Air coordination
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: Air coordination
Thank you Pax. [:)]
I don´t have much to critizise about the current model as it is, if you know how to interprete it,
it is a very good abstraction of WWII air combat.
It could be (slightly) less bloody but I think this is delicate to tweak without impacting other
aspects closely related to air combat, as for example carrier battles.
One small thing I´d prefer to see changed would be a specific message in the combat report:
12 plane(s) not yet engaged
I think this is a bit misleading as it suggests that the planes will engage in a moment, or are preparing to engage,
which is a bit different to what I assume it actually means.
If it is changed to something like 12 plane(s) (currently) not able to engage this could
reflect the situation a bit better.
I am not sure though, it depends on what TheElfs intention was when creating the different
messagesets.
I don´t have much to critizise about the current model as it is, if you know how to interprete it,
it is a very good abstraction of WWII air combat.
It could be (slightly) less bloody but I think this is delicate to tweak without impacting other
aspects closely related to air combat, as for example carrier battles.
One small thing I´d prefer to see changed would be a specific message in the combat report:
12 plane(s) not yet engaged
I think this is a bit misleading as it suggests that the planes will engage in a moment, or are preparing to engage,
which is a bit different to what I assume it actually means.
If it is changed to something like 12 plane(s) (currently) not able to engage this could
reflect the situation a bit better.
I am not sure though, it depends on what TheElfs intention was when creating the different
messagesets.

RE: Air coordination
This is valuable feedback. One of our challenges is actually communicating the results of a particular combat such that the player can understand why it succeeded or failed. One of our goals was to introduce more messages that did this, but on this particular point your observation and suggestion is noted. We should probably be more specific. Thanks Lobaron.ORIGINAL: LoBaron
Thank you Pax. [:)]
I don´t have much to critizise about the current model as it is, if you know how to interprete it,
it is a very good abstraction of WWII air combat.
It could be (slightly) less bloody but I think this is delicate to tweak without impacting other
aspects closely related to air combat, as for example carrier battles.
One small thing I´d prefer to see changed would be a specific message in the combat report:
12 plane(s) not yet engaged
I think this is a bit misleading as it suggests that the planes will engage in a moment, or are preparing to engage,
eunuch is a bit different to what I assume it actually means.
If it is changed to something like 12 plane(s) (currently) not able to engage this could
reflect the situation a bit better.
I am not sure though, it depends on what TheElfs intention was when creating the different
messagesets.
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES


RE: Air coordination
I always thought you did well in achieving this.
Edit: I am unhappy with my suggestion though. It should mean that these planes are not available to get vectored on the
contact right? So the spectrum of why they are not able to engage this specific contact is quite broad, or does this message
show only planes involved in another engagement?
I think its a bit hard to find something which is not misleading...
Edit: I am unhappy with my suggestion though. It should mean that these planes are not available to get vectored on the
contact right? So the spectrum of why they are not able to engage this specific contact is quite broad, or does this message
show only planes involved in another engagement?
I think its a bit hard to find something which is not misleading...

- michaelm75au
- Posts: 12457
- Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
RE: Air coordination
Here is a list of things that go towards determining if groups are 'grouped' together in the same raid/attack:
- Group attack mission is similar to the raid's mission (not a TF and a base attack)
- Sweeps, recon and search missions are not used in co-ordination
- Escorts need to be at same altitude as raid itself and have the same target to imporve chances
- Groups from same base have better chance to fly together; further apart group bases are, lessen the chance
- Groups belonging to same theatre command have increased chance; groups in range of their Air Hq are further increased
- IJA and IJN groups have a lessen chance to co-ordinate
- Group experience and leader's AIR increases chance
- Groups need to be within 20% of the raid's speed or time to target for the raid and group within 30 minutes to participate in raid
- Escorts targeted to same target as bombers have a better chance than un-target escorts
Michael
- michaelm75au
- Posts: 12457
- Joined: Sat May 05, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
RE: Air coordination
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
I always thought you did well in achieving this.
Edit: I am unhappy with my suggestion though. It should mean that these planes are not available to get vectored on the
contact right? So the spectrum of why they are not able to engage this specific contact is quite broad, or does this message
show only planes involved in another engagement?
I think its a bit hard to find something which is not misleading...
12 plane(s) not yet engaged means some planes are not in position to engage the attaacking raid. This only applies to the current raid, though. These planes are free to engage other attacks.
Michael
- KenchiSulla
- Posts: 2956
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:19 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
RE: Air coordination
I have no problem with coordination after reading Lobarons guide, it is a well written one... I believe the developers got everything out of the engine they could...
The only issue I have with the air system is the absolute vulnerability of escorting planes.... and it is happening on both sides.
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ailinglaplap at 134,118
Weather in hex: Clear sky
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 47 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 2
A6M3a Zero x 47
Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 66
SBD-3 Dauntless x 87
TBF-1 Avenger x 54
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 1 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 11 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 12 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 1 destroyed, 7 damaged
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ailinglaplap at 134,118
Weather in hex: Heavy rain
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 47 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 2
A6M3a Zero x 24
Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 33
SBD-3 Dauntless x 26
TBF-1 Avenger x 46
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 1 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 6 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 4 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 12 damaged
Morning Air attack on TF, near Roi-Namur at 132,114
Weather in hex: Light rain
Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 41
A6M2-N Rufe x 1
A6M3a Zero x 51
Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 14
SBD-3 Dauntless x 24
No Japanese losses
Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 9 destroyed, 10 damaged
In these two turns combined the allies lost close to 60 F4F4s with much less bombers lost... (FOW in the combat report) We can argue that the escorts did the job well (in fact they did) but I hardly lost any fighters to air to air combat (me being the japanese player).
Is there operational knowledge on loss rates during these battles? (above land and sea) I believe escorting planes shot down a lot of interceptors during world war II.
The only issue I have with the air system is the absolute vulnerability of escorting planes.... and it is happening on both sides.
Morning Air attack on TF, near Ailinglaplap at 134,118
Weather in hex: Clear sky
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 47 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 2
A6M3a Zero x 47
Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 66
SBD-3 Dauntless x 87
TBF-1 Avenger x 54
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 1 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 11 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 1 destroyed, 12 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 1 destroyed, 7 damaged
Afternoon Air attack on TF, near Ailinglaplap at 134,118
Weather in hex: Heavy rain
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 19,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 47 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M2-N Rufe x 2
A6M3a Zero x 24
Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 33
SBD-3 Dauntless x 26
TBF-1 Avenger x 46
Japanese aircraft losses
A6M3a Zero: 1 destroyed
Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 6 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 4 damaged
TBF-1 Avenger: 12 damaged
Morning Air attack on TF, near Roi-Namur at 132,114
Weather in hex: Light rain
Raid spotted at 40 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 15 minutes
Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 41
A6M2-N Rufe x 1
A6M3a Zero x 51
Allied aircraft
F4F-4 Wildcat x 14
SBD-3 Dauntless x 24
No Japanese losses
Allied aircraft losses
F4F-4 Wildcat: 2 destroyed
SBD-3 Dauntless: 9 destroyed, 10 damaged
In these two turns combined the allies lost close to 60 F4F4s with much less bombers lost... (FOW in the combat report) We can argue that the escorts did the job well (in fact they did) but I hardly lost any fighters to air to air combat (me being the japanese player).
Is there operational knowledge on loss rates during these battles? (above land and sea) I believe escorting planes shot down a lot of interceptors during world war II.
AKA Cannonfodder
"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
RE: Air coordination
ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder
The only issue I have with the air system is the absolute vulnerability of escorting planes.... and it is happening on both sides.
Raid detected at 120 NM, estimated altitude 17,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 47 minutes
A6M3a Zero x 47
F4F-4 Wildcat x 66
The question is if it is possible to tell from your example Cannonfodder.
Your opponent flew one of the weaker types of the Allied fighters (even F4F-3 is a better performer) at ~17-19k, which means out of its performance envelope,
and were met by a good number of your CAP with lots of advance warning, I´d say you outnumered him in fighters all combat reports counted together,
and the CAP containing a high number of 2nd generation Zeros (which perform brilliant at the same altitude band), and the escorts still managed to keep your
fighters from most of the Bombers.
I think thats not so far from realistic.

- KenchiSulla
- Posts: 2956
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:19 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
RE: Air coordination
LoBaron, I have seen similar results for escorting fighters in our Burma campaign. I believe the system works like this:
Sweep > CAP > Escorts. This is not a bad thing but me (and my opponent) "feel" that the effects are a bit overdone atm... Perhaps I should start collecting data..
Sweep > CAP > Escorts. This is not a bad thing but me (and my opponent) "feel" that the effects are a bit overdone atm... Perhaps I should start collecting data..
AKA Cannonfodder
"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
RE: Air coordination
You are right that the air combat model favors Sweep > CAP > Escorts.
What I wanted to point out with my earlier post was that its only one factor of a system with many variables. Your example
favoured the CAP in many additional aspects (altitude band, fighter types, detection range, numbers of aircraft involved).
There is a reason for the Sweep > CAP > Escorts system.
Escorts had more tasks to accomplish and were more limited in their freedom of action than CAP (as discussed a couple of times already the
in-game escort setting is understood as close escort) and so - by mission assignment alone - were at a disadvantage compared to an alert CAP.
(The Germans made this experience very often in BoB. Either the close escort fighters took heavy losses against the RAF because their mission
profile put them at a heavy disadvantage, or with more loose fighter cover the German medium bombers payed the price while the escorts
were more dangerous to the CAP)
So the question is if the game exaggerates these advantages of CAP vs. escort, or sweep vs. CAP, or whether lopsided results only give that
impression because many other factors come into play.
What your example shows is that many other factors do come into play, so could lopside the results all by themselves.
In my current PBEM there is a noticable tendency to confirm the Sweep > CAP > escort system, but as long as the situation is not a clearly unfair
fight, the results are very believable up to now.
What I wanted to point out with my earlier post was that its only one factor of a system with many variables. Your example
favoured the CAP in many additional aspects (altitude band, fighter types, detection range, numbers of aircraft involved).
There is a reason for the Sweep > CAP > Escorts system.
Escorts had more tasks to accomplish and were more limited in their freedom of action than CAP (as discussed a couple of times already the
in-game escort setting is understood as close escort) and so - by mission assignment alone - were at a disadvantage compared to an alert CAP.
(The Germans made this experience very often in BoB. Either the close escort fighters took heavy losses against the RAF because their mission
profile put them at a heavy disadvantage, or with more loose fighter cover the German medium bombers payed the price while the escorts
were more dangerous to the CAP)
So the question is if the game exaggerates these advantages of CAP vs. escort, or sweep vs. CAP, or whether lopsided results only give that
impression because many other factors come into play.
What your example shows is that many other factors do come into play, so could lopside the results all by themselves.
In my current PBEM there is a noticable tendency to confirm the Sweep > CAP > escort system, but as long as the situation is not a clearly unfair
fight, the results are very believable up to now.

- KenchiSulla
- Posts: 2956
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:19 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
RE: Air coordination
Hehehe, the problem with PBEM is you are never entirely sure about the quality of the enemy you are facing. Making a judgement of results is hard.
Our air houserule is set at man. band (the band where your plane has max man. points is max altitude, in steps of 10k,15k,20k etc.) This clearly shows "realistic" results in air to air combat. Soon the allies will start using high altitude planes, and I will be in trouble...
Our air houserule is set at man. band (the band where your plane has max man. points is max altitude, in steps of 10k,15k,20k etc.) This clearly shows "realistic" results in air to air combat. Soon the allies will start using high altitude planes, and I will be in trouble...
AKA Cannonfodder
"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
RE: Air coordination
MichaelM, thanks for sharing this. Helps me a lot.ORIGINAL: michaelm
Here is a list of things that go towards determining if groups are 'grouped' together in the same raid/attack:
- Group attack mission is similar to the raid's mission (not a TF and a base attack)
- Sweeps, recon and search missions are not used in co-ordination
- Escorts need to be at same altitude as raid itself and have the same target to imporve chances
- Groups from same base have better chance to fly together; further apart group bases are, lessen the chance
- Groups belonging to same theatre command have increased chance; groups in range of their Air Hq are further increased
- IJA and IJN groups have a lessen chance to co-ordinate
- Group experience and leader's AIR increases chance
- Groups need to be within 20% of the raid's speed or time to target for the raid and group within 30 minutes to participate in raid
- Escorts targeted to same target as bombers have a better chance than un-target escorts
Pax
RE: Air coordination
ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
MichaelM, thanks for sharing this. Helps me a lot.ORIGINAL: michaelm
Here is a list of things that go towards determining if groups are 'grouped' together in the same raid/attack:
- Group attack mission is similar to the raid's mission (not a TF and a base attack)
- Sweeps, recon and search missions are not used in co-ordination
- Escorts need to be at same altitude as raid itself and have the same target to imporve chances
- Groups from same base have better chance to fly together; further apart group bases are, lessen the chance
- Groups belonging to same theatre command have increased chance; groups in range of their Air Hq are further increased
- IJA and IJN groups have a lessen chance to co-ordinate
- Group experience and leader's AIR increases chance
- Groups need to be within 20% of the raid's speed or time to target for the raid and group within 30 minutes to participate in raid
- Escorts targeted to same target as bombers have a better chance than un-target escorts
+1
I hope you don´t mind if I update the air coordination guide with this detailed list.

-
- Posts: 8589
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
- Location: Olympia, WA
RE: Air coordination
The only problem I have with the air combat engine in this game is the way it treats escorts. Basically, my take is that fighters assigned to escort in this game are actually being assigned to "close escort" (to use the BOB/BOTR terminology). In order to provide "high escort" you have to assign fighters to sweep the same target. I personally would be happier if we were able to differentiate between close escort, high escort and sweep in giving squadron orders. But I love the game so I can live with it as is...
fair winds,
Brad
Brad
- offenseman
- Posts: 768
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:05 pm
- Location: Sheridan Wyoming, USA
RE: Air coordination
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
In my current PBEM there is a noticable tendency to confirm the Sweep > CAP > escort system, but as long as the situation is not a clearly unfair
fight, the results are very believable up to now.
Being in that PBEM with you and Rob, I would have to say that that has been the case in our game AND that the results are believable. They may be frustrating at times, but those are learning points for us and the three of us discuss and break down the details. Rob and I are fortunate that LB has worked so hard to understand its finer points because he is able to explain things that we can then flesh out even further. He certainly straightened me out on all of it. [:)]
Sometimes things said in Nitwit sound very different in English.
RE: Air coordination
Though you argue say that sweep in fact resembles high cover.
We are circling around a single function of the air model here:
The point from where this all originates is altitude coordination. You need to set the single units to the same altitude to
say "hello, I want to coordinate this squad with the rest of the strike".
What happens if this was not the case though? If you simply assign a target and thats the master trigger for coordination?
I have to grin when the first problem showing up would be the "strato escort issue"... [:D]
(question is whether this is possible at all with the current engine)
So untangling this could cause more problems than it solves.
We are circling around a single function of the air model here:
The point from where this all originates is altitude coordination. You need to set the single units to the same altitude to
say "hello, I want to coordinate this squad with the rest of the strike".
What happens if this was not the case though? If you simply assign a target and thats the master trigger for coordination?
I have to grin when the first problem showing up would be the "strato escort issue"... [:D]
(question is whether this is possible at all with the current engine)
So untangling this could cause more problems than it solves.

- offenseman
- Posts: 768
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:05 pm
- Location: Sheridan Wyoming, USA
RE: Air coordination
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
The only problem I have with the air combat engine in this game is the way it treats escorts. Basically, my take is that fighters assigned to escort in this game are actually being assigned to "close escort" (to use the BOB/BOTR terminology). In order to provide "high escort" you have to assign fighters to sweep the same target. I personally would be happier if we were able to differentiate between close escort, high escort and sweep in giving squadron orders. But I love the game so I can live with it as is...
As I understand it, assigning escorts at the same altitude assists in coordination but assigning them to a higher altitude does not guarantee that they will not escort. We had a certain air battle that caused us to look at that quite a bit. Since then, when circumstances permit, I have been trying to set some escorts close and some higher by 6-8k. IF the high escorts fly escort they, in theory, should get the bounce on the CAP that is trying to bounce the raid. So far, however, every time, I have set it up this way AND the high escorts have flown, Rob (I've done all of it in China) has not flown CAP.
Of course, if the high escort does not coordinate well, it means you have less fighters in your total escort package and then can end up with results noted where 27 fighters tried to escort 100+ bombers.
From what I've seen, it all ends up a shell game of tactics between the two foes. that is fine by me.

Sometimes things said in Nitwit sound very different in English.
RE: Air coordination
ORIGINAL: offenseman
ORIGINAL: LoBaron
In my current PBEM there is a noticable tendency to confirm the Sweep > CAP > escort system, but as long as the situation is not a clearly unfair
fight, the results are very believable up to now.
Being in that PBEM with you and Rob, I would have to say that that has been the case in our game AND that the results are believable. They may be frustrating at times, but those are learning points for us and the three of us discuss and break down the details. Rob and I are fortunate that LB has worked so hard to understand its finer points because he is able to explain things that we can then flesh out even further. He certainly straightened me out on all of it. [:)]
Thanks Mike, I believe that our game is a great learning experience for all three of us.
We all are both, teacher and scholar, while playing. [;)]

RE: Air coordination
ORIGINAL: offenseman
As I understand it, assigning escorts at the same altitude assists in coordination but assigning them to a higher altitude does not guarantee that they will not escort. We had a certain air battle that caused us to look at that quite a bit. Since then, when circumstances permit, I have been trying to set some escorts close and some higher by 6-8k. IF the high escorts fly escort they, in theory, should get the bounce on the CAP that is trying to bounce the raid. So far, however, every time, I have set it up this way AND the high escorts have flown, Rob (I've done all of it in China) has not flown CAP.
+1
I think you just invented the 'unreliable high cover' [:D]

-
- Posts: 8589
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
- Location: Olympia, WA
RE: Air coordination
My understanding is that in WITP when you assign a fighter squadron to escort it will fly at approximately 4000' above the units it is assigned to escort, no matter what altitude to which you set the squadron. The altitude you assign the fighter squadron in that case is used only for the portion of it given CAP duties. Has this changed with AE?
fair winds,
Brad
Brad
RE: Air coordination
Good point. You are right (its 2000ft above the bombers), so maybe Mikes idea has no effect.
I am not sure if the alt resets to the bombers alt on escort even if it is set higher but thats entirely possible.
Still, you can simulate high cover by performing sweeps on the same target as the strike.
I am not sure if the alt resets to the bombers alt on escort even if it is set higher but thats entirely possible.
Still, you can simulate high cover by performing sweeps on the same target as the strike.
