RE: 1.05.61 Axis AI vs fulkerson

larryfulkerson · Post by **larryfulkerson** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:48 pm

I just now downloaded the 1.05.61 version and Apollo was asking if anybody would test it against the Axis AI and I thought I'd volunteer.
I'm using these settings.

larryfulkerson · Post by **larryfulkerson** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:06 pm

Here's the losses just after the Axis turn ends and before any Soviet movement:

larryfulkerson · Post by **larryfulkerson** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:40 pm

This is the Axis T1 moves:

larryfulkerson · Post by **larryfulkerson** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:43 pm

I've think I'll post the saved game just after the Axis moves before any Soviet moves in case anybody wants to check out the settings, conditions, losses, whatever.

larryfulkerson · Post by **larryfulkerson** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:49 pm

Here's a close-up of the situation(s).

larryfulkerson · Post by **larryfulkerson** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:16 pm

I decided to disband those air groups that had mega losses and were 10 planes per group. I need more of the 40 per group units, or the 20 per group units. Anything but the 10 per group units. I have my Air Doctrine on 50% required to fly and I find that groups that have fewer planes in it fly statistically fewer missions after a few losses. The larger groups can sustain more losses before hitting the 50% mark and can fly more.

I dismissed Konev from the N. Caucaus MD so I could reassign him someplace more useful. He's one of the better leaders.

Seminole · Post by **Seminole** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:28 pm

I decided to disband those air groups that had mega losses and were 10 planes per group. I need more of the 40 per group units, or the 20 per group units. Anything but the 10 per group units. I have my Air Doctrine on 50% required to fly and I find that groups that have fewer planes in it fly statistically fewer missions after a few losses. The larger groups can sustain more losses before hitting the 50% mark and can fly more.

Interesting point I hadn't considered.
I use the air battalions for lend lease aircraft like the P-40 and Hurricane that don't come in large supply, so that replacement can keep up with losses. Put them in your bomber airbases so they can escort. I don't really like the idea of disbanding fighter wings because planes can't fight from the pools, and the 'gain' of a few support squads doesn't counterbalance taking planes out of the sky, imo.

Apollo11 · Post by **Apollo11** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:37 pm

Hi all,

Thanks Larry! [:)]

Leo "Apollo11"

larryfulkerson · Post by **larryfulkerson** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:38 pm

ORIGINAL: Seminole
... the 'gain' of a few support squads doesn't counterbalance taking planes out of the sky, imo.

Yeah, I've thought about that too, but I'd a whole lot rather have some other type of fighter than the I-153's and it was my understanding that there were only a fixed number of groups possible ( I could be wrong on this ) so that getting rid of the 10-per group types was hopefully gaining a larger group. I figure that most of the I-153's were going to get shot down if they flew at all.

larryfulkerson · Post by **larryfulkerson** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:39 pm

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
Thanks Larry! [:)]
Leo "Apollo11"

It's a labor of love. Plus I need the practice. I have yet to win a game against a human opponent.

All the Front HQ's are okie dokie except for SouthWestern and Western. SW front is especially in need of some attention. I intend to disband a lot of the forts in the SW area both to reclaim the manpower and equipment and to decrease the CP of the SW front HQ.

larryfulkerson · Post by **larryfulkerson** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:49 pm

I shipped another ground combat unit into Riga on the hope of maybe holding onto Riga until turn 3 perhaps. Sometimes the AI will give me a pass at Riga until turn 3.

larryfulkerson · Post by **larryfulkerson** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:58 pm

I tried to move the survivors of the pocket in the left middle of the picture to the perifery of the pocket so that they might be destroyed sooner so that I'd get them back sooner after they re-spawn. I flew some fuel to the air base unit inside the pocket because we seemed lowest on fuel. Then I ran outta "transports" and I'll have to wait until next turn to try to get them some supply. I should have tried the supply first and THEN the fuel. ( Well, now I know. ) As it is the game still lists them as "isolated".

randallw · Post by **randallw** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:07 pm

Those air battalions will eventually be changed back to air regiments.

Koniev may lose a few staff rating points if you send him to a front; you may want to give him an army HQ first, then wait for a rank promotion.

Seminole · Post by **Seminole** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:50 pm

Yeah, I've thought about that too, but I'd a whole lot rather have some other type of fighter than the I-153's and it was my understanding that there were only a fixed number of groups possible ( I could be wrong on this ) so that getting rid of the 10-per group types was hopefully gaining a larger group.

This is from the manual, "Soviet Air Battalion air group units (with “/” in the name) can be re-designated as air regiments
(10% probability)"
I thought, but can't find at the moment, that new air groups are created based on the number of existing air groups with that aircraft and the amount of aircraft in the pool of the same type (basically an oversupply results in more air groups to allocate them to).
New airbases are generated based on the average number of air groups in airbases exceeded a threshold (6?)

randallw · Post by **randallw** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:58 pm

Sure, having units die sooner means the formation of a cadre begins sooner, but the bad side is that those enemy troops cleaning up the pocket will rejoin the front sooner.

Flaviusx · Post by **Flaviusx** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:58 pm

I disband all the 10 per group air units on turn 1, just fyi.

Seminole · Post by **Seminole** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:00 pm

I disband all the 10 per group air units on turn 1, just fyi.

What's the perceived advantage?

larryfulkerson · Post by **larryfulkerson** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:10 pm

ORIGINAL: randallw
Koniev may lose a few staff rating points if you send him to a front; you may want to give him an army HQ first, then wait for a rank promotion.

Oh. Okie dokie. Thanks for the heads up.

ORIGINAL: Seminole
What's the perceived advantage?

Um.........I'm thinking that the larger groups fly more missions than the smaller groups because they can sustain more losses before they dip below the Air Doctrine setting of percent required to fly.

larryfulkerson · Post by **larryfulkerson** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:13 pm

ORIGINAL: randallw
Sure, having units die sooner means the formation of a cadre begins sooner, but the bad side is that those enemy troops cleaning up the pocket will rejoin the front sooner.

Very good point. I hadn't considered that. You are, of course, correct. I should delay their demise as long as possible. Point taken.

Flaviusx · Post by **Flaviusx** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:21 pm

ORIGINAL: Seminole

I disband all the 10 per group air units on turn 1, just fyi.

What's the perceived advantage?

I hate ant air units. 20 plane regiments is bad enough. Nor do these battalions convert very quickly, they will linger on into 1942.

I run a lean Red Air Force with limited airbase capacity in 1941. (I disband most SAD airbases well ahead of time to avoid the disruption caused by autodisdands in 42. Issue them rifles and send them to the front.) Ant air units have no place in this scheme. I also want the Red Air Force to cycle through obsolete planes as quickly as possible within the limitations of those airbases, and they will do this better with regiments than battalions.