GA

[tyronec]

An example of the effect of mass GA as the game stands.

The first two pics show GA against units both with two AA SUs. The Panzer division has a battalion and a company. The mot division has two battalions including the 'super' marine AA SU, Axis just have a couple of near this quality. As can be seen the first round of bombing takes out a lot of the AA, so that subsequent rounds of bombing are facing less or possibly no AA. This looks to be part of the game engine as almost invariably there are disproportionately high losses suffered by the AA elements.

The third pic shows the ground combat on the Panzer division after it has been hit by 14 GAs. It should have had a CV of 1-200, instead it has dropped to 14. This is the usual consequence of heavy GA, a lot of elements are damaged so the in combat CV will be much lower than the displayed value.
In this division there were 23 tanks lost to AA and then another 39 lost during ground combat, most of them because they were damaged by AA.

This is all WAD, there was fair amount of discussion about it a year or so ago during testing. However at that time fighter interception was working better.
I think this is something that has always been wrong in the way this aspect of the game functions. Massed GA is too effective and as Loki says unrealistic for the Soviets at this period of the war. The problem is exacerbated by fighter intercepts not working fully to the extent if the Soviet player takes advantage it is a game breaker.

[AlbertN]

Fighter interception will still be problematic whilst advancing due to the having to rebase in just seized airbases, thus being pratically out of personnel and supplies in the new bases too.

I do agree presently Ground Attack on units is excessive and it's a function I'd -- even get around to disable temporarily, entirely.

[tyronec]

Fighter interception will still be problematic whilst advancing due to the having to rebase in just seized airbases, thus being pratically out of personnel and supplies in the new bases too.

It is also problematic when not advancing and aircraft are based behind the start line.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

An example of the effect of mass GA as the game stands.

The first two pics show GA against units both with two AA SUs. The Panzer division has a battalion and a company. The mot division has two battalions including the 'super' marine AA SU, Axis just have a couple of near this quality. As can be seen the first round of bombing takes out a lot of the AA, so that subsequent rounds of bombing are facing less or possibly no AA. This looks to be part of the game engine as almost invariably there are disproportionately high losses suffered by the AA elements.

The third pic shows the ground combat on the Panzer division after it has been hit by 14 GAs. It should have had a CV of 1-200, instead it has dropped to 14. This is the usual consequence of heavy GA, a lot of elements are damaged so the in combat CV will be much lower than the displayed value.
In this division there were 23 tanks lost to AA and then another 39 lost during ground combat, most of them because they were damaged by AA.

This is all WAD, there was fair amount of discussion about it a year or so ago during testing. However at that time fighter interception was working better.
I think this is something that has always been wrong in the way this aspect of the game functions. Massed GA is too effective and as Loki says unrealistic for the Soviets at this period of the war. The problem is exacerbated by fighter intercepts not working fully to the extent if the Soviet player takes advantage it is a game breaker.

I feel your pain and seen the same in my game but not 12+ GA's on a hex.

Make ground attack cost 4 AP per airgroup to fly in 41 for the administrative nightmare or coordinating the whole thing along with the supply call for it.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

I will add a picture from my game too

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: tyronec

An example of the effect of mass GA as the game stands.

The first two pics show GA against units both with two AA SUs. The Panzer division has a battalion and a company. The mot division has two battalions including the 'super' marine AA SU, Axis just have a couple of near this quality. As can be seen the first round of bombing takes out a lot of the AA, so that subsequent rounds of bombing are facing less or possibly no AA. This looks to be part of the game engine as almost invariably there are disproportionately high losses suffered by the AA elements.

The third pic shows the ground combat on the Panzer division after it has been hit by 14 GAs. It should have had a CV of 1-200, instead it has dropped to 14. This is the usual consequence of heavy GA, a lot of elements are damaged so the in combat CV will be much lower than the displayed value.
In this division there were 23 tanks lost to AA and then another 39 lost during ground combat, most of them because they were damaged by AA.

This is all WAD, there was fair amount of discussion about it a year or so ago during testing. However at that time fighter interception was working better.
I think this is something that has always been wrong in the way this aspect of the game functions. Massed GA is too effective and as Loki says unrealistic for the Soviets at this period of the war. The problem is exacerbated by fighter intercepts not working fully to the extent if the Soviet player takes advantage it is a game breaker.

I feel your pain and seen the same in my game but not 12+ GA's on a hex.

Make ground attack cost 4 AP per airgroup to fly in 41 for the administrative nightmare or coordinating the whole thing along with the supply call for it.

The issue is that if I order a 200/200 strike, I know with 100% confidence that 400 planes will fly in perfect harmony towards their destination. It would be a big improvement if there was a significant chance for planes to not fly - potentially leaving bombers unescorted. I think they should tie these checks to leader air rating (with a penalty in '41), increase the AP cost of replacing air leaders, and reduce the size of Front Air HQ's.

These rolls should be harder to pass once the sorties are a certain size, while also maintaining a base chance of not flying. These soft limits and the air army size could be increased from 1942 as well.

[AlbertN]

It is the same concept of moving units adjacent to an enemy that sits there and wait due to the IGO-UGO system, and pratically pounce on them with overwhelming odds.

Same is for the massive air strikes, so is to maneuver a Soviet Army with the admin movement and all.

I thought to have read on the manual that the Air Rating of a leader determines how many planes fly - but yes that does not seem a grand issue for Soviets; I agree with JJ about increasing difficulty tests the more AoG or even just Air Units are to partake in the same mission, at coordination level, finding the right target, etc.

[jubjub]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

It is the same concept of moving units adjacent to an enemy that sits there and wait due to the IGO-UGO system, and pratically pounce on them with overwhelming odds.

Same is for the massive air strikes, so is to maneuver a Soviet Army with the admin movement and all.

I thought to have read on the manual that the Air Rating of a leader determines how many planes fly - but yes that does not seem a grand issue for Soviets; I agree with JJ about increasing difficulty tests the more AoG or even just Air Units are to partake in the same mission, at coordination level, finding the right target, etc.

Yeah I read that, but in practice all the planes fly every time. Even when you order every available plane to fly in a single sortie, I never see any fail to make it to the target.

It may make a difference for ground support or something where you are not directly requesting a certain size of sortie, but that's harder to test.