- Feb 5, 2010
If it is true that convoys' anti-air capability results in a massacre of the Luftwaffe, then here is one approach to address that situation:
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
Did I get this right, the take away is to not use small wings against convoys?
@janat08, based on Alex's statement, it sounds like that is an accurate assessment, " the take away is to not use small wings against convoys? "It becomes clear how AA losses scale with airwing size in this way, if many small wings attack AA losses skyrocket compared to a single 1000 size airwing.
I think the key takeaways from how the mechanics work is the following:Did I get this right, the take away is to not use small wings against convoys?
Once you got these the damage you will cause to troop transports will likely outweigh losses from AA for sure, and size of airwings essentially just impact intensity of losses on both sides. You won't sink more or less convoys per plane lost to AA with bigger or smaller wings, unless you make wings so small they can't get get 20 planes per combat.It looks like only NAV IIs and NAV IIIs are effective at sinking convoys.
I think it would very much depend on the situation like how much losses you can tolerate to keep an air-power threat and what your mission efficiency and detection is looking like.What counts as a small wing in this context, though?
For example, I normally put wings into groups of 200, not to abuse aces, but because air fields are sized in increments of 200.
Would 500 be large enough? Or do we need to go higher if we have NAV I's?
Okay, so putting 2000 NAV I in Bordeaux in 200 plane wings bombing Bay of Biscay might cause 10 planes lost per day if the Brits run a ton of convoys through there (which they most certainly will be).I think it would very much depend on the situation like how much losses you can tolerate to keep an air-power threat and what your mission efficiency and detection is looking like.
From ltccone's numbers it seems a rule of thumb of losses you can expect to take from AA is around 1 plane lost per wing active per day, if you have radar and good detection.
Fighters on intercept / air superiority should be able to shoot down naval bombers conducting missions in their area same as they would normally against any other type of bombers, but these results won't be visible inside the actual naval battle report, just in the air battle results. I guess you can think of it as the interceptions taking place before the bombers reach their targets.Concerning convoys vs air attack, what about ships on escort or any other mission in the sea zone, or fighters on intercept/air-superiority? I've never seen these air based convoy raids be given any defenders besides the convoys themselves. If air 'would' hurt/massacre convoys, how do you defend against that?
If a convoy battle with planes attacking a sea zone with a real fleet occurs, does it affect the targeting of the NAVs.but if both ships and convoys are hit in the same sea province the battle reports might get merged making it appear as if they are.
It at least needs to be consistent. One shouldn't be rounded up, and the other rounded down.It sounds to me like the real culprit is that the convoys get to reset any damage at the end of the day (damage rounded down), while the NAVs lose half of their damaged planes (damage rounded up). If the two algorithms were consistent, it would balance out, and the shrinking numbers of both convoys and planes would make some sense. With NAVII, the planes have enough firepower to sink a few convoy ships outright, so the mechanics function at least well enough to remain logical.
Question is, should the devs change how the convoys work, or the planes? If damage is rounded down for both, there would be virtually no sinkings of convoys or planes shot down by those convoys. If it's rounded up, then both would take fairly high attrition.
Why have rounding at all? I know they don't want to track damage separately on every convoy around the globe, but they could at least keep track of the partial damage and let it carry over into the next convoy battle, wherever it may be. The convoys represent multiple ships anyway so this is perfectly valid to have 0.25 in 4 different places mean that the 4th one loses a point.It at least needs to be consistent. One shouldn't be rounded up, and the other rounded down.