1.11 -- Buggy, but trying harder.

[Commander666]

There are some differences.

Well, earlier you had said, "all modifiers are the same" (Post #34). Glad I was able to correct you.

But the new comparison you make for supposedly "relevant features" is so complicated and mostly irrelevant to the discussion of "ground attack" that I see little value in trying to convert you any further. I mean, what does one do with a guy that insists on using "air vs air" when it was explained how wrong that is? And, "No, Pang", Air-to-air combat (or dogfight) is not what I prefer, as you claim. Rather it is what I use because it is the common convention and what you will find anywhere on the internet (your posts excepted).

Read the links I provided so you at least learn what an interceptor is versus a fighter. In every case you use the terms, you have them mixed up backwards.

The Me-262 is an exception because it was designed as a fighter, but when it finally reached deployment many years later in 1944 it was used against bombers (so acted as an interceptor). Just read history to learn the facts.

BTW, while Me-262 did tangle with Allied fighters, it mostly lost. Turns out it's much faster speed made it very hard to target any slower fighters - by the time pilot achieved targeting - it already needed to veer off to avoid collision. And its 30mm cannon was too short range to give more than a 2 sec firing time (but targeting takes 2 seconds). Hence they developed rockets to aim broadside at big bombers, but nothing to beat the more nimbler Allied fighters. There were several aces that shot down 6 or more Me-262 with one getting 12, IIRC. So, Me-262 was not used as a FTR in 1944. AoD has it wrong.

In fact, the Germans were forced to deploy regular fighters over the Me-262 airbases just to protect Me-262 trying to take off or land as the Allies so much swarmed over those bases to prevent Me-262 landing or taking off that - eventually - the Germans installed "flak lanes" with quadruple AA just to drive off the Allied fighters so their rocket planes could even operate. Pretty funny unless you were a Me-262 pilot all mixed up about whether you were a FTR, MTR or INT.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Well, earlier you had said, "all modifiers are the same" (Post #34). Glad I was able to correct you.

You did not. You seem to refer to

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.

"All else being equal" is not a statement, but a condition. It is just english for ceteris paribus.

 

[Commander666]

Can you read your sentence which is printed as, "Say there are 4 Int1940 vs. 4 MRF1940 and all modifiers are the same"?

The point is that the modifiers are not the same... and all the Latin in the world isn't going to change that.

It should not need any expertise to further realize that - if the condition is that all modifiers are the same, then - OBVIOUSLY - you can't even have "superior air defense of the INT" as then all is no longer the same.

That would be per se nota which results in the Prima facie that your example is nonapplicābilis.

 

[MJF]

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



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.

Here is my status as Germany, January 10, 1942, Normal/Aggressive, Sealane I.:

W. Europe conquered, N. Spain joined up (when I DOWd R. Spain), Sealion successful, Barbarossa July '40 successful, Sep't '40, N. A. conquered, before Pearl Harbor even. Japan liberated China-Nanjing, then abandoned them to their "fate" as they go trotting around the S. Pacific. Italy took N. Africa early but now can't push hapless UK down to Kenya. Most of my power is in N. W. USA area, being deployed to Persia & Kashmir to finish off USSR with a May '41 attack. Except for a side-show in Burma, UK, etc and Nat. China can wait.

Now, my 28 heavy Subs (3 groups of 9 but I wonder if 5 of 6 might be better), 6 BC 4s, and most of the original Kriegsmarine (including Baltic Fleet and 4 ASW fleets of 3-4 DD 4s with mixed CL 3/4s, & CA 4s) have not destroyed as much allied Navy as a CTF/Base Strike group usually does (or even a high-maintenance S.I & tons of SS 4s do), so the UK has 7 CVs, 14 BBs, 2 BCs, and 77 other ships, their 0 fighters, 3 bombers and 26 INF DIVs (14 spies say so) are no match for my merry group of Axis members.

My 16 INTs, 16 TACs/esc, 12 NAVs, 6 TRAs, 8 CASs/esc, and newly arrived & unused 4 STRs, along with about 36 INTs, 9 CASs, 15 TACs, & 4 NAVs available to me from the minor allies I assume command of will have to be enough. I have no time & no IC to make fighters, even though INTs suck in what's left of the USSR. No one in my Axis group made Fighters.

I have, I had, no time or $$$ to make fighters. The longer I delay the stronger my adversaries become, compared to my lean, mean forces.

This, I believe, is exactly what Germany should've done to optimize their chances. Maybe not hitting CAN/USA directly, but all the European activity.

YES -- the AI in AoD is inept enough to allow this - So were the Allies and Stalin! Did the UK get a deal with Stalin early in 1939, instead of allowing ideological differences to get in the way? Why did the French stop their 1939 attack on Germany through the Maginot line after only small but undeniable progress? How did the superior French tanks lose out to Panzer IIs and IIIs in May '40? If Germany had destroyed/captured the Dunkirk pocket, continued their luftwaffe attack on the Dover airfields & planes, & landed only a few thousand soldiers on English beaches, the Brits might've replaced Churchill and made peace. If Germany figured our Wilhelm Canaris was a resistance member, who steered Franco out of joining the Axis, and replaced him before his trip to Spain, If Barbarossa's lead armor didn't stop until Moscow & Leningrad fell, If Germany managed to convince Japan to hit the USSR in the East during (a 1940 even) Barbarossa, promising the Empire that they would help them with their "American Problem" after the USSR was finished or neutralized .....?

 

[MJF]

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.

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

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

Herein lies your problem. Fighter ranges are way too low here. Interceptors are probably more accurate.

Red Tails in March '45 flew out of Ramitelli (Campomarino) to the Daimler Benz tank factory outside Berlin, where their P-51's encountered and shot down 3 ME-262's. Looks like at least 1300 km 1-way air here. Also, https://www.awesomestories.com/asset/view/RED-TAIL-ESCORTS-Red-Tails gives us this:

"During March of 1945, Allied bombers undertook a long and dangerous mission to Berlin. They had to fly about 1600 miles to reach the Daimler Benz tank factory near the German capital. Led by Colonel Davis himself, until his plane developed engine trouble before reaching Berlin, the Red Tails escorted the bombers on the round-trip journey."

1 Miles = 1.6 Km, so 1600 Miles = 2560 km / 2 = 1281 km, or range of about 1250 - 1300 km 1-way, not these game numbers above. Also http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?276433-Interceptors-vs-Fighters-in-WWII gives us this:

Although most admit the distinction sharpened near the end of the war and after, INTs clearly can have shorter range, more air defense ratings (armor), poorer soft/hard attack, and inferior speed vs fighters. As for air attack values, that I guess would depend upon how much the faster speed of the corresponding FTR plays into the resolution formulas in the game.

Finally, pilot skill (if a variable in AoD?) and/or commander skill/traits should be a highly-rated factor. Let's not forget that.

 

[Commander666]

Herein lies your problem. Fighter ranges are way too low.

Agreed!

Red Tails in March '45 flew out of Ramitelli (Campomarino) to the Daimler Benz tank factory outside Berlin, ... Looks like at least 1300 km 1-way air here.

The Red Wings flew P-51D which have a range of 2656 km using external drop tanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang

As 1300 km 1-way is only 2600 km round trip, it was possible.

Other research discovered that it was a 1600 miles mission or 2560 km. So possible.
http://www.108thwing.ang.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/864261/red-tail-angels-the-story-of-the-tuskegee-airmen/

Although most admit the distinction sharpened near the end of the war and after, INTs clearly can have shorter range, more air defense ratings (armor), poorer soft/hard attack, and inferior speed vs fighters.

I can't agree with the last point of "inferior speed vs fighters"
This is not what matters with dedicated interceptors who had to catch bombers as they appeared overhead and before they passed out of range. The problem was reaching bomber altitude to do an interception. This took tremendous power needing hugh amount of fuel burn. While fighters might reach max altitude slowly and efficiently over 15 minutes and then patrol, the rocket interceptor took off once bombers were spotted, and shot up vertically to reach them before they disappeared. For example, the ME-163 reached 39,000 feet in less than 2 1/2 minutes.

It wasn't even speed really, rather "rate of climb" which required superior vertical thrust ability. This needed a massive fuel capacity because of the rapid fuel consumption; and the weight of that results in very limited range for any aircraft type needing to gain altitude at max rate. Like, most the fuel is gone upon reaching interception altitude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163_Komet#Specifications:_Me_163B-1a

And as per Pang, I would like to tell him that it is this difference - a fighter type aircraft flying as to patrols (and being able to dog fight, shot up bombers or strafe ground targets) versus an aircraft type that is designed for maximum rate of climb to reach altitude of enemy aircraft very quickly to "make an interception" that is what defines a dedicated interceptor. Be it other enemy fighters, bombers or balloons they intercept matters not at all to the mission being one of "interception".

Think of "American football" and a quarterback throwing the ball, but an opposing team member jumps up to make the catch before the ball can reach the intended receiver. Those dynamics constitute "interception". And that is the case when bombers get attacked... they are intercepted.

But when opposing fighters, or interceptors, or fighter/interceptors meet then it is called air-to-air combat or dogfight. Yes, a fighter from one side might indeed pull off an interception of the opposing fighter - especially if the attack comes from out of the sun - but it is still air-to-air combat for sake of clarity because we really don't know if the targeted fighter will go down on the attacker's first pass... or will there be a dogfight?

But bombers never dogfight with enemy planes, do they Pang? And terming combat against bombers as "air versus air" is just incorrect use of English (or maybe not knowing what the correct term is).

 

[Pang Bingxun]

The point is that the modifiers are not the same...

Yes there are many cases where the modifiers are in fact the same. Getting same unit experience and leaders effect will be though, but it is at least possible at the start of a war. Later on this will be practically impossible, but this was never the point.

It should not need any expertise to further realize that - if the condition is that all modifiers are the same, then - OBVIOUSLY - you can't even have "superior air defense of the INT" as then all is no longer the same.

All else equal means that everything else is equal, but of course not the proporties of Int vs. MRF. Air defence is not a modifier but something that modifiers are applied on. This really should be obvious enough. Air defense is different prior to modifiers.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Although most admit the distinction sharpened near the end of the war and after, INTs clearly can have shorter range, more air defense ratings (armor), poorer soft/hard attack, and inferior speed vs fighters. As for air attack values, that I guess would depend upon how much the faster speed of the corresponding FTR plays into the resolution formulas in the game.

There are some problems with terminology when it comes to interceptors.

There are few cases of dedicated interceptor. In AoD those are the rocket interceptors. After WW2 but before the emergency of Ballistic Missiles with nuclear warhead there also were dedicated interceptors dedicated to intercept strategic bombers carring nuclear warheads. This concept however become more or less obsolete with mass availability of ICBMs that were effectively impossible to intercept. Dedicated interceptors are an exceptional phenomenon and of mitigated importance when it comes to AoD.

There are air superiority fighters or interceptor fighters in AoD. For convenience we shorten this term to interceptors or Int.

There are multi role fighters. Those are aircracts that tend to be bigger than interceptors fighters and are equipped to attack targets at the surface.

The P51 Mustang is an aircraft that was mainly used in the role of an escort fighter over high distances.

But bombers never dogfight with enemy planes, do they Pang?

They donnot, so that did exclude this term for my intended use.

I am aware of the terms surface to air missile, air to surface missile and air to air missile. This terminology seems to focus on dedicated weapons(missiles) instead of more complete weapon systems such as aircrafts. Given that describing aircraft vs. aircraft combat as air to air combat is maybe not an outright bad idea, but does not seem ideal either. air vs. air seemed the best suited term as it does not exclude aircrafts in the air attacking aircrafts still on the ground. But all this is real minor.

 

[Commander666]

If Germany had destroyed/captured the Dunkirk pocket, continued their luftwaffe attack on the Dover airfields & planes, & landed only a few thousand soldiers on English beaches, the Brits might've replaced Churchill and made peace.

This is an interesting statement because:

• Had the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) been surrendered at Dunkirk, England would have lost much of the army that was available to defend the British Isles. Trained soldiers are not so easily replaced.
• Diverting to bombing London did give a critical respite to the beleaguered RAF... so much so some historians claim that Hitler's orders to change targeting directly resulted in the RAF surviving and gaining strength to win the Battle of Britain.
• There is no doubt that Germany could have easily landed a few thousand troops on Britain's shores. Just paratroopers could have dropped any night.

But then your scenario hits some serious objections:
1) Sea Lion was abandoned not because the Germans could not land 40-50,000 troops including airborne on British shores, but because the naval situation was such that Germany could not count on keeping supplied any size force once it landed in England because of superior RN. The Kriegsmarine could not maintain a beachhead with supplies because the inferiority of the Germany navy had been clearly demonstrated in the Norway landings. And neither could the Luftwaffe drive off the RN from interfering with supply of a beach head anytime after the Battle of Britain clarified who had air superiority.

2) But the British people replacing Churchill anytime after Dunkirk is probably the greatest wrong assumption in the scenario. Admitably, it goes without saying that Churchill must be removed or - clearly - there will not be any discussion of a peace.

So let's assume that the Miracle of Dunkirk became the unmitigated disaster of Dunkirk with the BEF lost in its entirety. Well, Churchill already had stated in a speech to the House of Commons on May 28th, this is "a colossal military disaster", saying "the whole root and core and brain of the British Army" had been stranded at Dunkirk and seemed about to perish or be captured. Did anybody demand that Churchill should be ousted for what was already known to be a massive disaster unfolding? No. Why? Because he was able to give the Brits hope, and his leadership included keeping on giving hope regardless of disaster size. His later handling of The London Blitz shows how - using enemy adversity - Churchill could stiffen resolve to endure and never give up as things got worse.

Definitely, Churchill could never have made his "Miracle of Dunkirk" speech as he did on June 4th when the evacuation was completed. But he would still have done the major part in that speech about "we shall fight on the beaches" (and everywhere… only now we need do it even better without a BEF). Even with a BEF disaster, Churchill could have kept strong the British morale, and that was why he was brought to power at a most dangerous time, and why he would have stayed in power even with enemy on British soil.

IMO, there was zero chance of the British ever surrendering. It just isn't in the British character to do that. Not even the French really surrendered and held out where they could with their remaining army - The Free French.

While the BEF certainly was very important, Britain did have other forces in England, and a retreat to Scotland to make a final stand augmented by the civilian population (and supplied by the USA) while starving the German beachhead with Churchill ranting (possibly) about "Our navy will sink their transports, our air force will bomb their supply lines, we will even throw rocks from Hadrian's Wall at them, AND WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER" would have worked to keep the fierce statesman in power - mostly because he gave enormous hope to the people.

In fact, regardless of what scenario you may suggest including Britain also losing the Battle of Britain and Sea Lion being totally successful, the wily and determined orator Winston Churchill already beat you to what the outcome will be when he stated June 4th, "We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old."

So there would never have been a surrender, and there was little chance that Churchill, who was asked to lead the country with the invasion of France on May 10/40, would have been ousted anytime very soon. In fact peace deals were suggested by some defeatists... and Churchill dealt with them rather quickly.

 

[Commander666]

My 16 INTs, 16 TACs/esc, 12 NAVs, 6 TRAs, 8 CASs/esc, and newly arrived & unused 4 STRs,
I have no time & no IC to make fighters, even though INTs suck in what's left of the USSR... … … no time or $$$ to make fighters. The longer I delay the stronger my adversaries become, compared to my lean, mean forces.

Again your early conquest of the Allies is impressive, but I read your "no time or $$$ to make fighters" as a lament. Looking at the aircraft numbers you have given, I search for the reason that created your woes. Obviously, the early circa is working against you, but I feel there might be more basic reasons.

Let's face it, it is only 11.2 IC to begin ONE line of FTR as soon as you have researched the tech. I am sure there are dozens of things you could cut in 1939 to raise the needed available IC (like SS-4 instead of SSH). That is really just a bit of priority rearranging to lay down the 1st fighter line. Far more important is the willpower to do it as soon as possible so you do not - years later - realize how much you need them... but have none.

But 1 line of FTR is not enough, so let's look for major IC savings to get FTR construction doubled. Turns out Germany actually can win with just 8 TACs if it has 8 CAS. In fact, I have never had more than 12 TACs. Cut back on them, and you converted the IC into 4-8 FTR. In short, you must be building 2 lines FTR. Easily done if you just stop TAC construction much earlier.

Next, how many lines of NAV are you running? It should be 1 only but probably 2 max in your case of accelerated conquests.

Next, how did you get 4 STR by 1942? That is major IC and you definitely should not have done more than 2 lines so early.
In fact, if you cancelled this you could easily be building 4 lines of FTR and have achieved 20 units by end 1942. Problem solved.

Lack of FTR for Germany really is only lack of commitment to build them, I think. And, as stated, that commitment is tested when you achieve the tech... but for umpteen reasons delay, and delay, and delay putting down that first line of fighters. Well, you know how that story ends.

EDIT: Thought I should check my last game and do comparison using my Jan 9/42 file save versus your Jan 10/42):

You: 16 INT, 16 TAC/esc, 12 NAV, 6 TRA, 8 CAS/esc, 4 STR
Me: 24 INT, 12 TAC/esc, 4 NAV, 6 TRA, 8 CAS/esc , 12 FTR (building 4 STR, 2 FTR and 1 NAV)

Fairly similar except I got 20 more INT and FTR combined for 20 less TAC, NAV and STR (combined). So I think the point is well made that it really is only player priority that results in having no FTR.

In my game Barbarossa concluded successfully in late 1941 with Trans Ural Republic being my puppet and Japan holding huge area of Soviet Far East. Remaining SU is only a minor annoyance once peace treat expires. I have England and not sure why I have left Scotland to the UK. Maybe I still working on their fleets and want them in Scapa Flow. Currently I am finishing off India, partner Italy has most of Africa, and partner Spain has Gibraltar. Partner Japan puppeted China, is finishing of East Indies but has not yet taken Philippines or Wake or anything eastwards of there. USA just got Casablanca and I am currently moving against that, but have not been across Atlantic yet other than with subs.

Amazingly, you have IC 744/437 versus my 483/322. I could be 30% higher if I did different minister/political choices. However, I suspect my land army is bigger:
65 INF, 15 CAV, 14 MOT, 3 LtARM, 27 ARM, 3 PAR, 6 MAR, 18 MTN, 74 GAR, 5 HQ (total = 230).

 

[Pang Bingxun]

It may make sense to simplify to use only MRF and possibly TRA if going for Paratroopers. When advancing fast Int and CAS lose a potentially large part of their usefulness. Until the enemy has STR-Esc in numbers MRF do suffice for air superiority and MRF1940 do also suffice for naval interdiction, at least when they are used in numbers. IRL the simplifikation to few massproduceable military goods is a lesson that Germany did not learn in time.

 

[Commander666]

It may make sense to simplify to use only MRF and possibly TRA if going for Paratroopers.

"if going for Paratroopers" definitely there won't be any "possibly TRA" discussion but only "a certainty".

When advancing fast Int and CAS lose a potentially large part of their usefulness.

Not at all. Just learn to use the shorter range aircraft in other parts of the world where they fit perfectly. So CAS, once Barbarossa gets deeper into SU, simply re-base to guard against enemy fleets in the English Channel and other places where their short range is perfect. Likewise, one can find many uses for INT once they are no longer suitable for the deepening invasion of SU.

Until the enemy has STR-Esc in numbers MRF do suffice for air superiority

Actually they will always suffice for air superiority if discussing enemy STR/esc.

and MRF1940 do also suffice for naval interdiction, at least when they are used in numbers.

They can be used for that, but I would hardly say "suffice". That's why NAVs are there. And then it becomes a question of "will it be one, or two, or four NAVs to realize what suffices for any particular area?"

IRL the simplifikation to few massproduceable military goods is a lesson that Germany did not learn in time.

Simplification was a valid point IRL where there were hundreds of different aircraft models. It is hardly valid in AoD where there are no spare parts to worry about, changing engines that need fit, getting correct tire sizes, or etc, etc.

I mean, man, there are only 8 aircraft types in AoD. If player can't build all of them then not sure what that says about their IC management ability.

I think you missed that "variety is the spice of life" but more precisely, that this game had some excellent minds who crafted all those counters, and deliberately made it as is to challenge players to use them... not mass produce a few different units to so be better able to win against a limited AI.

I mean, your advice is fine for newbies. They definitely should not build at least half of the different unit types when learning. But to read an "expert" advising to not build NAVs because FTR can do naval bombing given you know who is posting here... well Pang, I respectfully disagree.

Did you forget the obvious range differences and naval bombing values between the 2 different unit types? But you recommend it will be OK if the FTR are "used in numbers". Well, that is how IC gets mis-managed... build three FTR for what one NAV can do better.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Actually they will always suffice for air superiority if discussing enemy STR/esc.

Unlike TAC, NAV or even CAS STR are rather tough. There the bonus of interceptors makes a more needed difference.

Simplification was a valid point IRL where there were hundreds of different aircraft models. It is hardly valid in AoD where there are no spare parts to worry about, changing engines that need fit, getting correct tire sizes, or etc, etc.

In AoD it is mostly about research. If having more aircraft types did not necessitate putting a higher portion of limited tech slot days to the many different models, than i would clearly advice for more types of aircrafts.

Just having to worry about 1 type of aircraft also brings some savings icd wise, but that is relatively marginal and could be offset by a superior utilization of a diversified portfolio of military assets.

The tipping point however is the fast advance. This mitigates the time available to use an aircraft type and early only, say before 1941, numbers are limited. Under such conditions trying to diversify will hardly pay off. The amount of MRF available at the relevant location will be able to offset inferior specialisation.

 

[Commander666]

In AoD it is mostly about research. If having more aircraft types did not necessitate putting a higher portion of limited tech slot days to the many different models, than i would clearly advice for more types of aircrafts.

Given Germany's excellent research teams - and proper player management of how to tackle research to be efficient - there is no difficulty if mostly researching at 100% speed (something you yourself recommend). I always manage ALL of the research/tech challenges on time or advanced on a few special ones while only skipping a very few that I never use (like railway gun). There is no problem for Germany IF player does the right moves.

The tipping point however is the fast advance. This mitigates the time available to use an aircraft type and early only, say before 1941, numbers are limited. Under such conditions trying to diversify will hardly pay off. The amount of MRF available at the relevant location will be able to offset inferior specialisation.

So, what you are saying is that total aircraft numbers are limited before 1941 and - because of that - diversity will not pay off. Maybe that is true for you because you don't give enough priority to the Luftwaffe to build enough units before 1941? However, at mid-December 1940, I have 71 air units (includes ESC/FTR). Sorry, I can't call that limited even if it represents 5 model types (each with large numbers) and also my 1st NAV and 6 TRA (which need different handling in this discussion). Oh... forgot... you don't have TRA ever (IIRC) so maybe we need not think about them EXCEPT when they are dropping paratroopers. If you ever tried that you might learn what diversity really is. Your statement, "Under such conditions trying to diversify will hardly pay off" is just baseless, false and untested by you.

You also indicate that there exists a factor of "time available to use an aircraft" which is negatively affected by a fast advance. I find your PoV extremely short sighted because the same aircraft I had available for Poland (5-10 days use) will also be there for France (3 weeks use), and for Barbarossa (1 month use until the moving frontline means INT and CAS get too limited in range)…. and most importantly (what you don't seem to give credit for) those now out of range aircraft in Barbarossa will be in use against the RAF - as they have been every day sine Sept 1/39 (except for the few weeks they were engaged in other campaigns). Good air tacticians ensure that the aircraft they construct are actually available for use 100% of the time - even if just sitting on a base and so fulfilling the need to be able to respond immediately to whatever challenge you might name.

Your accounting and subsequent determination of "inferior specialization" is seriously flawed. It is precisely because of specialization that maximum use of aircraft is created because each model is fitted to its best location where optimal match between model and mission results in the aircraft being effective far more than your "bunch of generics" ever can.

 

[MJF]

Again your early conquest of the Allies is impressive, but I read your "no time or $$$ to make fighters" as a lament. Looking at the aircraft numbers you have given, I search for the reason that created your woes. Obviously, the early circa is working against you, but I feel there might be more basic reasons.

Let's face it, it is only 11.2 IC to begin ONE line of FTR as soon as you have researched the tech. I am sure there are dozens of things you could cut in 1939 to raise the needed available IC (like SS-4 instead of SSH). That is really just a bit of priority rearranging to lay down the 1st fighter line. Far more important is the willpower to do it as soon as possible so you do not - years later - realize how much you need them... but have none.

But 1 line of FTR is not enough, so let's look for major IC savings to get FTR construction doubled. Turns out Germany actually can win with just 8 TACs if it has 8 CAS. In fact, I have never had more than 12 TACs. Cut back on them, and you converted the IC into 4-8 FTR. In short, you must be building 2 lines FTR. Easily done if you just stop TAC construction much earlier.

Next, how many lines of NAV are you running? It should be 1 only but probably 2 max in your case of accelerated conquests.

Next, how did you get 4 STR by 1942? That is major IC and you definitely should not have done more than 2 lines so early.
In fact, if you cancelled this you could easily be building 4 lines of FTR and have achieved 20 units by end 1942. Problem solved.

Lack of FTR for Germany really is only lack of commitment to build them, I think. And, as stated, that commitment is tested when you achieve the tech... but for umpteen reasons delay, and delay, and delay putting down that first line of fighters. Well, you know how that story ends.

EDIT: Thought I should check my last game and do comparison using my Jan 9/42 file save versus your Jan 10/42):

You: 16 INT, 16 TAC/esc, 12 NAV, 6 TRA, 8 CAS/esc, 4 STR
Me: 24 INT, 12 TAC/esc, 4 NAV, 6 TRA, 8 CAS/esc , 12 FTR (building 4 STR, 2 FTR and 1 NAV)

Fairly similar except I got 20 more INT and FTR combined for 20 less TAC, NAV and STR (combined). So I think the point is well made that it really is only player priority that results in having no FTR.

In my game Barbarossa concluded successfully in late 1941 with Trans Ural Republic being my puppet and Japan holding huge area of Soviet Far East. Remaining SU is only a minor annoyance once peace treat expires. I have England and not sure why I have left Scotland to the UK. Maybe I still working on their fleets and want them in Scapa Flow. Currently I am finishing off India, partner Italy has most of Africa, and partner Spain has Gibraltar. Partner Japan puppeted China, is finishing of East Indies but has not yet taken Philippines or Wake or anything eastwards of there. USA just got Casablanca and I am currently moving against that, but have not been across Atlantic yet other than with subs.

Amazingly, you have IC 744/437 versus my 483/322. I could be 30% higher if I did different minister/political choices. However, I suspect my land army is bigger:
65 INF, 15 CAV, 14 MOT, 3 LtARM, 27 ARM, 3 PAR, 6 MAR, 18 MTN, 74 GAR, 5 HQ (total = 230).

I would certainly say so:

All subs Heavies except the 2 starting SS IIs.

A problem is my tendency to "Forget" the Luftwaffe after initial breakthroughs. I either keep them active beyond when they are needed, exhausting them, or "remember" that they are sitting when I get a defeat, or get stuck. Sealane Int. allows for a bigger Luftwaffe than forcing 4 CV IVs by 10/1/1939, especially if one wants 3 PARs and 3 TRAs (with CVs I therefore forgo the airborne and build 3 MAR's instead). Notice this time, no MEC. Looking at the "charts" I just didn't see the advantage of MECs over MOTs, especially when attacking early & often, and when so limited in IC. I have to have IC for the TC, as you can see below:

Normal/Aggressive. No cheating. Liberating Scandinavia got me a helluva dissent hit, which slowed things down, but might've gotten Finland to join the cause. DOW'g Rep. Spain after Vichy (Franco was loosing badly) got Nat. Spain in, and the UK stacking 12 INF div's in Plymouth left Dover with 1 GAR division. I didn't need Marines for Sealion, which was good since I postponed them to make PAR's.

I think this was my earliest Bitter Peace.

 

[Commander666]

However, I suspect my land army is bigger:
65 INF, 15 CAV, 14 MOT, 3 LtARM, 27 ARM, 3 PAR, 6 MAR, 18 MTN, 74 GAR, 5 HQ (total = 230).

I would certainly say so:

Yes, there is huge difference [at Jan 10, 1942] with yours being only:
49 INF, 1 CAV, 31 MOT, 1 LtARM, 10 ARM, 6 PAR, 4 MAR, 10 MTN, 28 GAR, 1 HQ (total = 178).
With the exception of 17 more MOTs for you, our nearly "identical date" filesaves reveal very much more INF, CAV, ARM, MTN, GAR and HQ for me.

I am interested in knowing "why" given the differences in our build strategy with you focusing on factory construction to get a most admirable far greater IC than me (yours IC 744/437 versus my 483/322 recorded at Jan 10/42). I could be 30% higher if I did different minister/political choices; but you probably could also be higher if you changed some choices. So, my interest is in looking for "gross differences" and not nit-picking to find a probable cause for the vastly greater Wehrmacht in my case versus the higher IC in your case.

I feel a bit like an account scanning over two different corporation's tax returns to find some massive amounts of hidden revenue, but not interested in any minor irregularities. With that consideration it has already been stated by me earlier that our Luftwaffe - while identical in number - actually shows you having made a considerably greater investment because you have 20 more TAC, NAV and STR which cost more than the 20 more INT and FTR I have. So, for Luftwaffe, you score a +1 as regards my trying to find the "root of differences".

But in Wehrmacht I am +3 given my consistent greater numbers through out.

Next needed is a comparison of our Kriegsmarine at Jan 10/42:
You have: 8 BC, 3 CA, 11 CL, 22 DD, 29 SS (assume all SSH), 27 TP (100 total)
Me: 2 BB, 5 BC, 5 CA, 19 CL, 16 DD, 50 SS (most SS-4), 15 TP (112 total)

I think my additional 21 subs which are SS-4 cancel out against your more expensive but less SSH. All the other classes we about equal to each other with you more in some ship types; and me more in others - except I do have two BB-4 which, I think, is worth a +1.

The summary would be that you are +1 and me +4 (net +3) as regards IC spent on building units. The paradox is that the considerably greater IC which I spent on units (valued at +3) needs to be somewhere in your game because I am quite sure you are not a "wasteful player" and have further demonstrated extreme skill in lightning fast world conquests, catching onto radical strategies like sub warfare quickly, and able to defeat the enemy quickly in all theatres.

However, more critical accounting would indicate that the difference in how IC was spent in your game must be even greater than the noticeable difference in unit totals BECAUSE much more IC was in your game all along as you had higher effective IC because of your priority on building factories.

So, the terrible theory is forming that - in spite of concerted IC construction - the cost of that has not given net dividend at all even when the game has reached January 1942. The only benefit your game has, it seems, is greater TC... which certainly would be most important in your case since your accelerated world conquest has not had the benefit of later logistical techs to so increase TC that way.

But your higher IC, it seems, can not yet be counted as a benefit to army inventory because you still have to account for the substantial "debt" you have in far less units built. It can be assumed that at some future date you will catch up in units (as you have higher TC to now build more than me) but how much more advanced will I also be - possibly including having also conquered UK, Canada and USA by then?

However, I am going to hold off making a radical claim of "IC construction has seriously hurt your game" until my investigation gets a bit further along.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In that manner, the first major consideration where you have spent IC that I have yet to spend would be the far greater IC you already spent on reinforcements and provincial repairs regarding the early conquests of UK, Canada and USA. I would award you +1 for IC spent for each of the 3 countries. As regards SU, I think we are pretty much same (we both got BP). As regards cost of liberating nations, I think we are also about same. So my earlier +3 is cancelled against this +3 of yours for "future expenses you have already prepaid".

So the final numbers-crunching statement would be, "At Jan/42, while you are very much ahead of me in effective IC, you are very much behind me in unit building... but ahead in future conquests". But the latter fact really does not matter if my world conquest matches yours by the time your unit building is on par with mine. In summary, it seems probable that your higher IC will really not be profit for perhaps another year or two when the "IC diversion" incurred with the cost of the factory constructions is fully recovered; and the debt of currently unbuilt units has also been paid off. Interestingly, the TC advantage you posses (and need in your case of accelerated conquest) may not be needed in my case of later conquest when further techs then will have improved the logistical situation that way.

But to really establish the validity of my theory regarding "the possible harmful effects of diverting massive amounts of IC into over-abundant factory construction" instead of into sensible builds of low maintenance Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe early in the game (and even some Wehrmacht to get "reasonable" numbers that don't drain supplies too much), I think we should first discuss in some detail exactly what are the differences between your starting infra and IC constructions; and mine.

Using a mid-1936 file save (May 3), I see that I am building:

• factory at Berlin including infra there (the latter at double speed)
• 16 other infra builds at provinces with best resources and Rostock outlet. TOTAL factory/infra = 41 IC
• One line each of BB-4, BC-4, CA-4, CL-4, DD-2, SS-3 and TRA-1 … … ... ... ...TOTAL units = 56 IC

I am researching 6 out of 8 available slots at 100%
My IC is 185/154

I hope, MJF, that we might learn the corresponding information for your game.

Thank you for participating in this joint inquiry.

@ Pang Bingxun I would very much appreciate you holding off temporarily to reply to statements of mine which I am certain you very much disagree with. This is only to permit MJF's next post to follow right after mine so then I can "more tightly" make comparison; and my final statement regarding the forming theory of, "IC overbuilding may be harmful".

Actually, I think you just waiting a bit to reply to that soon coming post of mine will be far more efficient for you. As of now I have not fully developed my theory, and an injection of counter veiling details from you at this time will only be disruptive to concluding the theory in a concise manner. Thanking you for your hopeful cooperation.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Given Germany's excellent research teams - and proper player management of how to tackle research to be efficient - there is no difficulty if mostly researching at 100% speed (something you yourself recommend). I always manage ALL of the research/tech challenges on time or advanced on a few special ones while only skipping a very few that I never use (like railway gun). There is no problem for Germany IF player does the right moves.

Problem is probably too strong a word, but using limited slot days on fewer techs does of course result in having the remaining techs earlier. Even as Germany is practically impossible to get into a situation where leaving more techs unresearched will not result in having the remaining tech significantly earlier.

There is however a point where leaving more techs unresearched will negatively impact overall performance, but this point does strongly depend on the individual playstile, thus a generalized statement seems beside the point.

Your statement, "Under such conditions trying to diversify will hardly pay off" is just baseless, false and untested by you.

It is of course untested, but it is far from baseless. Trying to apply terms of false or true seems like an error.

If you were to state that "such a lack of diversification would cause too much a disruption to my playstile", than such a statement might very well be true. Even stating that my statement is not true for you might be true. But calling it false in a generalized manners does not seem sensible.

So, what you are saying is that total aircraft numbers are limited before 1941 and - because of that - diversity will not pay off. Maybe that is true for you because you don't give enough priority to the Luftwaffe to build enough units before 1941?

I am referng to the fast type of advance by MJF. As i recall it he builds a large navy by Danzig, a relativelly small army and given that a relatively small airforce is the rational choice because allotting icd to the army will likely better suit the goal of advancing fast than more icd for the airforce. The relative usefulness of the airforce increases once the army has reached a proper strenght.

and most importantly (what you don't seem to give credit for) those now out of range aircraft in Barbarossa will be in use against the RAF - as they have been every day sine Sept 1/39 (except for the few weeks they were engaged in other campaigns).

Advancing fast implies that the UK is taken early and usually before the USSR.

Good air tacticians ensure that the aircraft they construct are actually available for use 100% of the time - even if just sitting on a base and so fulfilling the need to be able to respond immediately to whatever challenge you might name.

Maybe. Different strategies are suited by different airforce compositions. Trying optimize a strategy to a given airforce composition however does not seem like the brightest idea to me.

Your accounting and subsequent determination of "inferior specialization" is seriously flawed. It is precisely because of specialization that maximum use of aircraft is created because each model is fitted to its best location where optimal match between model and mission results in the aircraft being effective far more than your "bunch of generics" ever can.

I pretty much agree with that. I refer to a situation that in its essense is a bit a of an exception. In most situations diversifiying relative to MRF only will pay off.

Notice this time, no MEC. Looking at the "charts" I just didn't see the advantage of MECs over MOTs, especially when attacking early & often, and when so limited in IC. I have to have IC for the TC, as you can see below:

That TC does not look troublesome. Mech however has the advantage when it comes to tc-efficiency.

Not taking into accounts any modifiers you get 1.483 Mot1938-Spart1940 per one Mech1940-SpArt1940. Depending on many modifiers this will barely suffice for Mech to reach break even in terms of firepower per icd. When comparing Mot1941 to Mech1942, than Mec will be have better firepower per tc. There is of course the time when it is Mot1941 vs. Mech1940, and then Mot will be superior. But in any case Mech will be able to deliver the most firepower to one point.

But to really establish the validity of my theory regarding "the harmful effects of diverting massive amounts of IC into over-abundant factory construction" instead of into sensible builds of low maintenance Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe early in the game (and even some Wehrmacht to get "reasonable" numbers that don't drain supplies too much), I think we should first discuss in some detail exactly what are the differences between your starting infra and IC constructions; and mine.

Early military builds are always hurtful and thus not sensible, even for you, or at least a version of you that is rational in an ingame sense.

The first thing to consider is that MFJ did a rather limited build up of base ic. By september 1940 he had 350 base ic, but by Barbarossa in 1941 the german AI has 500 base ic, a human player can have more than that.

The 2 big sources of wastage or underperformance in terms of base ic or total icd in the military by 1942 for MJF were that he build up its military long before its was rational in the here implied sense. Waiting till the proper time helps a lot. The second big source of wastage would be the repair bill from the early conquest. When this repair bill incurs before the economic build up and the military build up have reached proper levels, than than the relative effect will be huge.

Both those effects are more or less inherit to the fast advance, thus rendering any comparision more or less mute.

 

[Commander666]

Predictable! Same as you have always done when there was a polite sportsman request .

I will not reply to your post at this time but a scan of it reveals some very wrong facts, untested views and "pot calling the kettle black" kind of stuff. Until later... … ...

Once my theory is finalized and printed, I may then have some shocking info for you.

 

[MJF]

The first thing to consider is that MFJ did a rather limited build up of base ic. By september 1940 he had 350 base ic, but by Barbarossa in 1941 the german AI has 500 base ic, a human player can have more than that.

The 2 big sources of wastage or underperformance in terms of base ic or total icd in the military by 1942 for MJF were that he build up its military long before its was rational in the here implied sense. Waiting till the proper time helps a lot. The second big source of wastage would be the repair bill from the early conquest. When this repair bill incurs before the economic build up and the military build up have reached proper levels, than than the relative effect will be huge.

Both those effects are more or less inherit to the fast advance, thus rendering any comparison more or less mute.

This is in part why I don't worry about only having 1936 INF vs Poland and France, and why I use 3-6 MAR's or now maybe 3 PAR's instead for Sealion. If Sealane Interdiction & lots of SS IV's sank massive amounts of UK shipping (like a WW II game should!) AND early Cryptography kept them from being sunk en masse before 1942, I would use that strategy -- like we did in HOI II/Doomsday.

I don't build BB's because they're too damned expensive, relative to whatever you wish to use as your Naval power -- either S.I., Donitz and subs, or B. S., Raeder and CV's. CA's are simply too weak -- their only value I can see is to get shot at, or maybe protect (meaning get shot at) ASW or large TP fleets. Sure - they can destroy smaller, weaker fleets, and maybe be used to "lure" enemy fleets into range of your land-based NAV & CAS fleets, but if you intend to trot around the planet you will need a real Navy - eventually. For me, so far, BC's are the SAG answer. BB's beat BC's, of course -- except they don't! You don't encounter BB IV's early in this simulation! Only older BB's from UK & France, so your BC's can choose to either fight or successfully run away. They can easily run away from CV II/III's. Therefore your Naval power must be either in:

1. S. I., SS IV's, (24+) heavily micromanaged to overwhelm and destroy SAG/CTF fleets - with or without land-based air support (or first with, then without!)

2. S. I., SS heavies (12+) a little less micromanaged, and destroy some, or chase away, SAG/CTF fleets as above, then deal with them later, or

3. 4 CV IV's + 2 CA IV's, with screens, judiciously-used to attack & destroy the UK CTF/SAG fleets, while 3-4 BC IVs & maybe 6 SSH's trot around trying to cause shipping trouble.


I do "overbuild" Navy early. Why?

1. I'm not that good at Naval Combat, so I need power to make up for it.

2. I consider Sealion the pivotal battle of the war (as Germany). Everything else is easier, or can be postponed, but that massive stationery enemy base must be neutralized (early Sealion seems to almost always help the Italians in N. A. as well -- somehow...?). For it to work I need 3 + good fleets to occupy the both invasion zone, and 1 zone to either side, whether those are used as second invasion zones or not. If/when the UK Navy shows up, and isn't chased away at once, the party's off. My stressed Luftwaffe disengages from pounding the UK Southern coast and hits the enemy fleets. If I have already destroyed the 3 UK CV's (with my CV's) then I can shore bomb with the CV's, and guard with subs on 1 side and SAG/BC IV's on the other. If not, then the CVs guard the more likely enemy entry zone, and subs or SAG the other, while the hapless Baltic Fleet shore bombs. If 1. above, then the subs must guard the zones, and the SAGs bombard. The nice thing about the CV's is that, more than any other combination, they seem to destroy or frighten off the UK Navy early -- so far. They must be carefully-used early, however. I can't afford to have even 1 in dry dock being repaired while I'm trying to take Britain.

3. By the time I'm running in to the USA Navy, I have either 6 CV IV's, 4 - 6 BC IV's, and 9 SSH's, with Baltic & maybe 2-3 ASW's, or 27 SSH's, 6 BC IV's and the above, or 45+ SS IV's, 6 BC IV's and the rest above. I also have at least 4 NAV's, as well as TAC's and CAS's. I also have the stupid US AI. That helps.

 

[MJF]

The 2 big sources of wastage or underperformance in terms of base ic or total icd in the military by 1942 for MJF were that he build up its military long before its was rational in the here implied sense. Waiting till the proper time helps a lot.

As Blue Emu used to point out (among others) Factory builds do not pay for themselves until 1941 on. I usually have, basically, a won game by mid 1942. However, AoD introduces more supply & logistical issues, so the overloaded TC from not enough IC builds (and Infra builds...?) shows itself by then. So, April 28, 1942:

There's a few more Factory and Infra builds that couldn't be shown, along with fort builds along the "Eastern Front."