1.11 -- Buggy, but trying harder.

[Pang Bingxun]

I see more a case of "changed meanings" resulting in changed context to claim views have not reversed.

Let me clarify. You changed the context. You refered to org loss caused by ground attack. I clarified that interdiction is better suited to reduce enemy org:

Still, the effect of preventing org regain of retreating troops because of daily ground attack can be valuable;

In the later case interdiction is the way to go, it is interdiction that helps to win wars of movement. Ground attack would be quite powerful for winning wars of attrition, but why go for a warfare of attrition in the first place?

Point #1 CHANGING MEANINGS - there really is no such thing as "war of movement" except your particular spot-of-the-moment meaning of that phrase - whatever that may be.

Let me clarify. In a war of attrition the enemy looses it strenght and manpower mainly during battle. In war of movement the enemy losses its strenght and manpower mainly after the battle itself is over, namely units are attempting to retreat but donnot succeed in that attempt. They are either overrun or encircled and must therefore surrender when still having plently of strenght left.

Anyway, any unit that just lost battle does not have its highest org then. Org is lowest when retreat starts. But you confuse it with stating instead org regain rate". But the simple fact is, if unit has no org starting retreat, and daily bombing kills all org regain, the unit will finish retreat with nil org. The fact that org regain rates do vary depending on percentage that org is at is meaningless to the discussion because the discussion used the parameters of 1) nil org at start of retreat and 2) all regained org gets eliminated each day of bombing - even when regain rate is at its highest. And if you don't ground attack from start of retreat, once you do begin bombing retreating units, any org regained will never be taken away. So the opposite of what you say is true. If you will ground attack retreating units, do so immediately or they will recover org and do so at their fastest rate in the early days of the retreat.

When org is less than 25% of maximum org is regained at a rate 6 times as high than when org is more than 75% of maximum. Hoping to undo or even prevent that all seems optimistic. Maybe it is not utterly impossible, but it is too optimistic for me to include it as a realistic option.

But rest of your quote is also wrong, and - typically - ends with a contradiction. Reducing supplies for a retreating unit doesn't even occur because you are not damaging the infrastructure.

Interdiction destroys the supplies that land divisions carry. If you do enough interdiction, than a land division can lose all its supplies and suffers -50% in combat due to that.

But if it does occur because of some other factor, then it is a harmless effect because the supply will be ample as it is a retreating unit we are discussing here.

Retreating divisions suffer from severe attrition and being low on supplies increases the severity of that a lot. Those attrition losses can exceed the losses of strenght suffered during battle itself.

Well, turns out you can not target an individual unit in a stack all doing land battle. What you describe is not possible.

As i recall it it can happen that not all formations in a stack are attacked. But the targetting may very well be too impresice for a practical application of my theoretical concern in favour of ground attack. That is one of the reasons why i concluded interdiction to be more suitable in most circumstances.

The proper statement here is, "Interdiction should be used in conjunction with land attack to help reduce enemy org." Simple, correct and without impossible modifiers. As regards interdiction lessening supplies I challenge you to prove that the low supply modifier in any land battle is due to interdiction by aircraft versus the ground force attacking the enemy. Admit it, there simply is no way you can interdict an enemy corps THAT YOU ARE NOT DOING LAND COMBAT WITH and ascertain what supply loss they incurred because you can not see an enemy's stockpile. But you can see their strength and org - and that is the only things your bombing can be measured.

Destruction of supplies of land divions is in the magnitude of 0.1 of the org damage from interdiction. There are way to measure that, full control is one way to ease measurement of that a lot.

Practically speaking the loss of supplies can play an important role that is easily underestimated. As during land battle supply consumpion is at the highest the start of a land battle is the right time for interdiction.

Very misleading. While interdiction is indeed less effective against dug in units (so is land combat) interdiction is the best air mission to extract whatever org reduction may be possible including dug in units that you are doing land combat with. Neither mission is more or less picky. That attribute does not exist.

Yes it does. One does want to use the missions when suited best. Regarding supplies and org the timing does matter, at or just before the start of battle is the best timing. The strenght losses by ground attack are less picky, it does not matter much when before a land battle they are suffereed, but they are best suffered completely before the start of a landbattle as that will give your land divisions the lowest enemy strenght to start with which will further exacerbate during battle.

20 days of digging in give +20% to land divisions and -60% to air division attacking them. So land vs. land gets 1/1.2 less effective while air vs. land gets 1/0.4 less effective. Relatively speaking land vs. land get more than twice as effective than air vs. land. That can be a relevant concern when to dispense bombers.

Practically speaking it can still make sense to use interdiction before the loss of dug in bonus because interdiction has to be used when it counts and not after an enemy is beaten already in the sense that those land divisions will not join any further battle before being overrun.

 

[Commander666]

But the targetting may very well be too impresice for a practical application of my theoretical concern....

That I agree with!

 

[MJF]

There is a practical application for this. Make sure that at the start of a war all or at least almost all provinces adjacent to the enemy are indeed empty. Have your units arrive there only 1 or 2 hours after the start of the war. That way the enemy will likely lose its dug in bonus and move its units into provinces apparently ripe for the taking. A nice side effect is that this way you can order your units to continiue their movement to the enemy without delay. This gets rid of up to 5 hours of the 6 hours delay between order and attack that usually is an annoyance at Danzig and Barbarossa.

Not sure I follow this. Are you saying to start an invasion with your troops not yet in the adjacent provinces, i.e., 1-back, but while moving them into the normal invasion point, and that this would "dupe" the enemy into leaving their entrenchments, attempting to attack and take your land? That would get them ou tof dug-in status, for sure. Seems High-maintenance however, but, after all, this is war!

 

[MJF]

I would recommend you completely ignore the suggestion because player can't even ascertain what troops are moving to enemy province to help the defense. While there are indications of which enemy provinces have enemy moving and direction they are moving, you really can not determine if they will actually help the defense of province you are targeting BECAUSE you can not calculate if such enemy reinforcements will arrive before or after you defeated the units currently defending the province. So it is always best to concentrate all to get the initial defenders retreating asap. Just keep your bombers targeting the province you have under land attack for far simpler, safer and more effective results.

The notable exception is IF YOU HAVE A PARATROOPER INVOLVED IN THE LAND BATTLE. That will cause all enemy moving to reinforce the defense to show up in the combat results window. Now you can see exactly which units are where that are moving towards the province you are attacking, and you can attack those other provinces such enemy units are moving from. This can be extremely helpful - especially if your forces have already cause all enemy in the province you attacked to be retreating. Your bombers then are bombing what no longer matters to the defense of that province. You are being prevented from entering that province by the battles from other enemy units in other provinces moving to province you wish to win. Send your bombers to hit those extra enemy right where you find them (battle display gives their location).



Nearly useless as ground attack will get nearly negligible strength loss (because how nerfed) and is inferior for getting org loss. In fact, you shouldn't bomb those units at all because even Interdiction will be negligible as there will not be any noticeable org loss without your land forces contributing thru land combat. If you have the extra bombers and risk is minimal to fly to the extra provinces, then the best mission is probably Logistical Strike to cause a delay in the arrival of those units.

Do you mean if I have dropped PARs on the province I am attacking? I thought you favored dropping them 1 province away, as "sacrificial Lambs," to help my main attack succeed? I have done both, BTW, but mostly in the attacked province, and often, in either case, to save an over-extended unit that is cut off, or about to be.

 

[Commander666]

Do you mean if I have dropped PARs on the province I am attacking? I thought you favored dropping them 1 province away, as "sacrificial Lambs," to help my main attack succeed? I have done both, BTW, but mostly in the attacked province, and often, in either case, to save an over-extended unit that is cut off, or about to be.

Yes, I described the action that occurs when paras are dropped on province you are also land attacking.

No, I do not favor dropping them to assist any land attack in any way (either at the target province or from next door), nor as sacrificial lambs (except the very rarest circumstance).

I favor dropping them to take unprotected airports, to assist in closing a surround by occupying an empty province, and create a supply connection to any of your isolated units if they can drop on an in-between empty province to make a connection. I might drop them next to an ongoing land battle to deny a route of retreat or complete a surround but not to assist the battle.

In short, I favor keeping my paras out of combat although I can not prevent them being attacked once they land - except to bomb whoever is attacking them or perhaps use nearby land troops to attack whoever is attacking my paras... or relieve the pressure on my paras by speedy reinforcement. PARAs are relatively quite weak, very few, but very special and the 3 that I might have I like to keep in pristine condition so they have best change to survive if ever caught alone. So I have used PARAs dropped deep to stop enemy ARM moving to front. But you better have a blitzkrieg happening to not leave those paras out there alone for too long.

When I do use paras to do a proper air assault (attack) you can bet that it will be massively supported by bombers and would only happen if ground forces could not achieve same goal (probably because it is a very urgent matter of needing that win right now for some strategy to work). Taking an empty Paris during Fall Gelb is one example. Amphibing Kiel and landing a para also to then airdrop an empty Berlin is another. While both scenarios might leave the paras isolated behind enemy lines, you can rest assured extensive plans are underway to connect to them (Paris) or extract them (Berlin) using additional fresh TRA. However I won't exploit Sea Lion by dropping a para on undefended province so that I might then instantly land an army. That scenario is nuts!

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Not sure I follow this. Are you saying to start an invasion with your troops not yet in the adjacent provinces, i.e., 1-back, but while moving them into the normal invasion point, and that this would "dupe" the enemy into leaving their entrenchments, attempting to attack and take your land? That would get them ou tof dug-in status, for sure. Seems High-maintenance however, but, after all, this is war!

Seems you got the idea. Another expected effect will be that your troops will be attacking and will be attacked, there likely would be a time when they are involved in 2 battles at the same time. This has serios negative impact on the "seperate" battles, but the same is true for the enemy as well and while both battles are ongoing the total damage done per hour will likely be greater. This will make enemy org fall faster, enabling you to advance faster into enemy territory.

To take full advantage of this strategy one would need some serios interdiction, probably by cheap CAS. On the other side the unit best suited to withstand double combat would be mechanized divisions and due to their high firepower they are the least dependent on air support.

 

[MJF]

When I do use paras to do a proper air assault (attack) you can bet that it will be massively supported by bombers and would only happen if ground forces could not achieve same goal (probably because it is a very urgent matter of needing that win right now for some strategy to work). Taking an empty Paris during Fall Gelb is one example. Amphibing Kiel and landing a para also to then airdrop an empty Berlin is another. While both scenarios might leave the paras isolated behind enemy lines, you can rest assured extensive plans are underway to connect to them (Paris) or extract them (Berlin) using additional fresh TRA. However I won't exploit Sea Lion by dropping a para on undefended province so that I might then instantly land an army. That scenario is nuts!

I was actually going to try that "trick" in my current game, making 3 PARs and 3 TRAs early, which I never do, BUT:

1. Cardiff had 1 GAR unit there.

2. Plymouth had a stack of 12-15 UK divisions, apparently getting ready (if ever...? ) for another Amphib Op, and only 1 in Dover, so I quickly changed course and hit Dover with INF (no Marines - they were sacrificed for the PARs.

Now I'm "having fun" with the PARs!

 

[Commander666]

Yes, paratroopers can indeed be great fun... and it perplexes me how many people simply don't even build them. I guess they think 70 ARM is more fun.

But for the sake of perhaps getting some discussion going in this small forum, I would like to state that some very good MP groups (whom I generally greatly respect) forbid the use of PAR. I am dismayed by such rules. Why not adjust the rules (instead of banning) to perhaps forbid attachments on PAR? Good idea for SP also since WW2 PAR really did not parachute with artillery like the ART brigade represents. Yes, they did use gliders to land anti-tank guns and even very light tanks, but that would need different attachments than game has. And that's why this discussion fits here - discussing how to fix any faults with PAR in SP and/or MP.

I readily admit, if I could not put ART on my PAR (or could not get Offensive Supply on them before jumping), I definitely would not be so brave dropping them several provinces behind enemy lines to make heroes until relief arrived.

BTW, you may find "difficulties" getting OS on single PAR. If so, temporarily combine with other unit like GAR or any other unit, and that pair will then accept OS. Be sure the PAR's commando leader doesn't get removed when combining, but if he does, the other unit can take the org hit to reinstate leader, and then that stack can be taken thru the process of "Create new unit" to instantly cancel the week-long wait period for new leader. Quite a fair trick, IMO, considering the Commando leader was on PAR when it all went SNAFU.

 

[bosman]

Just ignoring the fact, that aircraft is generally too weak in this game, i will say, that "ground attack" could be even removed as in current shape.
There were many cases, when planes directly destroyed a lot of vehicles, equipment and even living force dramatically changing battle outcome.
But in the game we can neither choose which units to attack in certain province nor their type.

Let's imagine the situation (actually happened) when you try to cross the river with any forces and on the other side lay a lot of artillery and tanks to counterattack. Obviously, you can just act with "interdiction" style, but in this case it may not be so effective, so you rather prefer to wreck them on battlefield.

 

[Commander666]

Just ignoring the fact, that aircraft is generally too weak in this game, i will say, that "ground attack" could be even removed as in current shape.

Totally agree with you. Ground attack - as nerfed - has become a nearly useless mission. I mean, if you use 4 TACs bombing every day for 3 weeks you can still eliminate a retreating unit that was less than 5% strength when it started retreat. Meanwhile the damage your air wings took is considerable. There is no point in retaining such an imbalanced mission.

Anyway, I never do ground attack unless the rarest of cases where I really don't want some retreater ending up in the "boondocks" with the option of further retreat means going to Timbuktu. That kind of retreater I might give the mission to 12 TACs to try and eliminate him in a week to get the pain over with.

There were many cases, when planes directly destroyed a lot of vehicles, equipment and even living force dramatically changing battle outcome.

Very true. Stopping the Battle of the Bulge when the skies cleared is just one major example. And I am very sure that the pilots - as they nosed over to bomb and strafe the German columns never asked, "Shall we do interdiction or ground attack?"

In actuality, the only difference between air interdiction and close air support is the relative location of enemy being bombed to one's own forces. All of it is an attack upon the enemy occupying the ground, and therefore "ground attack". But ground attack is a meaningless word. A bomb dropped on a tank so close that it is firing at you - or dropped on a tank 5 miles back that is headed your way - is essentially the identical attack as far as the aircraft doing the bombing run and target are concerned. One can not distinguish the combat between that bomb and its target, and only the relative location of the combat to the nearness of one's own forces can be distinguished.

But AoD - given its map of provinces - can not differentiate between true interdiction (targeting distant forces) or close air support (targeting forces one is engaged against).

 

[MJF]

There must be a way to modify the files to increase ground attack damage by CAS's at least. Also, the Luftwaffe takes the most damage when attacking in the USA, maybe because USA fighters are more effective at interception than INT's? Certainly FTR's are better vs German INT's than INT's.

 

[bosman]

There must be a way to modify the files to increase ground attack damage by CAS's at least.

You can simply modify "misc.txt" in line:
# Air - Land Combat STR damage (All Air units attacks against land units)
0.20
I guess that increasing this value to 25-30 should be fair.

Alternatively you can decrease vulnerability of aircraft towards land units by modyfying these lines:
# Land - Air Combat ORG damage (Increasing this value will increase the org dmg air units takes from land units)
0.15
# Land - Air Combat STR damage (Increasing this value will increase the str dmg air units takes from land units)
0.05
which i tested some time ago with interesting results.

 

[MJF]

You can simply modify "misc.txt" in line:
# Air - Land Combat STR damage (All Air units attacks against land units)
0.20
I guess that increasing this value to 25-30 should be fair.

Alternatively you can decrease vulnerability of aircraft towards land units by modyfying these lines:
# Land - Air Combat ORG damage (Increasing this value will increase the org dmg air units takes from land units)
0.15
# Land - Air Combat STR damage (Increasing this value will increase the str dmg air units takes from land units)
0.05
which i tested some time ago with interesting results.

Can you just increase CAS ground attack damage? TACs aren't really designed to incur much ground attack/strength damage, unless on a ship...?

 

[Pang Bingxun]

There must be a way to modify the files to increase ground attack damage by CAS's at least. Also, the Luftwaffe takes the most damage when attacking in the USA, maybe because USA fighters are more effective at interception than INT's? Certainly FTR's are better vs German INT's than INT's.

I dare to say that this is certainly not the case. All else being equal INT will win against MRF. Say there are 4 Int1940 vs. 4 MRF1940 and all modifiers are the same, than the superior air defence of the INT will win the battle. Unlike MRF Interceptors are specialized for air vs. air combat.

MRF have only one decisive advantage and that is range, but in AoD range does not matter during battle, just for org loss during rebasing.

Depending on doctrines and weather different modifiers apply for INT and MRF.

Can you just increase CAS ground attack damage?

Am a afraid that is currently not possible.

 

[MJF]

I dare to say that this is certainly not the case. All else being equal INT will win against MRF. Say there are 4 Int1940 vs. 4 MRF1940 and all modifiers are the same, than the superior air defence of the INT will win the battle. Unlike MRF Interceptors are specialized for air vs. air combat.

MRF have only one decisive advantage and that is range, but in AoD range does not matter during battle, just for org loss during rebasing.

Depending on doctrines and weather different modifiers apply for INT and MRF.

I think it's safe to say that, other things being equal, a "current" WW II fighter would win vs a "current" WW II interceptor. The greater maneuverability and even armament of the FTR would win out over the slower, if better armoured, INT. The P-51 was a fighter, and the best of the war, until the 262 showed up. Why would you even make fighters if this was not the case (In the actual war)? In the game, range, yes, but one only gains a little ground attack with a fighter, so I usually sacrifice them with Germany, and make 2 x 4 CAS. With USA, I make FTR's and TAC's, no CAS's (but research CASs for CV values).

I am afraid that is currently not possible.

That's sad.

 

[Commander666]

Unlike MRF Interceptors are specialized for air vs. air combat.

You got this completely backwards.

1) Interceptors are designed specifically to prevent missions of enemy aircraft, particularly bombers and reconnaissance aircraft, and destroy them, relying usually on great speed and powerful armament. That is not air-to-air combat but "Interception".

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Interceptor_aircraft

NOTE: "air vs air combat" as you wrote would actually be some volume of air trying to do combat with some other air volume. The term is quite wrong used in this forum. While you might not know it, you actually mean "dog fight" (air-to-air combat").

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Air+to+air+combat

2) Fighters are designed specifically to destroy opposing fighters (and interceptors) using agility to excel in air-to-air combat (dog fight). Things considered most were top speed and maneuverability at both high and low altitudes. However, visibility out of the cockpit, armor, durability, safety, armament, range, and overall flying performance mattered a lot.

https://www.thetoptens.com/fighter-planes-world-war-ii/

You should not be influenced by the artificial values of AoD counters to make historic statements.

 

[Commander666]

Sadly, Pang, you got it mostly wrong as concerns AoD also.

All else being equal INT will win against MRF. Say there are 4 Int1940 vs. 4 MRF1940 and all modifiers are the same, than the superior air defence of the INT will win the battle. .

In AoD no different unit types are equal and trying to make a case of "all else being equal" is simply a non-sensical case. The AoD counters of INT and FTR (what Pang calls MRT) are not equal in most of their attributes . THEIR MODIFIERS ARE NOT THE SAME.

Next, choosing to compare only 1940 IMP INT versus 1940 IMP FTR is rather limiting one's point-of-view. Why don't you start with a proper comparison as to how the aircraft will appear on the map next to each other?

Using the 1939 Game Scenario START, we see that Germany AI has researched and is able to build simultaneously Basic 1937 INT (INT-3) and Basic 1938 FTR (FTR-1). This is the first valid comparison. It is noted that:

• the FTR-1 model has double the soft and hard attack values of the INT-3 model;
• the INT-3 has no naval attack but the FTR-1 does
• The two different models have equal air attack, but the FTR-1 has slightly greater surface defence while the INT-3 has much greater Air Defence. The latter attribute (INT-3 air defence = 7, FTR-1 = 4) usually results in INT-3 winning against FTR-1, which is the only fact Pang got right.

However, as things are NEVER equal (an undisputable fact) it turns out that a stack of four FTR-1 often wins against a stack of four INT-3. In fact, Pang supports this view of "general inequality practically speaking" when he writes:

Depending on doctrines and weather different modifiers apply for INT and MRF.

But the discussion was not really about INT versus FTR combat but rather about ground attack. As such, I assure you that extremely different modifiers apply with FTR having double the attack values (as was already stated).

NOW LET's LOOK AT THE NEXT COMPARISON (which Pang referred to). Unfortunately, he is even more wrong when comparing 1940 INT (INT-4) versus 1940 FTR (FTR-2).

• the FTR-2 now has TRIPLE the soft attack and hard attack values of INT-4
• FTR-2 has double the naval attack of INT-4
• Again they have identical Air Attack
• Again, FTR-2 has slightly greater Surface Defence but the INT-4's superior Air Defense advantage has been reduced (only 9 for INT-4 versus 6 for FTR-2 meaning only 50% more whereas before INT was 75% more).

So, while the 1940 INT-4 has improved to now be able to mission for naval bombing, it has decreased it's greater advantage it used to have in air combat versus FTR, and most importantly - it has not improved at all in ground attack.

MRF have only one decisive advantage and that is range,

I would be happiest if you just retracted this very incorrect statement. I just detailed numerous decisive advantages FTR (or MRF) have over comparable INT... such being:

• naval attack when INT can't even do that (in the early models) and always greater naval attack at any comparison
• far greater soft and hard attack which relates to ground attack as per the actual current discussion that was happening

...but in AoD range does not matter during battle, just for org loss during rebasing.

I am not sure how to characterize this statement. Perhaps "flawed common sense" is the problem. It goes without saying that - during AoD Air Combat - range then does not natter because - OBVIOUSLY - all battling aircraft had the range to enter combat. But common sense says that the FTR's greater range matters very much for the FTR to be able to intercept enemy INT in places the enemy INT would otherwise be safe. Example: While RAF INT might patrol off-shore British Isles eastern and western coastline; and German INT can't touch them there - but the German FTR can engage them there.

In fact, this truth leads to the only logical statement being, "FTR's greater range is the advantage that critically matters in many battles because only the greater range resulted in the FTR being able to enter battle". And this simple fact comes majorly into play when discussing ground attack and considering actual location of friendly air bases that might be used for such attacks on a retreating enemy. Range is everything for a multi-fighter when you are beyond the limited range of CAS or the shorter range of INT. In fact, range becomes so paramount at its extreme borders that it equates to the importance of also increasing ESC/FTR brigade range just to have TACs continue to be "more mission practical" because they can then bomb further and still be protected .

However, I don't think Pang's preferred INT based in Warsaw will be even operational when discussing the distance to most provinces where enemy might be retreating from. And therein lies the key strategy why flexible players build FTR (and lots of them). It is mostly because of the greater range attribute, but their superior multi-role attributes of naval combat, better interdiction and stronger ground attack are very important also.

 

[Commander666]

I think it's safe to say that, other things being equal, a "current" WW II fighter would win vs a "current" WW II interceptor. The greater maneuverability and even armament of the FTR would win out over the slower, if better armoured, INT. The P-51 was a fighter, and the best of the war, until the 262 showed up. Why would you even make fighters if this was not the case (In the actual war)?

Yes, in real life the better fighters usually won over the dedicated interceptors. The Me-163 and Me-262 are extreme examples of jet rocket interceptors that were very vulnerable to prop-driven fighters once the Allies learned how to defeat them.

But I can't agree with much of the above as most aircraft that AoD classifies as INT were actually fighters. AoD even calls them that in their description but then uses INT on the counters to create an artificial category. Fighters and interceptors are the same thing in most cases. Some extreme examples exist such as the Komet-163 only ever being an interceptor.

Fighter or interceptor is a distinction of mission and not aircraft classification. Most WW2 aircraft did both. All aircraft of this general type were called "fighters" with "interceptor" being a specialized type of fighter designed to be quick to reach the altitude of enemy bombers and knock them out of the sky with cannon. It really is with the later jet models that the distinction between aircraft very dedicated to interception mission versus general fighter aircraft becomes a more obvious classification.

q=WW2+fighter+or+interceptor&qpvt=WW2+fighter+or+interceptor&FORM=IGRE

https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/ww2-fighter-aircraft.asp

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Interceptor_aircraft

In the game, range, yes, but one only gains a little ground attack with a fighter, so I usually sacrifice them with Germany, and make 2 x 4 CAS. With USA, I make FTR's and TAC's, no CAS's (but research CASs for CV values).

No, one gains a lot of ground attack with a FTR versus an INT. Yes, CAS are even MUCH better for ground attack, but sacrificing fighters because of that single attribute is actually sacrificing ground attack EVERYWHERE that the extremely short ranged CAS can't reach - unless the discussion changes to include TACs (at which point you still need FTR to protect those TACs since TAC even with ESC/FTR brigade doing ground attack usually get very damaged if attacked by enemy INT). And not building FTR at all is also sacrificing all the other attributes of FTR which are enormous when played effectively as to using them where they excel over everything else.

• removing enemy NAVs from attacking your fleets that might be off-shore beyond INT range (basing FTR in Brest comes to mind).
• rebasing FTR (and not INTs) into conquered SU to protect your bombers from the SU INT. German INTs are hopelessly short on range, but FTR easily down the SU INTs as the latter are already damaged and very over stacked to result in poor org regain.
• using them along any shore line to scout for naval threats when you have not yet built up enough of a naval bomber force. The Med comes to mind where basing FTR in Malta or on Palermo will give total coverage across that section of the sea to assure fleets don't sneak thru.
• Using them to patrol for enemy fleets when enemy fighters might be in same area. The Japanese Pacific Islands as US Marines take them come to mind as the problem with using NAVs alone is that Japanese FTR will splash the American NAVs. So use FTR to find the IJN fleets, then add NAVs to damage those fleets so the USN wins the naval engagement once it gets there.
• There are dozens of other examples limited only by player creativity. FTR in Finland because no INT can cover all of Finland from a single base, FTR in Anchorage as the only practical aircraft that can stop Japanese player delivering an airborne invasion there (from base built in the Aleutians).
• In short, not having FTR simply is "not having any air defense over much of the map".
• I could go on and on.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

The greater maneuverability and even armament of the FTR would win out over the slower, if better armoured, INT.

The Int are the ones with better maneuverability. MRF however need to carry more fuel for greater range, do carry more weapons suited for fighting targets at the ground and are better able to withstand attacks from the ground.

Let us compare the relevant features at same level of tech

Int1937 vs MRF1938
cost = 12 vs 14
buildtime = 150 vs 150
manpower = 1 vs 1
maxspeed = 500 vs 500
surfacedetectioncapability = 3 vs 4
airdetectioncapability = 2 vs 3
surfacedefence = 6 vs 7
airdefence = 7 vs 4
airattack = 9 vs 9
softattack = 1 vs 2
hardattack = 1 vs 2
navalattack = 0 vs 1
range = 275 vs 350
supplyconsumption = 0.9 vs 1.1
fuelconsumption = 1.7 vs 1.8

Int1940 vs MRF1940
cost = 14 vs 16
buildtime = 150 vs 155
manpower = 1 vs 1
maxspeed = 600 vs 600
surfacedetectioncapability = 4 vs 6
airdetectioncapability = 4 vs 6
surfacedefence = 7 vs 8
airdefence = 9 vs 6
airattack = 12 vs 12
softattack = 1 vs 3
hardattack = 1 vs 3
navalattack = 1 vs 2
range = 300 vs 400
supplyconsumption = 1.0 vs 1.2
fuelconsumption = 1.8 vs 1.9

Int1943 vs MRF1943
cost = 16 vs 19
buildtime = 155 vs 160
manpower = 1 vs 1
maxspeed = 650 vs 650
surfacedetectioncapability = 6 vs 8
airdetectioncapability = 6 vs 8
surfacedefence = 10 vs 10
airdefence = 11 vs 9
airattack = 15 vs 15
softattack = 2 vs 5
hardattack = 2 vs 5
navalattack = 1 vs 2
range = 325 vs 500
supplyconsumption = 1.1 vs 1.3
fuelconsumption = 1.9 vs 2.0

Int1944 vs MRF1944
cost = 19 vs 22
buildtime = 160 vs 165
manpower = 1 vs 1
maxspeed = 900 vs 900
surfacedetectioncapability = 7 vs 7
airdetectioncapability = 7 vs 7
surfacedefence = 16 vs 16
airdefence = 18 vs 15
airattack = 22 vs 22
softattack = 2 vs 6
hardattack = 2 vs 6
navalattack = 2 vs 3
range = 350 vs 550
supplyconsumption = 1.2 vs 1.6
fuelconsumption = 2.1 vs 2.2

Int1947 vs MRF1947
cost = 22 vs 25
buildtime = 160 vs 165
manpower = 1 vs 1
maxspeed = 1100 vs 1100
surfacedetectioncapability = 8 vs 8
airdetectioncapability = 10 vs 10
surfacedefence = 18 vs 18
airdefence = 20 vs 18
airattack = 27 vs 27
softattack = 3 vs 7
hardattack = 3 vs 7
navalattack = 2 vs 4
range = 400 vs 600
supplyconsumption = 1.3 vs 1.6
fuelconsumption = 2.3 vs 2.5

Int1950 vs MRF1950
cost = 25 vs 30
buildtime = 165 vs 170
manpower = 1 vs 1
maxspeed = 1600 vs 1600
surfacedetectioncapability = 9 vs 9
airdetectioncapability = 12 vs 12
surfacedefence = 20 vs 20
airdefence = 22 vs 20
airattack = 30 vs 30
softattack = 3 vs 8
hardattack = 3 vs 8
navalattack = 2 vs 4
range = 450 vs 650
supplyconsumption = 1.4 vs 1.8
fuelconsumption = 2.5 vs 2.8

Int1959 vs MRF1962
cost = 27 vs 32
buildtime = 165 vs 170
manpower = 1 vs 1
maxspeed = 2200 vs 2200
surfacedetectioncapability = 10 vs 10
airdetectioncapability = 14 vs 14
surfacedefence = 22 vs 22
airdefence = 26 vs 22
airattack = 33 vs 33
softattack = 4 vs 8
hardattack = 4 vs 8
navalattack = 3 vs 4
range = 500 vs 700
supplyconsumption = 1.6 vs 1.8
fuelconsumption = 2.8 vs 2.8

There are some differences. air attack is always equal, but air defence is always in favour of Int.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

You should not be influenced by the artificial values of AoD counters to make historic statements.

I did not. I stayed within AoD. I made statements about air vs. air combat or air to air as you seem to prefer to call it. As Interceptor are specialized for that purpose they do excel while MRF are are multi role aircrafts as the term already suggests.

I would be happiest if you just retracted this very incorrect statement.

I made the statement in the context air vs. air combat, the fight for air supremency. In this context my statement is quite correct. There can be situations where the greater range of MRF unfolds to a decisive advantage.

Prior to changes done by advanced doctrines Int and MRF start with the same modifiers, thus making "all else equal" quite applicable. There are however doctrines that increase the night defence of MRF and there are 2 doctrines in the Interceptor doctrine tree that increase attack values of MRF in rain and snow by 10% each but give the same type of increase of only 5% for Int. This may nudge the balance as well, but on a strategic level this difference would seems to matter less than range.

Yes, in real life the better fighters usually won over the dedicated interceptors. The Me-163 and Me-262 are extreme examples of jet rocket interceptors that were very vulnerable to prop-driven fighters once the Allies learned how to defeat them.

The funny thing is that the Me-262 is not classified as Interceptor but as MRF1944 in AoD.

Fighters and interceptors are the same thing in most cases. Some extreme examples exist such as the Komet-163 only ever being an interceptor.

Fighter or interceptor is a distinction of mission and not aircraft classification. Most WW2 aircraft did both.

Indeed. In later phases of WW2 CAS became less useful because the skis were fight over too heavily. Most ground attacks were thus done by fighters instead.