Matrix Games Forums

After playing a few games, I have come to the conclusion that the Ground Attack mission is too underpowered. I hope others can chime in with their 2 pesetas on this.

I just used the entire Republican Sept 1936 airforce (granted, pretty puny), which is 45 bombers, dropping about 60,000 pounds of bombs on an infantry unit in open terrain. Result: We destroyed a wagon, and knocked around a couple more. This is consistent with results I saw playing the Nationalist side, who has better and bigger bombers; attacks might kill a squad or two, but it's questionable whether it's worth the expediture of fuel and supply. For Ground Attack, I don't think it is, and it's basically a waste of time as it stands.

In H2H testing, I have found minimal damage from bombing, and NO disruption or fatigue, which doesn't make sense.

IRL, Ground Attack missions were the most important air mission in the SCW, and were sometimes decisive. I can cite some historical precedence, but particularly after the Germans implemented the "Flivo" (short for Fliegerverbindungsoffiziere, or air liason officers). It took some trial and error, but after this change in early 1937, Germans saw great results from Ground Support at the Battle of Brunete and Bilbao Ring of Iron in 1937. Want proof? Well, the Germans built the whole Luftwaffe after this lesson into a Ground Support air force, probably to their detriment in areas like Strategic bombing.

The Republic never got there, BTW, in that kind of coordination, but still used the SB-2 and other light bombers effectively enough to keep trying.

At any rate, I think:

1. Ground Support missions should be causing more damage
2. They should cause fatigue and/or disruption for the target unit
3. Use of heavy bombs should be a factor in knocking fort levels down (as they were near Bilbao)
4. Nationalists might get a bonus in 1937 and after for the "Flivo" system, which was revolutionary at the time

That's my take....I just think it needs work

PORT attacks to me seems about right

AIRFIELD attack if anything is a bit OVER powered, but that's a debate for antoher day

at what altitude did you fly? I had more luck at around 1000-5000 feet or lower though flak gets hefty then. I agree though that even then it feels a little underpowered

asday9 wrote: Thu Jun 18, 2026 11:29 pm at what altitude did you fly? I had more luck at around 1000-5000 feet or lower though flak gets hefty then. I agree though that even then it feels a little underpowered

Typically 3000 or 4000 feet...pretty low. Definitely lower than one would attempt in WITP-AE (but in that game, there are alot more AA guns)

I just think it needs to be a more effective mission, particularly for the Nationalists

Heavy anti-aircraft fire... ?

That's a pretty rare thing.
In 1936 Spain had 16 Skoda AA guns
(8 in Madrid and 8 in Zaragoza)

Otherwise they used about 50 102mm AA Vickers (the Spanish called them 105/43 Mod 1923) to defend naval bases, in 1936 practically only in Cartagena and Menorca. And a few units under repair.

You can't see any other AA fire (except AA MG) for the first many weeks....

Dali101 wrote: Thu Jun 25, 2026 10:22 pm Heavy anti-aircraft fire... ?

That's a pretty rare thing.
In 1936 Spain had 16 Skoda AA guns
(8 in Madrid and 8 in Zaragoza)

Otherwise they used about 50 102mm AA Vickers (the Spanish called them 105/43 Mod 1923) to defend naval bases, in 1936 practically only in Cartagena and Menorca. And a few units under repair.

You can't see any other AA fire (except AA MG) for the first many weeks....

I was a bit unclear, I did not mean the presence of heavy AA guns, but rather me suffering a lot of damaged some lost planes through anti air fire at those very low altitudes