Matrix Games Forums

The air war is hard to master. 1st thing to remember is that you can assign aircraft specifically to an air directive instead of leaving it on auto. My tac air I don't usually set to strike units, but they do interdiction which helps prevent reserve activations, so that directly affects combat. I do assign a Grnd Support directive to assist the troops, but assigning a strike just for units is not a useful way of using your tac air. Even when your invading France, the strategic air war shouldn't stop. Split those bombers into different packages. Most of your air commanders can make 5-7 air directives each. When you make those air directives, make sure you have their days set up so that two directives aren't trying to fly the same planes at the same time.

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel


That sounds like direct ground support is pretty much useless, if ground Attack Unit is better at it's core mission then it is. A little counter-intuitive to me, but ok if that's the way the game makes it. Thanks for the advice.

I had assumed that Ground Support would be better at effecting units that your ground forces were in actual contact with and engaging since you would have spotters on the ground calling in direct air support missions against targets where they were encountering heavy resistance rather then relying on luck, spotting from the air and photo recon to hit targets not in contact.

I had been using Ground Attack - Unit alot to see if I could soften up units (and fortifications but it seems not to work for that at all) prior to deciding whether I wanted to assault them since there doesn't seem to be a way to do a "If you are meeting heavy resistance call off the attack" setting for ground attacks.... so the computer can't differentiate between when a player wants to do a "take at all costs" meat-grinder frontal assault and a "probe for weakness and exploit if you can" attack.
I had also been using them to hit and weaken units behind the line or in parts of the line I didn't intend to attack that turn but might try in future. Didn't seem all that effective in Italy but the terrain is horrible there.

Thanks for the advice!

I'm not sure if this reflects the different game engines or the different strengths and weaknesses of the various airforces but with the Soviets in WiTE direct ground attack is the way to go, but supplemented with what in WiTW would be 'interdiction' (ie pre-ground attack softening up). Interdiction in WiTE is purely trying to bomb stuff on the move.

With the Western Allies in WiTW you want to plaster the space around the battlefield rather than directly support combat operations. I suspect this reflects the simple reality that most anglo-allied divisions were not much more capable than the Germans (and unlike the Soviets couldn't then bring in a lot more units and a mass of artillery), so concentrating on combat seems like a poor use. If you use the indirect approach, then by the time you attack you can have inflicted a mass of disruptions (ie elements that will not fight) and hit their supply (ie they fight less well).

As I say, I'm not sure if this is doctrine (the allies seemed to have very different approach to the design and value of fighter bombers), game engine, or plane equipment, but I've had to do quite a lot of unlearning to come to terms with the difference.

I'm sorry but even the Germans remarked that the Allied artillery in Normandy was fiercer and more intense than anything they experienced in the east.

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel


That sounds like direct ground support is pretty much useless, if ground Attack Unit is better at it's core mission then it is. A little counter-intuitive to me, but ok if that's the way the game makes it. Thanks for the advice.

I had assumed that Ground Support would be better at effecting units that your ground forces were in actual contact with and engaging since you would have spotters on the ground calling in direct air support missions against targets where they were encountering heavy resistance rather then relying on luck, spotting from the air and photo recon to hit targets not in contact.

I had been using Ground Attack - Unit alot to see if I could soften up units (and fortifications but it seems not to work for that at all) prior to deciding whether I wanted to assault them since there doesn't seem to be a way to do a "If you are meeting heavy resistance call off the attack" setting for ground attacks.... so the computer can't differentiate between when a player wants to do a "take at all costs" meat-grinder frontal assault and a "probe for weakness and exploit if you can" attack.
I had also been using them to hit and weaken units behind the line or in parts of the line I didn't intend to attack that turn but might try in future. Didn't seem all that effective in Italy but the terrain is horrible there.

Thanks for the advice!

I'm not sure if this reflects the different game engines or the different strengths and weaknesses of the various airforces but with the Soviets in WiTE direct ground attack is the way to go, but supplemented with what in WiTW would be 'interdiction' (ie pre-ground attack softening up). Interdiction in WiTE is purely trying to bomb stuff on the move.

With the Western Allies in WiTW you want to plaster the space around the battlefield rather than directly support combat operations. I suspect this reflects the simple reality that most anglo-allied divisions were not much more capable than the Germans (and unlike the Soviets couldn't then bring in a lot more units and a mass of artillery), so concentrating on combat seems like a poor use. If you use the indirect approach, then by the time you attack you can have inflicted a mass of disruptions (ie elements that will not fight) and hit their supply (ie they fight less well).

As I say, I'm not sure if this is doctrine (the allies seemed to have very different approach to the design and value of fighter bombers), game engine, or plane equipment, but I've had to do quite a lot of unlearning to come to terms with the difference.

Yeah I'm much more used to game engines (Advanced Tactics for example) in the U-Go/I-Go model where air and artillery attacks occur as separate actions in the turn. So you can do them and get some feedback as to their potential effect on fixed defenses and ground units before committing to an all out frontal assault with infantry and tanks.... and where (in some systems at least) you can set some level of intensity of the attack. The differences from that model in WitW are frankly driving me batty...and not in a good way.

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I'm sorry but even the Germans remarked that the Allied artillery in Normandy was fiercer and more intense than anything they experienced in the east.

no need to be sorr.

But I didn't say that Soviet artillery was 'better' or more intense, I said that they were able to use a relative advantage in numbers plus substantial artillery to overcome much of the quality disparity. The Anglo-Allied armies indeed bring an impressive amount of artillery to bear, and that was important in their victories, but as you find out pretty quickly in WiTW you can often get blocked, especially in more constricted terrain and you can't really outnumber the Germans that easily.

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I'm sorry but even the Germans remarked that the Allied artillery in Normandy was fiercer and more intense than anything they experienced in the east.

no need to be sorry.

But I didn't say that Soviet artillery was 'better' or more intense, I said that they were able to use a relative advantage in numbers plus substantial artillery to overcome much of the quality disparity. The Anglo-Allied armies indeed bring an impressive amount of artillery to bear, and that was important in their victories, but as you find out pretty quickly in WiTW you can often get blocked, especially in more constricted terrain and you can't really outnumber the Germans that easily.
[/quote]

I know in modern US air warfare the goal is to destroy infrastructure to degrade all combat units in a given area, not so much killing troops. You use your air to deny them supplies/infrastructure, then you hit them with the Grnd Support directive, or you can send in a small strike against the troops to cause more fatigue and disruption. The beauty of the system is that your not stuck just having to do it one way.

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I'm sorry but even the Germans remarked that the Allied artillery in Normandy was fiercer and more intense than anything they experienced in the east.

no need to be sorry.

But I didn't say that Soviet artillery was 'better' or more intense, I said that they were able to use a relative advantage in numbers plus substantial artillery to overcome much of the quality disparity. The Anglo-Allied armies indeed bring an impressive amount of artillery to bear, and that was important in their victories, but as you find out pretty quickly in WiTW you can often get blocked, especially in more constricted terrain and you can't really outnumber the Germans that easily.

[/quote]

As I have said before time and again its the actual shell that does the damage and no artillery in world war two had the quantity of shell to expend than that of the Allies. That coupled with the flexibilty displayed by allied artillery and the lack of ground the Germans could afford to give up in the west in anticipation of a barrage spelt disaster. Russian Artillery due to good German inteligence usually hit empty positions in the west niether the inteligence nor the free ground existed.

If the German intel was so bad, can you explain how they knew the bulge sector was so weak? Germany had good intel against the Allies too. The issue was they no longer had the ability to do much with it. A different situation than poor intel about the enemy. Especially as the Allies got closer to Germany the Germans intel got better.

I worked for a guy several years ago who worked for British Counter-Intelligence. His job was to try and stop the flow of blackmarket gas to Germans from Americans (in the area of the Bulge offensive). They knew the germans were using American gas because of the octane content.

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

If the German intel was so bad, can you explain how they knew the bulge sector was so weak? Germany had good intel against the Allies too. The issue was they no longer had the ability to do much with it. A different situation than poor intel about the enemy. Especially as the Allies got closer to Germany the Germans intel got better.

'
Did they know? All the German Generals pleaded for different operations but as usual it was Hitler's intuition. The Bulge was a suicide operation a political gamble nothing more. Nope the Germans had little air recon worth a damn and they could not rely on the same level of deserters. Wheras in the east both these conditions still existed. The local commanders tended to know when a bombardment was going to happen vacated the frontline and let the Russians hit nothing. In the West the first thing they knew was generally when the shells there landing amongst them, there were some exceptions but as I said the Germans never had the same land to trade.

The Germans did a good job vacating the front line during Bagration.

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



The Germans did a good job vacating the front line during Bagration.

That was by Hitler's orders. The Germans did a very good job using the "Großkampfverfahren" developed in the World War One to bloody the Soviet offensives in the area of AGC in late 1943 and early 1944, causing hideous Soviet losses. Especially Heinrici was good at it. The first line was lightly manned and got evacuated immediately after shelling began. Real resistance only happened at the (main) secondary line to the rear, which was largely untouched by Soviet bombardment. Thus, when the Soviets began assaulting that main line they ran into a stable line backed up by artillery, while they weren't being covered by theirs anymore. Prior to Bagration, however, Hitler forbade the evacuation of the first line and even hindered construction of secondary lines to its rear. The results weren't pretty during Bagration.

"According to Marshal Zhukov, it was only in 1945 that the Russians, who consider themselves the most accomplished of artillerymen, even thought of attempting to coordinate movement with fire: their techniques were roughly equivalent to the British methods of 1915-6"

One of the reasons the Red Army had so many SPGs is that they needed more direct artillery fire on the field, because their C&C for their rear-area artillery parks was so bad.....

The Soviets did not have enough radios or trained radio operators to utilize forward observers on the offense. On the defense they relied on land lines (which could be cut) for the communications. Because of this there was no ability or training for them to use the same artillery tactics as the Western Allies did. The SP artillery were designed and used in direct fire mode. This allowed them to give quick response fire for the front line units they were attached to. It also caused a lot more artillery losses than the Axis or Western Allies suffered.

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

Clearly, I did a less then stellar job in ordering my air missions over the invasion... but I don't think it was that crazy off base to enjoy minimal results....and I certainly didn't expect I would need to do everything optimaly to do a reasonable job in slowing the A.I's response on difficulty settings of "Normal" and below.

here's my 2 euros worth. I've used the May 44 campaign to test out a number of options. For what its worth, the worst use of the allied airforce in WiTW is direct ground support, ground attacks based around interdiction and rail give you far better returns.

Second observation, I did one where I turned the air over to AI completely and another where I worked with the AD screen and set areas of operation but not much else. My first attempt at manual control was much worse than trusting the AI, my second attempt at manual control I had much better interdiction levels and axis combat units often just collapsed on contact.

So my advice would be if you aren't sure about what you are doing, trust the AI.

That sounds like direct ground support is pretty much useless, if ground Attack Unit is better at it's core mission then it is. A little counter-intuitive to me, but ok if that's the way the game makes it. Thanks for the advice.

I had assumed that Ground Support would be better at effecting units that your ground forces were in actual contact with and engaging since you would have spotters on the ground calling in direct air support missions against targets where they were encountering heavy resistance rather then relying on luck, spotting from the air and photo recon to hit targets not in contact.

I had been using Ground Attack - Unit alot to see if I could soften up units (and fortifications but it seems not to work for that at all) prior to deciding whether I wanted to assault them since there doesn't seem to be a way to do a "If you are meeting heavy resistance call off the attack" setting for ground attacks.... so the computer can't differentiate between when a player wants to do a "take at all costs" meat-grinder frontal assault and a "probe for weakness and exploit if you can" attack.
I had also been using them to hit and weaken units behind the line or in parts of the line I didn't intend to attack that turn but might try in future. Didn't seem all that effective in Italy but the terrain is horrible there.

Thanks for the advice!

I think we have a common misunderstanding going on about how air was used in Ww2. People tend to think of what I nickname "Harry potter" air support. I guy with a magic radio on the ground gets eyes on some defender, mutters a pig Latin phrase and a big bolt of fire (or 60lb rockets/250 bomb) flashes out of the sky to destroy the target. Whilst this is what happens today (ish) it was very rare in Ww2 ( not there at all other than on certain occasions in the west in 44-45). What air support was much more like was a slow but heavy artillery mission. A unit (company, battalion whatever) tries to advance and finds a wood or feature that fires back too well to be shifted. Message goes back up to say Corps, that talks to air liasion. Half a day later a lot of aircraft turn up and make a mess of the wood (with luck). With more luck, the ground troops were't hit themselves and are ready to attack again. This is a simplification, but it gives the idea. What is actually far more useful and often used is planned support behind the front lines. In a tactical game, the correct depiction of air support is that the enemy unit's artillery support is not there because it was attacked by aircraft just before the attack. Or the 2nd wave attackers arrive late and reduced. This would be achieved by either preplanned or roaming ground attackers (in the second case, on the defenders side obviously!).

Interdiction tends to be a bit further back again and can be the classic 'patrol that road and attack MT'. Or it can be 'attack choke points on that road (bridges, junctions etc (without necessarily seeing anyone move)). These last tend to stop units moving behind the lines, cuts supply to the frontine etc.
thus the big set piece assault can benefit from ground support. But a few weeks effective interdiction can remove the need for the big set piece assault (or make it much easier) in the first place.

Obviously. Poor terrain lessens interdiction. So other rules apply. Normandy was a interdiction success (despite the famous set piece heavy bomber support etc). Italy rather less so... Hard to interdict mountain roads in the same way alas Norman ones

Hope this (somewhat simple) description, which isn't necessarily strictly accurate in terminology, helps understanding,

Put your Fbs (in bomber role) on interdiction, and your medium bombers on GA on railcards, then watch the defence soften. I rarely have more than 1 grd support Ad active at once per theatre,

All I want is my aircraft in a Unit or HQ, lets call them *Wings* or *Groups* so when I allocate a box for say interdiction I can then add what units I want to attack that box, If I pick Essen, Hamburg and Berlin for strategic bombing I can allocate whatever *groups* to the target box, If I want to allocate Mustangs to escort my bombers I want to simply add a couple of Mustang *units* to the box and select escort. . If I want a *unit* to fly close Airsupport I simply attach it to the Corps or Army Hq. When I attach those units to do whatever job has been chosen they automatically select all the settings. I think presently it is too hard to quantify things to tweak them so I can see the all or nothing curse coming in that effects wargames in particulair in that everyone just selects interdiction!

I don't get your problem. You can assign specific air units to specific missions as it is right now.

Im just not kinda good with raw figures looking at GROUPS (34ac/0) dont really tell me much nor does it immerse me if i was seeing GROUPS (150 Wing/100 Wing) or GROUPS (KG1/IIIJG26) that might trigger oh yes that is my Typhoon wing being escorted by Spitfires or thats my JU88's escorted by 109's. I keep forgeting whats in what group when I put them together.