Air units tactics - beginner question

[Huzar]

Do you have some general tactics or advice for air units (or some link to a tutorial)? I have problems with all those options and managing the air units, but as I see you all are managing them manually. I have read manual, but I don't know how to use them competently, which options are most important in game, what is the situation with air units fatique management etc

[demyansk]

huzar,

go to this website for any questions on this, i cant answer this question since I also am unfamiliar, let me know what you find

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/news.php

[ColinWright]

Well, lessee...

1. Avoid setting bombers to support air strikes where a lot of the enemy fighters are in range, but not many of yours are. Conversely, one can 'bait' enemy bombers set on interdiction into making strikes where your fighters are in range, but his aren't. For example, as the British in Seelowe, I will begin by moving units up in Scotland southwards. This will produce some very satisfying kill ratios -- and as German bombers are knocked off interdiction, I can then move less painfully than I could have at the start of the turn further south.

2. Don't try to come up with a set formula as to whether to interdict or not to interdict. The effectiveness of interdiction varies wildly from scenario to scenario. In some, it's an extremely effective tactic. In others, it's useless. There's some formula, but it's easier just to try interdiction and see if it's yielding strikes. If it's not, forget it.

3. Station your fighters so they will only fight the battles you want them to fight. To return to Seelowe, Fighter Command tends to spend a good deal of time positioned so that it will intervene against German bombers flying beyond the range of German fighters -- but so that it will have few if any encounters of the Bf-109 kind.

4. Interdiction is less trying than combat support. Again to return to Seelowe, when I'm the Germans, I generally adhere to a policy of Green-yellow -- to combat support. Orange -- to interdiction. Red -- rest. The bombers seem to slowly recover whilst doing good work if they're flying interdiction.

5. When it's your turn, avoid leaving units assigned to general combat support. Assign them to specific attacks, or rest them, or leave them on interdiction. The main exception would be if the turn is likely to end on a given round, and you want some bombers flying close support during your opponent's turn.

6. On the subject of interdiction, the bombers have to be assigned that mission at the beginning of your turn if you want them to have any effect during your opponent's turn. No, you can't fly close support missions during your turn and then interdict during your opponent's. Well, you can assign the mission, but nothing will happen.

7. Look at the cloud cover. Bombers hitting targets in the clear are much more effective than bombers hitting targets under cloud.

8. Bridge strikes seem to be immune to enemy fighter interception. Don't sue me if I'm wrong, but that's my recollection...

9. The air combat report intentionally gives you an inflated report of enemy losses. Although it varies, enemy losses are about doubled. If the report says you've lost forty planes and the enemy's lost forty planes, you're getting slaughtered.

10. Wherever air units are stationed, if they're in supply at all, they're getting full supply. If you happen to be playing a scenario where the designer has created air force HQ units, do what you like with them -- they'll do nothing to increase the supply of adjacent air units.

[desert]

5. When it's your turn, avoid leaving units assigned to general combat support. Assign them to specific attacks, or rest them, or leave them on interdiction. The main exception would be if the turn is likely to end on a given round, and you want some bombers flying close support during your opponent's turn.

 
Direct attacks always seem to result in epic devastation, one way or another.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: desert

5. When it's your turn, avoid leaving units assigned to general combat support. Assign them to specific attacks, or rest them, or leave them on interdiction. The main exception would be if the turn is likely to end on a given round, and you want some bombers flying close support during your opponent's turn.

Direct attacks always seem to result in epic devastation, one way or another.

Well, that may be because of what was done with flak in TOAW III. In my scenarios, I generally edit those values to about 20%-30% of what they are now.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: desert

5. When it's your turn, avoid leaving units assigned to general combat support. Assign them to specific attacks, or rest them, or leave them on interdiction. The main exception would be if the turn is likely to end on a given round, and you want some bombers flying close support during your opponent's turn.

Direct attacks always seem to result in epic devastation, one way or another.

Well, that may be because of what was done with flak in TOAW III. In my scenarios, I generally edit those values to about 20%-30% of what they are now.

Historically it depended on what was being attacked. Bridge attacks could be death traps since AAA could be concentrated. 30% to 50% losses common. Air strikes against non stationary targets not so bad. AAA was more of a deterent than a killer.

Colin, do you use an equipment editor to reduce the lethality of the AAA?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: desert



Direct attacks always seem to result in epic devastation, one way or another.

Well, that may be because of what was done with flak in TOAW III. In my scenarios, I generally edit those values to about 20%-30% of what they are now.

Historically it depended on what was being attacked. Bridge attacks could be death traps since AAA could be concentrated. 30% to 50% losses common. Air strikes against non stationary targets not so bad. AAA was more of a deterent than a killer.

Colin, do you use an equipment editor to reduce the lethality of the AAA?

Definitely. The results the new values in TOAW deliver are completely ahistorical.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Definitely. The results the new values in TOAW deliver are completely ahistorical.

During our playtest of Campaign for South Vietnam with Curt Chambers it was typical for little VC units that had little more than bows and arrows to be able to shoot down B-52's at 40K feet plus. Somewhat ahistorical in my opinion.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Definitely. The results the new values in TOAW deliver are completely ahistorical.

During our playtest of Campaign for South Vietnam with Curt Chambers it was typical for little VC units that had little more than bows and arrows to be able to shoot down B-52's at 40K feet plus. Somewhat ahistorical in my opinion.

Nah, it's just that the bows were equiped with heat seeking high altitude arrows. They're the latest in high low tech.

[larryfulkerson]

ColinWright has done a masterful job of explaining aircraft usage and I commend him on his exposition.  Thanks for that by the way.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ColinWright has done a masterful job of explaining aircraft usage and I commend him on his exposition.  Thanks for that by the way.

You're welcome.