Wushuki Posted August 6, 2011 Share Posted August 6, 2011 I recently noticed that fighters only intercept enemy aircraft in their own vision range, not in their strike range. At least this is how it works in the 1939 campaign. So a fighter with a strike range of 8 and a vision range of 4 will only intercept enemy aircraft in a range of 4. This even happens if the another unit spots the square that is attacked by the enemy aircraft. I never noticed this before and it seems a bit strange. Is this intentional or is this a bug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I think starting with the Global release we matched the interception range with a Fighter's spotting range and in Global that would have been a strike range of 4 and a spotting range of 3. For this release since we now have lower spotting ranges due to the newly implemented reconnaissance feature you are now looking at a strike range of 8 and a spotting range of 4. So long answer short it is intentional but we are open to suggestions if players are really not enjoying the change or if a few tweaks would be desired etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Would be kind of cool if you could tie interception range to a new radar tech. Increase your levels in that and you increase the range your fighters can intercept at. Would make sense, since the radar would give them advanced warning/more time to scramble and get to more distant locations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Right on, Wolfpack, great suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wushuki Posted August 9, 2011 Author Share Posted August 9, 2011 I am inclined to say that the interception range should be equal to the strike range. Intercepting with fighters is already only marginally effective due to the ease of which cover can be provided with other fighters to completely shield attacking bombers. Due to the low damage of fighters against other fighters, they will generally not be able to slow down bombing at all. If you then also have to position your fighters very close to the front line to protect your units they become easy to destroy with ground units that suddenly break through the front lines. For such marginal fighter effectiveness this additional risk makes investing in fighters even less important. This harms the USSR in particular, which is generally fighting large amounts of tactical bombers, but has few bombers of their own. This means that they do not have to invest in fighters to protect their own bombers, but can at best use their investments in their airforce to slightly delay the enemy bombing. In addition, their front lines are also most prone to breaking and having to retreat. By increasing the interception range they will at least be able to save their fighters every time this happens, making it a slightly more viable strategy to invest in them. About the technology idea, I am not sure if it is important enough to spend MPPs on and slow down your research in other areas. Feel free to disagree though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyazinth von Strachwitz Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 I do agree with Wushuki. Given the fact that this is a strategic game, a whole Air fleet sitting on a tile for one week means more than one plane flying around. Pretty sure most planes fly once a day and not once a week, so an Air Fleet consisting of hundred of planes should be able to deliver recon up to their maximum range. If they can do recon, they can fight against incoming attackers. In one of my games vs. the AI I had a Bomber in Brest to raid convoys and a fighter just a few hexes nearby, but not in interception range. English and american raiders from Cornwall started to attack my poor Bomber, and my fighter didn`t help although it was no in range.. think this doesn`t make sense.. I would love to go back to the old rule. Hubert, I understand your point.. but this idea leads to some strange situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Well look at it this way. You have 500 bombers coming in. Radar picks it up or scouts. Message gets sent back to the local air bases to intercept incomimg planes. Pilots get ready (takes a few minutes), fighter engines get warmed up (few minutes), they take off (few minutes to form up in the air), they fly to the target location (lots of minutes), have to find the enemy aircraft (? minutes). The enemy aircraft is already in the air on its way to target and doesnt stop @ 250-400 miles per hour so it closes the range. Thants why the spotting range is intercept range. Escorting is different, the fighter is going at FULL range with the bombers. Or if its on its own mission same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Exactly as Al says, interception is reactive, escort is proactive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts