regard to performance, there are low altitude spits and high altitude spits. Get familiar with your (and your enemy) performance curves in the Weapon Database.

I follow the database MVR values, but also my own historical knowledge to test the combat modelling. For example, I keep the P-47D-6's above 20,000 feet at all times and at least 25,000 feet by preference, the Spit HFIX's above 25,000ft, the IX's above 20,000 ft, the LFIX's above 14,000 feet and the LFVBs below 12,000 ft. This makes little difference to their combat effectiveness.

I follow similar approaches to other low-altitude fighter sweeps and escorts (e.g. using the P-39 below 10,000 ft, the Allison-engined Kittyhawks below 15,000 ft and the Merlin-engined P-40's below 20,000 ft, likewise with the P-38H, etc.). They don't appear so bad as the Spitfires - I even saw some P-40F escorts killing a couple of FW-190F's breaking contact after intercepting some B-25's over Italy in my last turn (although I attribute that to them engaging before joining as escorts; if they had already joined the raid I suspect they would have been more passive) - but while historically that should be infrequent, in the game it's an extreme rarity and they still seem to suffer the same dynamic of lacking aggression, if only to a lesser degree.

By contrast, P-38Js seem to be more aggressive escorts for the 8th and 15th AFs so far, claiming a useful number of Luftwaffe and Axis interceptors even if they seem to love lingering en masse over stragglers on the return leg of raids while Zerstorers gleefully intercept the leading bomb groups with impunity. There could be a range factor at work here, as the Spit VIIIs seem to do much better than the IXs, but that is against less intensive resistance in the MTO and the IXs seem to be affected even well-within their limited escort radius.

On the subject of wider fighter combat modelling of tactical advantage, patrolling fighter-sweeps over Luftwaffe bases to catch bingo-fuel interceptors returning to base appears to provide a similar dynamic to the Spit escort problem as I experience it; they aren't slaughtered as relentlessly as they were in earlier patches, which is an improvement, but they are still getting hit hard in a position of tactical inferiority. Except when I try this with night-intruders, where Mosquitos seem less effective than Beaufighters at converting attacks into kills. This also seems to have been toned down from previous iterations, but possibly too far as it stands. About 25% of Mosquito NI attacks on returning NJG fighters are effective for me at the moment, with Beaufighters mysteriously achieving around 50% effectiveness. This just an observation that the output of the modelling of the 'attacking while landing' dynamic seems to be distinct in both cases.

None of this should be read as an entitled demand for this stuff to be immediately fixed the way I want it. I realise this would probably not be possible for a range of understandable reasons now and in the future. However, I think much of the game's appeal and value derives from it's historical accuracy, and this is the best place to raise issues like that for discussion even if it seems to overlook or fail to appreciate the effort and time invested in updating the game patches up to this point.

I totally understand what you are saying about aircraft performance. I have been absolutely loathe to going into the a/c DB and start messing around with the different aircraft settings. I think that would be an ugly can of worms to open. The problem being it is a one size fits all fix. Which is fine, BUT not all pilots are created equal. Who are you going to bet on? The LW pilot with 40 kills in a 109G or the novice P-51D pilot? I know where my money is going. That being the main problem with any computer simulation, the removal of the human element. I get frustrated as well when I feel my fighters are not performing up to my expectations, but it is just part of the give and take you get with a simulation. So yeah I would like to see better performance from the Spits sometimes, but if you tinker with one a/c, when do the dominoes stop falling?

Some thought about Spitfire, and RAF fighters in general.
1. RAF squadrons are smaller than the USAAF units, does the Combat system put them at a disadvantage??

2. Many RAF Fighters, including the IX and XIV seem to have "fixed" bombs and Slipper Tanks. The USAAF fights have an option to change out Drop Tanks and Bombs. Does this stifle the Speed and maneuverability one of the fastest and agile fighters over Europe?

3. I want a HF Spit IXC, need the 4 Cannon late in the war!

An observation under the latest patch, on going game at 17/6/44, Early death points seem stuck at 18, my VP float around 18-20 pts (Bloody Normandy focus!!) I havent been tracking the number but it doesnt seem to be moving???

JeffroK wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2024 6:06 am Some thought about Spitfire, and RAF fighters in general.
1. RAF squadrons are smaller than the USAAF units, does the Combat system put them at a disadvantage??

2. Many RAF Fighters, including the IX and XIV seem to have "fixed" bombs and Slipper Tanks. The USAAF fights have an option to change out Drop Tanks and Bombs. Does this stifle the Speed and maneuverability one of the fastest and agile fighters over Europe?

3. I want a HF Spit IXC, need the 4 Cannon late in the war!

An observation under the latest patch, on going game at 17/6/44, Early death points seem stuck at 18, my VP float around 18-20 pts (Bloody Normandy focus!!) I havent been tracking the number but it doesnt seem to be moving???

1. Interesting thought but I don't think so. There are just less planes per flight so you need more flights to equal it out.
2. All droptanks and bombs are jettisoned before air combat happens so no. The Maneuver ratings are based on no loadout.
3. You will have to live with the HF IX.
4. Sudden death increases by 2 every other month so just wait for it. July-August is the toughest time for the Allies but if you can squeak by until France is overrun you should be home free.

1. But it could be that the engine allocates fewer RAF types to a combat and they get overwhelmed, or at least are less effective.

2. But why are they fixed whereas the USAAF type are optional. It could affect range, climbing speed and maneuverability until AFTER the 109s or 190s bounce you.

3. But the Luftwaffe can build Do335 & Me262, I just want a few more cannon.

4. Seems to be about 6 weeks, I'll keep an eye on it.

Regarding bombs and drop tanks: Unlike the USAAF, some of these RAF planes have both, so there is no need to swap. Their Maneuver rating is based on no loadout, so maybe this gives them an advantage on an unmolested tactical bombing run but who cares? As soon as they engage and before any targeting calculations are done they jettison everything to defend themselves.

They do quite well on short range tactical bombing runs by the way (turn "fighter attack on" in the day bombing menu), so maybe that is their best use.

warshipbuilder wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2024 6:23 pm I totally understand what you are saying about aircraft performance. I have been absolutely loathe to going into the a/c DB and start messing around with the different aircraft settings. I think that would be an ugly can of worms to open. The problem being it is a one size fits all fix.

I understand the point about the aircraft database. I don't think the Spit combat performance problem is necessarily related to the figures that I can see, but there are some anomalies which might be related. For example, the rate of climb given for the Spit IX series seems to be 2,800 (presumably feet per minute), which is roughly what the Spit LF IX's rate of climb was at 24,000 ft. By contrast, the 109G-6 has a rate of climb of 3115 ft/min in the game, which is roughly what contemporary British comparative testing gave the G-5 at sea level. The issue there is that the LF IX had a rate of climb at over 4,200 ft/min at sea level for comparison. The G-5 curves I've seen indicate that it was about 2,000 ft/min at 24,000 ft; in other words, if the climb rating refers to a historical rate of climb figure at a specific altitude, the Spit IX is being disadvantaged by a considerable amount.

warshipbuilder wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2024 6:23 pm Which is fine, BUT not all pilots are created equal. Who are you going to bet on? The LW pilot with 40 kills in a 109G or the novice P-51D pilot? I know where my money is going. That being the main problem with any computer simulation, the removal of the human element.

I agree that pilot experience and capability was a major factor, and furthermore that air combat was a complex and dynamic environment which is very hard to model and which BTR does a good job of doing in general. But systemic factors can matter. Pilot experience and capability was only important so far as it conferred an advantage (or reduced a disadvantage) in combat - just like aircraft performance. All other factors being equal, I'd bet on the experienced pilot. But not if fatigue, tactical advantage and aircraft performance were heavily against them.

To be fair, the miserable Spit performance against LF3 in France and the Low Countries is marginally better now after 100 turns, possibly because LW pilot replacement inexperience is starting to bite, but it's still a problem.

warshipbuilder wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2024 6:23 pm I get frustrated as well when I feel my fighters are not performing up to my expectations, but it is just part of the give and take you get with a simulation. So yeah I would like to see better performance from the Spits sometimes, but if you tinker with one a/c, when do the dominoes stop falling?

This is where I would disagree. The issue as I see it is whether our expectations are reasonable and supported by relevant factual evidence. If they're not, then the problem is subjective bias. But if they are, there's something more than random chance and subjective bias involved. I'd be happy to accept hard luck days for the Spits if they had anything approaching a similar level of good luck days in the long run. But they don't in my experience. Give, but little or no take - or at least an ahistorical and systematic imbalance between them. As a result I think there is a systemic problem with the modelling of the combat performance of the Spits and, to a variable but a lesser extent, other Allied aircraft when escorting bombers.

In my current game I'm up to the end of November 1943 and I have had a grand total of 2 Spitfire VII/VIII/IX/XII bounces producing more than 1 destroyed Bf 109G or FW 190A so far. By contrast, I was into double figures for 109/190 bounces killing more than one Spit before the end of the first month of gameplay. I'm still getting about 50% Spitfire bounces leading to Spits being destroyed or damaged for no kills, with 109 or 190 bounces on them killing or damaging Spits at least 75% of the time, usually without any losses in return.

I don't know what's causing this, and I don't know if it is significant enough to affect the game for other players, fair enough. But it seems apparent in the gameplay I've experienced over 100+ game turns so far.

fochinell wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2024 10:34 pm I don't know what's causing this, and I don't know if it is significant enough to affect the game for other players, fair enough. But it seems apparent in the gameplay I've experienced over 100+ game turns so far.

To have a rough stab at quantifying this, I ran through the replay of a recent turn vs the AI in early December 1943, where the 8th AF did a deep penetration raid to Merseberg, with 2TAF/9AF and 11 Groop units running a series of co-ordinated diversion attacks to Brussels and points to the south-west. Brussels was hit by the 2TAF and 9AF mediums, escorted by Spit LF.IXC/IX/XIIs (hereafter 'Spit IX-equivalents') and some Spit LFVBs, with Typhoon raids covered by 2TAF Spit IX-equivalents and FC Spit HF.IXs.

In total I recorded 210 fighter-vs-fighter combats. Aside from one 8AF RAF Spit HF.IX skirmish and a couple of US 9thAF P-47D-15 combats, the tactical battle over Belgium and Northern France was almost exclusively RAF Spits vs Luftflotte 3 Bf 109G-6's and Fw 190A-5's, with a couple of Fw 190F and Bf 109Ga-2 combats included. In fact, all the 190A-5 combats were against these raids. Focusing on these to the exclusion of all else (no air-to-air combat in the MTO, excluding the fighter-bombers and all combats involving the 8th AF fighters) gave me a sub-set of Spit IX-equivalent combats.

What follows is a quick report with no data check, but it gives some food for thought on this problem.

From this data, Mk.IX-equivalent Spitfires participated in 52 combats (attacking 31 times and defending 21 times).

Attacking (including 'Bounce' and 'Attacking'): 13 kills + 11 damaged for 5 lost + 3 damaged
Defending (including against 'Bounce' and 'Attacking' enemy fighters): 1 kill + 0 damaged for 12 + 6 damaged.

Total: 14 kills + 11 damaged for 17 lost and 9 damaged.

On this basis (assuming my maths is correct, which is a large assumption):

MK.IX-equivalent Spitfires claimed 0.269 kills and 0.211 damaged per combat, while losing 0.327 and 0.173 damaged per combat.

Bf 109G-6 participated in 6 combats with Spit IX-equivalents (attacking 1 time and defending 5 times).
They claimed 4 kills and 2 damaged in exchange for 1 damaged.

Bf 109G-6 claimed 0.667 kills and 0.333 damaged per combat, while losing zero and 0.167 damaged per combat.

Bf 109Ga-2 participated in 4 combats with Spit IX-equivalents (attacking 2 times and defending 2 times).
They claimed 1 kill and 3 damaged for none lost or damaged.

Bf 109Ga-2 claimed 0.25 kills and 0.75 damaged per combat, while losing zero and zero damaged.

FW 190A-5 participated in 27 combats (attacking 14 times and defending 13 times).
They claimed 11 kills and 4 damaged in exchange for 9 lost and 5 damaged.

Fw 190A-5 claimed 0.407 kills and 0.148 damaged per combat, in exchange for 0.333 lost and 0.185 per combat.

Fw 190F participated in 4 combats (defending 4 times).
They claimed no kills in exchange for 1 lost and 3 damaged.

Fw 190F claimed zero kills and zero damaged, in exchange for 0.250 lost and 0.75 damaged per combat.

Unknown fighters (all Luftwaffe) participated in 7 combats (7 defending), all Mk.IX-equivalent Spits.
They claimed 5 kills and 2 damage for none lost.

Aggregating results of all LW fighters v Spit.IX equivalents gives 21 kills and 11 damaged in 48 combats or 0.4375 kills and 0.229 damaged. If Spit.IX equvalents achieved this, they would have shot down 22 kills and 11 damaged; or 8 more kills and 3 less damaged than they actually did.

If the data and associated maths are correct, it indicates that the Spit IX-equivalents are shooting down something around 50% less than they would if they were as effective as the Luftwaffe fighters involved. This isn't conclusive, given the relatively small size of the data set, but it does support the thesis that the combat effectiveness of the Spitfires is significantly less than their main Luftwaffe opponents, which I believe is historically incorrect (e.g. see my previous post on the actual Spitfire claims and losses on 17 August 1943).