Fighters vs. Light Fighters

[Pal]

Hey guys, I recently started playing CORE again, and it's been a blast so far! Thank you very much for creating this!

Now for my question. As Germany, I researched as much airforce tech as I could, which means in 1942 I can win most of my air battles vs. ENG and USA over the Channel. I did notice though that British fighters usually utterly destroy my German light fighters at same tech level in same numbers. The combat window doesn't tell me anything to explain that, as both sides have almost exactly the same modifiers. Comparing the values in the build menu, I found that both types of aircraft are almost exactly the same in all stats but range. Strangely, light fighters have longer range than fighters.

Now this is a long way from vanilla, where fighters were supposed to kill other fighters at long range and interceptors (light fighters) were supposed to kill bombers over home areas.

So what is the philosophy behind these two types of fighter aircraft in CORE? How do they differ, and where do I see that difference?

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

There isn't a lot of difference here. If you are willing to expend some extra research effort and IC you get access to stronger units a little earlier. This relates to Fighter units representing somewhat heavier/higher powered aircraft capable of carrying more weaponry and sustaining more punishment. But the variation isn't a huge factor as long as it's withing a single year. This is really more "flavour" than substance, though there is a bit of variation in the Air Doctrines that makes a small difference.

WRT to range there isn't a design effort to make this different. I just reviewed the unit files and it sort of depends on how you look at things. With the Light Fighter being "odd" and the Fighter being "even" you can either look forward or back when comparing the units. The Range is always equal when you compare the Light Fighter and the year following Fighter. ITRW the variation in range was mainly dependent on the nation that produced the aircraft. USA and JAP tended to produce long range aircraft while ENG/GER/ITA were definitely on the short end.

mm

 

[Zsar1]

Note that ENG has air leaders with better starting stats, also INT gets a stat bonus vs. bombers that should show up in the battle screen.
... I have recently begun to suspect that leader skill is somehow much more important in non-land battles than it is on the ground, but nothing conclusive yet.

Also watch out for boni to radar and base proximity (again, both should appear in the battle screen). When I play GER I usually find it suicidal to send airplanes over english ground - and similarly dominate AI wings over mine.

 

[Pal]

Thanks for the replies!

If there's not much difference between the two types, then why keep them as separate unit types? Also, if fighters are supposed to be sturdier and better powered, then why are they slower?
As for modifiers, my air groups have high-skill superior tacticians as leaders, while performing the air superiority mission over the channel. I found this the best way to combat the Anglo-American air forces. Radar seems to have no effect whatsoever to adjacent sea zones, so it's all up to leaders, mission efficiency and aircraft tech. My eight air groups of four light fighter squadrons each are constantly swarming the channel, achieving local numerical superiority against the british AI of about 2:1, which seems to be enough to send them back to base.

I only wonder why my 4 light fighter squads get totally wrecked if they're up against 4 fighter squads, as the stats say it's something like 28 air attack for me vs. 29 for them, same with air defence. Leaders, mission efficiency etc. all being the same, it seems to me the battle should be more even. I thus suspected some hidden bonus of fighters against light fighters, which is not shown in the battle screen and which would finally be an incentive to build fighters in the first place.

 

[Denniss]

Have yor fighters more org/morale than your interceptors?

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

Again, it depends on if you are looking forward or backwards. Fighter units are the same speed as Light Fighter of one year prior. Much like Range, Speed is not directly correlated with the Unit type. For example, the Me 109 is generally faster than the corresponding Fw 190 model.

WRT to battle issues I'm not sure why you'd need 2:1 with somewhat better units. This also seems off to me. There is nothing we have coded intentionally that would cause this. You are playing N/N, correct?

mm

 

[Pal]

Okay, I managed to get a screenshot of one of those incidents. It is a bit more straightforward, though, as their fighters are one tech year ahead. Still, they totally creamed me 4 vs. 4, which I think is too harsh for not taking any significant damage in return. At the battle's start, we both had full org and full strength, btw.

Yes, I am playing on N/N, and my doctrines favour light fighters over fighters, so they have slightly more org/morale. But what we're looking at here is me losing 20% of my fighters in one battle, while the enemy loses almost nothing in return.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

I can't really explain why you would lose exceedingly badly. but you probably should lose that battle as I see the odds as about 1.25:1 in favor of ENG. I'd note that the left side of the display shows a significantly different level of loses than the main map. So maybe you just can't see all of the ENG loses from the last round of combat?

mm

 

[froglegs]

I have observed since AOD 108 and perhaps earlier that the AI seems to have the advantage in FTR battles. I suspect that there are subtle AI cheats that always direct more AI planes if available to the battle and hence the advantage. Only when I have overwhelming numerical advantage in an area do I see victories. I have no problem with that, but if I always beat the AI in air battles, then I would be upset.

Another possibility is that the AI has an organization regain advantage, also called morale, which puts them back to max org faster. And another thought is that while the human player is flying missions on a monthly basis or even continuous, the AI can wait until it knows that it has superiority before flying into the battle.

It is sort of like if you sail a strong fleet for months in a sea area and you encounter nobody; but if you then sail a weak convoy transport mission, the AI knows where you are and how weak you are. These are the subtle AI cheats of the game.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

Agree that the AI seems to operate without any fog of war. I'll just confirm that we don't build in any AI advantages on N/N.

mm

 

[Commander666]

If the Battle Display is start of battle, it seems UK started with more total org and strength.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

I really think the Battle Display is 1 hour older than the map display. So the last hour causes a lot of loses since GER is already clearly beaten.

mm

 

[Commander666]

Hi,

I really think the Battle Display is 1 hour older than the map display.
mm

Yes, Germany was going to lose this battle before it started. But I thought the battle display is part of the map display. To clarify, the map display is 11:00 hours and includes a combat display (which is same time). At that time (11:00), UK is significantly superior in total org and strength.... so the result for Germany shown in the insert of 4 air units retreating is no surprise at all.

The question is if the battle started at 11:00 or earlier? If earlier, how much earlier; and what was the relative org/strength when combat started? Clearly combat had to start earlier as by 11:00 hours Germany's JG54 doesn't even have org to do a mission at 50%. It has already suffered considerably by 11:00.

Further, I would guess that Germany started this battle with its JG54 both already damaged and with considerably lessened org. In fact, all German units may have started combat at less than full org.

On the other hand, the UK may also have started with one very slightly damaged unit (but not as much as JG54). However, the other 3 UK units probably started at near full org because one unit is still nearly at full org - even though combat obviously began before 11:00

If I'm wrong and combat did begin at 11:00 (or say 10:00) Germany should simply never have flown the mission, IMO, with units so weakened. At the least, JG54 should have been "swapped out" beforehand for a fresh unit from other stack.

Generally, if having available 3 stacks (12 counters) it really is best to have one stack doing nothing other than swapping its best units for the weakest units in other 2 stacks. Only flying 2 stacks (preferably always together because they are based on same airport and also missioned to only one province) is far superior than flying all 3 stacks whenever there is risk of tangling with enemy interceptors or fighters. While that needs micro-management, it largely avoids getting retreats with horrible results as witnessed.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

As noted above, I suspect the info from the Battle Screen is still showing 1000 while the main map is at 1100. One way or the other there is some difference. As the STR/ORG levels of the units don't match properly. So if the battle display is "old" you really can't draw conclusions as to the final ENG STR/ORG from it. This is the key point here. As the original poster was looking at the last ENG information he could see but comparing it with his actual final state.

mm

 

[Commander666]

Definitely one can not make a judgment of the exact ORG/STR levels of any units in the Battle Display because Battle displays always are quite different from actual unit levels. That is easily noticed when one of your fully orged units (example a GAR) is ground attacked by enemy bombers. In the battle display, your unit appears to have quite lessened org, but clicking on the unit reveals it is at very near max org. So while OP got accurate reading of the destruction to his stack clicking on the retreating stack, actual destruction to RAF stack can only be exactly known by reloading as the UK to click on that stack also. A file save would have to have been done at end of combat with then reloading as UK to exactly compare losses.

But I am wondering why you think that time of combat is any different from map time?

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

I was just thinking there was a one hour lag between the two displays. But it could just be that the Battle Display is not accurate. As you noted, the only right way to ccompare results is with save and reload.

mm

 

[Commander666]

The game display is definitely not accurate as can be checked with hourly comparison of clicking any GAR that is being bombed by enemy. All throughout a full battle, GAR actually has much greater org than combat display indicates.

But there could be another inaccuracy which is the 1-hour lag you refer to. Simply stated, a map showing 11:00 hours might have the combat display showing the units as it recorded them an hour before, with updating of that info occurring an hour later - so always having a lag.

In any case, anything seen in combat display at any time regarding org/str really is not accurate. As you say, that needs clicking on the actual stacks.

HOWEVER, my other point was that this kind of close comparison for opposing units in air combat should actually never be needed. Player should instead change tactics so the only thing they see in combat display is such an obvious difference in far greater destruction to enemy that the actual differences from what is really the condition of the enemy stack matters not much. Anything less and it becomes a battle of attrition - something German player should avoid.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

Agree on the tactics angle. Fighting evenly balanced battles wears most nations out and is normally best avoided.

mm

 

[Commander666]

Hi,

Agree on the tactics angle. Fighting evenly balanced battles wears most nations out and is normally best avoided.

mm

That's for sure... although SU might be the exception where attrition works well for them. But for Germany who is actually fighting on 3 fronts (if counting Battle of the Atlantic as a distinct separate front) player can't afford attrition as they would be wearing themselves down against the combined attrition of UK, SU and USA. While each of those countries can counter Germany using attrition tactics, they are each only providing 1/3 the needed attrition to so get 1/1 of the attrition suffered by Germany.

I am guessing that the reinforcements from that single lost air battle which PAL detailed might have caused reinforcements slider to jump up by 20 IC. Wile "disasters" like that will inevitably occur sometimes for all players, tactics must be focused to avoid them as much as possible.

 

[dec152000]

Hi,

Yess, SOV can fight an MP based attrition campaign. USA can do an IC based one. But GER will lose if they follow that sort of strategy since they are short of both IC and MP compared to their foes.

mm