Escorts

[SeaMonkey]

Everyone check out the new blog, some great insight to WaW features. Thanks Hubert.

Now to the theme at hand. I never use escorts, why?

I think we all know, better to just soak off the interceptors with your own AF attack on some ground unit, double the usage.

So the question is, shouldn't AFs used in the escort role have an attack advantage on any intercepts?

Makes sense, the interceptors are fulfilling the primary objective of stopping the bombers, this gives the escorts the benefit of position usually in altitude. Escorts have the advantage of the initiative.

Ok, let's say the interceptors decide to take on the escorts as their primary function. Now the bombers should sustain almost no damage, depending on the success of the escorts vs interceptors.

In addition the bombers, given the luxury of an uninterrupted mission, should conduct a more devastating attack on its target.

Agree....disagree, is the feature already there...anyone know for sure?

[arado234]

Never thought of that but yea it makes sense.

[Guest Mike]

Um...it's interceptors that have he initiative - whether to intercept or not.

they also get he choice as to whether to go for altitude or not - gaining altitude takes time, so they may want to try for the bombers early, or they may not.

they also have the choice as to whether to attack the bombers or the fighters - eg "Spits take the 109's, Hurries go for the bombers" in the BoB.

Escort tactics are limited to close or loose escort of the bombers, and when/if they're allowed to go free-ranging.

However escorts (and intercepters) shuold have crappy values for ground attack, so they get nothing for trying to soak off defenders with that tactic. That's what tactical airforces are for - which of course by the end of the war include vast numbers of fighter-bombers for teh western allies.

[jon_j_rambo]

ESCORTS !!! ESCORTS !!! ESCORTS !!!

I thought a scandal was looming in this thread.

[SeaMonkey]

Perhaps SO, the initiative lies with the most advanced AF?

[Guest Mike]

Probably not as long as they're both within a bulls roar of each other - in this era even jets would ahve to stick by bombers in order to defend them, and so would lose much of their effectiveness IMO - either they fly slow, or they fly fast and weave all over the place elaving lots of holes for defenders to slip through.

Effective fighter direction is essential for defenders - think radar and plotting rooms.

Attackers can make do with "adequate" machinery as long as they have range IMO.

[arado234]

Stalin's Organist thats not entirely true.The allies with their vast numbers of fighters would sometimes send attack fighter groups accompanying the bombers with close escort.Their job was to fly way above the bomber formation and attack and break up the enemy fighter attacks(attacking when they had the best opportunity) before the enemy fighters were engaged by the close escort(which would then have the intiative because the enemy fighters would be trying to evade the first attack).So in that case the escorts had the um... advantage like seamonkey said.Although i dont know how you could simulate that into this game.

[Guest Mike]

Yep - that's why I mentioned numbers in my first post - they allow the ability to have fighter patrols as you outline, rather than just sticking with hte bombers.

Numbers are definitely a reason why one side or other might havehte initiative - more so than aircraft technology I suspect, given that the aircraft aer all at least reasonably competitive.

In this game you could simulate it by allowing more than 1 escort group per bomber group, or more than 1 intercept per bomber or escort, as appropriate.

[pzgndr]

So the question is, shouldn't AFs used in the escort role have an attack advantage on any intercepts?

In WAW, air units now (finally) have distinct roles: fighters, tactical bombers and strategic bombers. The real question is how much of a fighter-bomber role should be shared between the fighter units and tac bombers.

If fighters have only a pure air-to-air combat role with no ground attack, then you need fighters for the escort-intercept combats associated with the bombers else the bombers will be chewed up. It's an interesting dynamic now. There could be an attack advantage for escorts, if attack values are generally higher than defense values.

But remember, escorts and interceptors are the same fighter units so it probably make more sense to give them equal attack/defense values. The tactics in a given battle could give advantage to either side, so best to leave this to the +/-1 variable combat results, yes?

Even with some sharing of ground attack for fighters and air attack for tac bombers, players still need to balance their air resources. Playtesting is trying to find the best balance, but as with everything else I suspect there will be some debate as to what the CTVs should be. Ditto for the new battleship-cruiser-destroyer balance in WAW. This is great rock-paper-scissors stuff.

[SeaMonkey]

Let's see if I understand the tactic of soaking off the interceptors.

As the initiating player I designate my fighter/FB unit to ground attack, which means they are carrying the proper ordinance and training for that mission.

The interceptors are responsive and equipped accordingly for their role of air attack, interrupting the mission, same type of unit, different objective.

Which group should have the advantage in the air supremacy scenario (dogfighting)?

As escorts my WaW F/FB unit is using the men, machines and tactics best suited for that task, protecting the bombers which requires prowess at air to air combat, shooting down fighters...only.

The interceptors or CAP are put in a dual use environment of shooting down both escorts and bombers.

As some of you know sometimes those two objectives require different caliber weapons and tactics to maximize effectiveness.

All I'm saying is that dependent upon the mission, perhaps the unit should display different combat factors, thereby making the selection from the unit's role menu applicable and not subject to gamey tactics, ie. soakoff.

[arado234]

I think it could work but do you think it is wise for the game to get that technical?

[Guest Mike]

In WAW, air units now (finally) have distinct roles: fighters, tactical bombers and strategic bombers. The real question is how much of a fighter-bomber role should be shared between the fighter units and tac bombers.

none IMO.

In this context fighters are a/c that never carry air-to-ground ordanance (other than projectiles in their guns).

those fighters that do so are tactical "bombers". these fighter-bombers would retain a considerable air-to-air capability, but would have their air-to-ground capability severlly curtailed if intercepted due to the need to drop heavier ordanance such as bombs & rockets if dog-fighting.

Sadly for the simple case, however, tactical air also represents dedicated attack a/c such as Ju-87 and IL-2, and also many medium level bombers. These a/c have no significant anti-air capability, so are a different case again......

Oh the joys of starting to split things up......

IMO probably the best way to do it is to have fighters with a good anti-air capability, minimal anti-ground-unit, and zero anti-city/resource, tac air with a mediocre anti-air capability, good anti-ground and low anti-city/resource, and strat bombers with zero anti-air, mediocre/low anti-ground, and good anti-city/resource.

[Lars]

Sounds about right

As you say, gonna lead to a lot of quibbling.

[SeaMonkey]

Actually what I was thinking, not to complicate things, is that because the SC units include various aircraft types, the mission allocated crafts are the ones that fly.

Simply only a portion of the units(AF) total aircraft TO&E is designated to the task and those are the appropriate airframes and pilots for that task.

The combat factors thusly are mission oriented.

[Alex Koponen]

"IMO probably the best way to do it is to have fighters with a good anti-air capability, minimal anti-ground-unit, and zero anti-city/resource, tac air with a mediocre anti-air capability, good anti-ground and low anti-city/resource, and strat bombers with zero anti-air, mediocre/low anti-ground, and good anti-city/resource."

I disagree. Heavy bombers were much better at defending themselves from fighters than medium bombers were. Thus tac air should have low anti-air and strat bombers should have mediocre anti-air. Since the panzers took such a pasting by heavy bombers after Normandy I'd give the Heavies mediocre, not low, anti-ground.

[n0kn0k]

Not entirely true.

The thing is this changed during the war.

At the start heavy bombers from the US got pounded really hard without escorts, even with all the guns they had.

With (techupgrades) new planes,

they were able to defend themselves alot better,

however they got escorts also now,

all the way to Berlin.

For the tactical bombers, things also changed during the war.

Planes like the Typhoon and Tempest were very capable of taking care of itself.

But those were also only available later on I believe.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/hawktempest.html

http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/hawktyphoon.html

So basicly it's all depending on tech levels.

[Blashy]

They say the "mosquito" was probably the best or second best plane of WW2 and that even though it was smaller than bombers it was extremely precise in target bombing much better than standard bombers.

Those are the ones they used at night to mark targets for incoming bombers.

It was extremely fast and maneuverable.

[n0kn0k]

Ohh yeh I forgot the wooden wonder

[Blashy]

Yeah! That blew me away when they showed how thin the carcass was and it was all glued together.

IMO, that is one of the most amazing feats of WW2 construction.

[Lars]

Heh, you mean one of the most amazing feats of WWI construction.

Several aircraft still built that way today. Mostly the kit and homebuilt stuff.

[Blashy]

Nah, I mean WW2. They pretty much thought wood planes were a thing of the past and then some genius comes up with the fastest plane of WW2... made of wood!

The damn thing held 1 complete engine on each wing!

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/mosquito.htm

Bombers on that plane were so cocky about how precise they could be that when they were ask to bomb an area they would say "which building?" . Hehe.

[Lars]

Better stuff here Blashy.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avmoss.html

Wonder if they'll have the Comet at Oshkosh again this year? I'll have to look around.

[Iron Ranger]

Soooo

Should we hope to see a reduction in Airfleet combat values vs 'Ground' units to 1. Incress the AA (& AD?) values by one. Add in a new tech called 'tatical bomber' and drop say... intel?

IE you could eather build air fleets and put purely LR.. for scouting, purely Tactical Bomber tect.. for ground attack, or purely Jet tect for air combat. Or go all out and put all three on one unit making it cost 700+ MMPs and drain the bank of any conutry every time it took one damage!

[Blashy]

You have fighters, tactical bombers and strategic bombers in the game.

Fighters are no longer so powerful versus ground units CTV vs. ground units is 1.

The powerhouse for taking out units is tactical bombers which already uses a tech that exists to upgrade its attack values... I'm not telling which one . TacBs can get hammered by good tech fighters or AA guns.

Drop Intelligence??? No way! Niet! Nada! Again... I'm not telling why .

[Iron Ranger]

Thanks Blashy, I have not been keeping up on the add-on thats being worked on.