MASSIVE 543 Soviet bombers to the battle!!! RUN FOR COVER!

[Thistle_Tea]

I'm with Beethoven on this. The VVS got hammered with one of the heaviest nerfs so far, effectively losing the ability to carry out defensive GS or small-medium sized GA sorties.

The only reason why large high altitude sorties (which have always been an option) are being used is because everything else has been essentially taken off the table and will cause you to suffer 50:1 losses. Now, you can just about get to 10:1 loss ration, which used to be standard, if you also sacrifice the flexibility you used to have with smaller sorties and the bombing effectiveness of lower altitude sorties and if you also luck out with the air battles.

I appreciate that there should be a cost to using the VVS, can't go around attacking everything not under AS suffering 12 ops losses. With that said I feel like it has gotten to the point where it's a bit extreme and there are very few viable uses left for the VVS and the ones that are viable essentially rely on eliminating counterplay which is anti-fun.

On Vet's point that fighters aren't the limitation for the Soviets given 300 weekly production. That's only the case because everyone has accepted that defensive GS is no longer a thing so you don't lose any fighters there anymore. Also, for these high altitude raids, only your Mig production, which sits around 130, matters since using anything else to escort your bombers at 22k ft will just add uneccesasary fighter losses. Since you can expect to suffer 200 fighter losses if you do a large mission, that leaves you with a mission every other turn assuming you don't intend to build up any migs for the winter.

As things stand, your only option at the moment is to abandon the air war and only engage in sporadic missions with formations large enough that fly high enough to tank the 100% interception and the patriot missle systems pretending to be flak, without horrific losses. If you remove those as well then there is essentially no use case left for the VVS until a point so far into the game that most players never consistently reach it.

I wouldn't change the GA rules without also changing either base interception rate without AS, the number of aircraft flying out for interception or some other variable that bring the VVS losses more in line with the historical 8:1 ratio for 1941 or the 10:1 that was standard in previous patches.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

I feel that a certain mindset has set in on the use of the VVS, has taken hold, and that mindset makes the Soviet player feel they are powerless in the air. This thinking forms an echo chamber and those in that echo chamber never find the exit.

Meaning that the VVS is "not" powerless. The VVS does "not" need to fly "mass" bombing raids to be successful. The VVS does not need to fly 25,000ft+ to cause OPS losses on the Germans(plain and simple what that is). Patch .50 & .51 has made the VVS even more powerful than before. Of course without proof my verbiage means nothing. This is my turn 9 VVS losses and kills against Jasonbroomer who "IS" using the tactic of interception I showed Vet & the forum if anyone cared to read it.

T9 Soviet Mid Turn.png (3.24 MiB) Viewed 1261 times

Remember if we were "not" playing the open TB option these loses for the Germans would be devastating. So when people post you have to remember, as Beethoven said, "that the open TB option is what pretty much everyone is playing". That is what has changed and changed the Air for the Germans more so than the Soviets. So you will have to overcome all of those extra fighters of the Germans where in the normal GC you do not. JB and I are playing open TB because I wanted to see if I could overcome all of those German fighters. I feel I am doing a decent job of it with 739 German fighters destroyed to date.

So in a nutshell I feel the following;

1. AA is "WAY" too powerful, both sides.
2. Mass bombing needs to go away
3. When altitude is set then there should be no deviation of flying more than 5,000ft to intercept.
4. Losses for the Soviets at times are astronomical no matter what is done. (my turn 9 I sacrificed my I-frame fighters in droves but got the German losses desired. But man that is hard to look at)


But again this is just me & maybe I am the .0000001% that think otherwise. I always am, probably always will be.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

I "cannot" emphasis this enough that the Open TB changed the Air war "BIG" time in German favor.

[Joel Billings]

Thanks all for your comments. We agree that interception (including auto) is too good in the air phase with the latest changes (and maybe was too good for AS interception previously). I'm as curious as many of you must be in just how HYLA is avoiding being intercepted (very small missions at low altitude?). The issue with interceptions is Pavel doesn't see an easy/safe way to adjust the interception probabilities so that it works for both deep penetration missions and shallow or front line bombing missions. Also, ideally their would be ways to automate AS so players didn't have to create the ADs, but not sure if we'll be able to find a way to get that into the system. We'll consider what might be done, but it's not going to be easy. The positive is that Pavel completed the work he needed to do to help with the OB 2.0 migration, so hopefully he'll have more time to look into this in the near future.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Thanks all for your comments. We agree that interception (including auto) is too good in the air phase with the latest changes (and maybe was too good for AS interception previously). I'm as curious as many of you must be in just how HYLA is avoiding being intercepted (very small missions at low altitude?). The issue with interceptions is Pavel doesn't see an easy/safe way to adjust the interception probabilities so that it works for both deep penetration missions and shallow or front line bombing missions. Also, ideally their would be ways to automate AS so players didn't have to create the ADs, but not sure if we'll be able to find a way to get that into the system. We'll consider what might be done, but it's not going to be easy. The positive is that Pavel completed the work he needed to do to help with the OB 2.0 migration, so hopefully he'll have more time to look into this in the near future.

I am 100% being intercepted and intercepted VERY VERY VERY often. (see snapshot below)

AS missions.png (726.31 KiB) Viewed 1183 times

- I am not flying small missions. I am flying single Polk missions or larger depending on the front (meaning how many German Airbases are in range or if going after Naval Interdiction by hitting the corners of that Naval interdiction).

Polk missions.png (3.77 MiB) Viewed 1183 times

- I do not fly exclusively low altitude although (I do use it on occasions). You can see in the snapshot above I am flying a pretty standard 14,000 ft

Mind you I totally messed up my Air phase by hitting end of turn WAY TOO early and not finishing all my inputs by accident I wanted to do(had my head up my rear end pushing the end air phase by accident) but did get decent results for the air phase for what I had programmed in. I was still able to get 31 German Fighters for 113 Soviets in standard air combat in the air phase alone even with the mess up on my part.

Air phase results.png (3.02 MiB) Viewed 1182 times

Ground support I "do not use" level bombers. I rely totally on IL2's, SU's, and I-153 and will have at least 2 to 1 fighter to tac bomber or better. Normally I don't like mixing fighters(meaning I try and stick to one fighter type) but in the North I have a plethora of different airframes flying to just try and get some kills on German fighters.

GS.png (2.71 MiB) Viewed 1183 times

Nothing secret about it, nothing special about it. Just in the way I execute my air is what is different.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

This is a snapshot earlier in the JB game. The AS battles are intense and have been a joy to play with in the game. The way I have set up my AS for the Soviets has let me go toe-to-toe with the Germans with decent results I feel. But you can see the intensity here in a few screen shots of the interceptions this one from an earlier turn

AS battle.png (3.59 MiB) Viewed 1159 times

Here Odessa is stacked with Mig's set with 10 hex radius AS and rips up incoming bombing run along with the VERY intense Naval interdiction around Odessa T5 earlier in the game(AS lowers interdiction for those that don't know) Building those two airfields in Green helped out tremendously with Odessa. I now know that I need more built airbases where the red box is to keep NI going longer and harder (I made a couple of mistakes this game with my Air but I won't on my next opponent)

T5 Interception Odessa.png (4.03 MiB) Viewed 1158 times

So in a nutshell .50/.51 interception is pretty much guaranteed. Which in the next two screenshots the game was updated to .50. Now what becomes important playing the game is when you set your bombers to bomb when using GA, which I use my level bombers to interdict.(remember last post I only use TAC bombers for GS freeing up the whole level bomber fleet for Interdiction and other bombing) Meaning which day or days to fly after your AS has been wearing down the enemy over the turns (I.E. fly GA day 6 & 7 if enemy AS is running 7 days a week both enemy and friendly phases. It is pretty easy to tell. I will rotate my Soviet fighters. Most Germans don't . Thus I will have fresh squadrons flying against fatigued Germans. THEN as a rule of thumb I play by of only using GA to hit the first three hexes deep into enemy territory but preferable only 1 hex. But GA raises the problem of AA that causes a metric crap ton of losses on your planes. Here you can see what I did with the interdiction values. I lost more to AA than to German fighters.

T8 interdiction.png (4.05 MiB) Viewed 1159 times

T8 Air phase losses.png (2.12 MiB) Viewed 1159 times

So again, no gimmicks being played by me. All straight up play with what I have, at pretty much normal altitudes, normal mission sizes, etc. JB asked for a game without cheese and trying to keep the cheese out of the game. I hope this helps Joel. The tools are there for the Soviets I feel, just in how, where, and when you use them.

[K62_]

Here Odessa is stacked with Mig's set with 10 hex radius AS and rips up incoming bombing run along with the VERY intense Naval interdiction around Odessa T5 earlier in the game(AS lowers interdiction for those that don't know) Building those two airfields in Green helped out tremendously with Odessa. I now know that I need more built airbases where the red box is to keep NI going longer and harder (I made a couple of mistakes this game with my Air but I won't on my next opponent)

T5 Interception Odessa.png (4.03 MiB) Viewed 1135 times

That looks like an amazing fight! How do you feel about having contested Odessa? It sounds like the Axis eventually managed to push through enough NI and took the city. (Really interested in the battle report, by the way.) But, considering they haven't crossed the lower Dnepr as of T9, the delay/casualties may be worth it?

[Beethoven1]

Nothing secret about it, nothing special about it. Just in the way I execute my air is what is different.

You never say precisely what it is you do when you "execute your air" which is, in your own words, "different." If something you do is unknown to other players and you do not say what it is, but you confirm that something is in fact different, that is the meaning of the word "secret" in ordinary English language discussion. Knowing little things that you have learned while playing is part of what makes you a good player, and credit to you for figuring out this and whatever other things you do which supplement your tactical and strategic skill to have success. But if it cannot be replicated by other players, and you decline to explain how it can be replicated, then to other players and also to the devs, it might as well not exist. It also bears no relation to what happens in single player games, which the devs will inevitably also be interested in, because the AI doesn't do whatever it is that you do (although if you said what you do, then maybe the AI could be programmed to do it as well, leading to a better game also in single player).

Declining to clearly explain how it can be replicated is your prerogative if you do not want to explain it for whatever reason, but inherently that limits how much it can affect other people's judgment of overall balance and game mechanics in that case. If you don't wish to explain and only you are able to get these sorts of results, inevitably other players will draw the conclusion that you are just good and doing something different, but since you are the only one getting those results, they don't reflect the more general balance and they don't mean that the air war is just fine. It is just an anomaly, and eventually after a sufficiently long period of time, anomalies get dismissed if no explanation is forthcoming for them.

[K62_]

But if it cannot be replicated by other players, and you decline to explain how it can be replicated, then to other players and also to the devs, it might as well not exist. It also bears no relation to what happens in single player games, which the devs will inevitably also be interested in, because the AI doesn't do whatever it is that you do (although if you said what you do, then maybe the AI could be programmed to do it as well, leading to a better game also in single player).

Declining to clearly explain how it can be replicated is your prerogative if you do not want to explain it for whatever reason, but inherently that limits how much it can affect other people's judgment of overall balance and game mechanics in that case. If you don't wish to explain and only you are able to get these sorts of results, inevitably other players will draw the conclusion that you are just good and doing something different, but since you are the only one getting those results, they don't reflect the more general balance and they don't mean that the air war is just fine. It is just an anomaly, and eventually after a sufficiently long period of time, anomalies get dismissed if no explanation is forthcoming for them.

I think what HLYA means is that any player who puts in the required time and effort can obtain decent (not amazing, decent) results with the VVS in '41. He is not trying to say that his methods are the best. In fact he emphasizes that he often makes mistakes and freely admits them. He is also giving out a lot of information as you can easily see aircraft types, experience, mission, altitude, battle locations etc. in his screnshots, and often helps his opponents improve their own play, such as when he gave jasonbroomer some solid tips about AS in their ongoing game. None of this looks to me like HLYA is trying to keep secrets, quite the opposite!

But as long as there are Axis players who refuse to put in the requisite effort to learn the air war, and instead prefer to complain about game balance whenever a Soviet player has the VVS do anything except roll over and die quietly, we will keep having these conversations.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Here Odessa is stacked with Mig's set with 10 hex radius AS and rips up incoming bombing run along with the VERY intense Naval interdiction around Odessa T5 earlier in the game(AS lowers interdiction for those that don't know) Building those two airfields in Green helped out tremendously with Odessa. I now know that I need more built airbases where the red box is to keep NI going longer and harder (I made a couple of mistakes this game with my Air but I won't on my next opponent)

T5 Interception Odessa.png

That looks like an amazing fight! How do you feel about having contested Odessa? It sounds like the Axis eventually managed to push through enough NI and took the city. (Really interested in the battle report, by the way.) But, considering they haven't crossed the lower Dnepr as of T9, the delay/casualties may be worth it?

It was a very fun time in the area. This was before the .50 patch so I was running Soviet AS at a 10 hex range with all MIG's in the South (with patch .50 you will have to switch up the AS strategy because of the VERY increased rate of interception as your AS will get ripped apart flying such a large area.

AS missions T5 Southern Air Command.png (1.14 MiB) Viewed 1049 times

You can see I am running single Air group with a radius 10 hexes on T5 on pre .50 patch). Many different altitudes. So no magic going on here other than basic AD's

Naval Interdiction T5 results.png (5.26 MiB) Viewed 1049 times

You can see the results of the Naval Interdiction along with the Air Superiority missions lowering the German NI thus able to block supplies going north of Odessa for the Germans. I don't believe this can be achievable in current patch though.


In patch .50 plus you will need to run small dedicated boxes after upgrading to .50 patch. I know I am probably speaking a foreign language but if you sit and think about it it makes sense and has worked for me T9).

Odessa I had to leave and I left a token force because of circumstances on the map. I needed those Divisions elsewhere on the map. BTW those Divisions arrived just in time because of my foresight of what was going to happen. So it was fun with Odessa but lack of units did me in to hold Odessa long term. The loss to hold ratio for Odessa seems to have been worth it since JB is at D-Town with me breaking the encirclement T9, with the Divisions that left Odessa by the way I broke the encirclement ;-P. And the lower Dnepr still in my hands. But no idea how long that will last.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Nothing secret about it, nothing special about it. Just in the way I execute my air is what is different.

You never say precisely what it is you do when you "execute your air" which is, in your own words, "different." If something you do is unknown to other players and you do not say what it is, but you confirm that something is in fact different, that is the meaning of the word "secret" in ordinary English language discussion. Knowing little things that you have learned while playing is part of what makes you a good player, and credit to you for figuring out this and whatever other things you do which supplement your tactical and strategic skill to have success. But if it cannot be replicated by other players, and you decline to explain how it can be replicated, then to other players and also to the devs, it might as well not exist. It also bears no relation to what happens in single player games, which the devs will inevitably also be interested in, because the AI doesn't do whatever it is that you do (although if you said what you do, then maybe the AI could be programmed to do it as well, leading to a better game also in single player).

Declining to clearly explain how it can be replicated is your prerogative if you do not want to explain it for whatever reason, but inherently that limits how much it can affect other people's judgment of overall balance and game mechanics in that case. If you don't wish to explain and only you are able to get these sorts of results, inevitably other players will draw the conclusion that you are just good and doing something different, but since you are the only one getting those results, they don't reflect the more general balance and they don't mean that the air war is just fine. It is just an anomaly, and eventually after a sufficiently long period of time, anomalies get dismissed if no explanation is forthcoming for them.

I have always tried to help the community out. I can only say that how, where, and when you use your VVS matters a great deal as I wrote above. I am hiding nothing nor have been hiding anything.

[M60A3TTS]

I "cannot" emphasis this enough that the Open TB changed the Air war "BIG" time in German favor.

Open TB is a definite plus for the Axis player IMHO.

[Joel Billings]

We're going to limit the size of any given raid (to around 200 bombers). That's the easy thing to do. The harder thing to do is to alter the intercept/detection code. We're considering trying to make some changes here, but don't have a lot of good real world saves to guide Pavel as if he were to rework the code. My summary of where we're at is:

1) Before latest changes in 1.02.50, auto-intercepts of raids near the front line and/or not deep into the enemy rear (and not near lots of large enemy airbases), were very few in number.
2) Players could use Air Superiority, and with Air Superiority missions you could get decent intercepts against enemy raids into or through the area being protected. Op losses were relatively small in number from these AS missions.
3) The AI and the AI assist rarely uses air superiority ADs, so it is not doing the work.
4) With the changes in 1.02.50, auto-intercepts are much easier to come by, resulting in lots of intercepts.
5) Some say that AS intercepts are even higher now with 1.02.51.
6) So going back to the way it was makes it so that players have to use AS to defeat the near front raids, and the AI/AI assist is at a disadvantage since it doesn't fly these kinds of raids.
7) We don't think we can improve the AI/AI assist to fly AS without breaking more than we'd fix.

That leaves us with a few choices:
1) Revert the intercept/detection changes in 1.02.50 and tell players they should use AS ADs, and thus every air command should have at least 1 ground support, 1 recon and 1 AS AD (possible more than 1 depending on the size of the Air Command).
2) Leave it as is and accept very high intercepts.
3) Rework the system, with unknown results.

We hear that there are some players that bounce off the air game and thus don't want to have to put any more time into learning it and using it. However, the AI doesn't do many non ground phase air missions, so the player versus the AI doesn't need to learn the air game. For players playing against other players, not sure how many are in the camp of not wanting to have to make the AS ADs. If we're going to try to do a rewrite, we'd need a selection of real world saves with and without AS ADs. If you've got some saves with missions that you think are not working out as you'd expect, we'd like to see them. We'd even like to see some where they are working out as you'd expect, if they are air phase missions that are going up against possible enemy intercepts, some with and some without AS ADs. Please email them to 2by3@2by3games.com or attach them here (with info about where to look for the action). If some of you are willing to help test early versions of any change we make, please let me know.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

We're going to limit the size of any given raid (to around 200 bombers). That's the easy thing to do. The harder thing to do is to alter the intercept/detection code. We're considering trying to make some changes here, but don't have a lot of good real world saves to guide Pavel as if he were to rework the code. My summary of where we're at is:

1) Before latest changes in 1.02.50, auto-intercepts of raids near the front line and/or not deep into the enemy rear (and not near lots of large enemy airbases), were very few in number.
2) Players could use Air Superiority, and with Air Superiority missions you could get decent intercepts against enemy raids into or through the area being protected. Op losses were relatively small in number from these AS missions.
3) The AI and the AI assist rarely uses air superiority ADs, so it is not doing the work.
4) With the changes in 1.02.50, auto-intercepts are much easier to come by, resulting in lots of intercepts.
5) Some say that AS intercepts are even higher now with 1.02.51.
6) So going back to the way it was makes it so that players have to use AS to defeat the near front raids, and the AI/AI assist is at a disadvantage since it doesn't fly these kinds of raids.
7) We don't think we can improve the AI/AI assist to fly AS without breaking more than we'd fix.

That leaves us with a few choices:
1) Revert the intercept/detection changes in 1.02.50 and tell players they should use AS ADs, and thus every air command should have at least 1 ground support, 1 recon and 1 AS AD (possible more than 1 depending on the size of the Air Command).
2) Leave it as is and accept very high intercepts.
3) Rework the system, with unknown results.

We hear that there are some players that bounce off the air game and thus don't want to have to put any more time into learning it and using it. However, the AI doesn't do many non ground phase air missions, so the player versus the AI doesn't need to learn the air game. For players playing against other players, not sure how many are in the camp of not wanting to have to make the AS ADs. If we're going to try to do a rewrite, we'd need a selection of real world saves with and without AS ADs. If you've got some saves with missions that you think are not working out as you'd expect, we'd like to see them. We'd even like to see some where they are working out as you'd expect, if they are air phase missions that are going up against possible enemy intercepts, some with and some without AS ADs. Please email them to 2by3@2by3games.com or attach them here (with info about where to look for the action). If some of you are willing to help test early versions of any change we make, please let me know.

I am willing to help test any early version of changes you make. But I can't help for a couple of weeks since my wife was in a horrid car accident and I am helping her in her recovery.

[ShaggyHiK]

Seeing a lot of sorties in an area of ​​10 hexes.

In general, it seems strange to me that you are intercepting something so it should not be.

The planes are small and the space is big. Finding an enemy with such a search area is a very, very difficult task. Especially at a time when radio technologies were not developed, and if they were, they were severely limited in their capabilities.

As the number of hexes increases, the chance of being intercepted with a SUP mission should be reduced.

I also again have to ask that the German player could divide his aviation regiments into smaller groups.

So that the Soviet player cannot use the fatigue factor, you can simply divide the German aircraft of 1 fighter regiment by 3. This will make it possible to fly 12 aircraft for 2 + 2 + 3 days.

This will be the best decision. for air warfare. 40 German Bf-109s is an excess force even against 100 MiG-3s.

I also did not quite understand the essence of the thread, I agree that the departure of 500 bombers is something unlikely.

But I saw points of view here that contradict each other.

I also didn't see the topic of really well fought air war on both sides.
Why fly around Odessa to such a large area? If you need to fly NavPat to only 2 adjacent hexes from Odessa.

[K62_]

I also didn't see the topic of really well fought air war on both sides.
Why fly around Odessa to such a large area? If you need to fly NavPat to only 2 adjacent hexes from Odessa.

Huh? The AS combats usually happen on the way to the AD target. And yes, the Axis player can get away with only interdicting the hexes right next to Odessa, but the Soviets have multiple reasons to go for a larger area. The first one is that they were aiming to cut naval supply to Ochakov and Nikolaev, as mentioned on the thread. Another possible reason is that, as Soviet, it is advantageous to try and break the Axis interdiction from multiple directions, hoping that the Axis fighters get bad rolls in at least one of the fights. I don't see anything here to indicate the two sides did not fight well in the air war.

[ShaggyHiK]

I see no reason to work over a large area for the German player when only 2 sea hexes need to be blocked, there is no claim against the Soviet player, there is a claim that in reality it is impossible to cover such a large area.

The plane is small, but the space is large. There should be a game moment of complicating the interception when trying to cover a large area in the form of penalties.
Which apparently isn't happening.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

The plane is small, but the space is large. There should be a game moment of complicating the interception when trying to cover a large area in the form of penalties.
Which apparently isn't happening.

It is happening. 100% it is happening. Many battles have engagements with no losses. Scroll up and look at the photo with 45 battle engagements. Not all of those battles resulted in losses. If you look at the Odessa area many are engagements with no losses. So to me it is happening 100%.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

I see no reason to work over a large area for the German player when only 2 sea hexes need to be blocked, there is no claim against the Soviet player, there is a claim that in reality it is impossible to cover such a large area.

The German player is only covering one/two sea hexes in front of Odessa and radiating NI out from there. Seen it many times and that is what did not work in my opinion this turn. With my own NI and AS (which lowers NI) I was able to bring down NI in the area. The results are plain to see. I am able to get supplies, the German cannot. I win as the Soviets this turn. The results are pretty easy to see