Interdiction missions?

[unmerged(131342)]

I thought that was what was supposed to happen, but I'm not seeing the org reduction, and I'm not sure there's always a delay, either. If they were eligible to start an attack before they Strat Move, my divisions seem to be able to dive straight into the battle. this could just be inaccurate interpretation though.

Officially, they are ment to loose org per hour of strat redeploy, so that over long distances they indeed go to 0 org. However, I observed some strat redeploys yesterday, and it seemed that they do indeed loose org, but they also regain org as normal, as if they were stationary. Net result: they keep max org, even over long distances.

This can be excellently and very gamily obused by strat redeploying units form the front to counter a pescy partisan and then back to the front. I actually did this yesterday when a partisan popped up in russian poland (no ribbentrop) while all my assets were tied up in the france war. Single division strat redeployed back and forth without trouble and org loss in a few weeks.

 

[DazKaz]

Another surprise from players with so many posts. You dont know the diference intrediction/grount attack? And what do you use? Only ground attack??? U need combinations of air missions

I certainly know the difference in theory but in game I'm not observing the effects that I am expecting.
Can you try to answer some of the questions I have, posted above like, whether, interdiction missions have any extra effects on strategically redeploying troops.
Thanks

 

[womble]

Officially, they are ment to loose org per hour of strat redeploy, so that over long distances they indeed go to 0 org. However, I observed some strat redeploys yesterday, and it seemed that they do indeed loose org, but they also regain org as normal, as if they were stationary. Net result: they keep max org, even over long distances.

Ah! That makes a kind of sense as an explanation.

This can be excellently and very gamily obused by strat redeploying units form the front to counter a pescy partisan and then back to the front. I actually did this yesterday when a partisan popped up in russian poland (no ribbentrop) while all my assets were tied up in the france war. Single division strat redeployed back and forth without trouble and org loss in a few weeks.

Even gamier (guilty as charged, y'r'onner) is to strat deploy your reserves straight into a defensive position that seems to be shaky...

Having read this thread, I started using Interdiction almost exclusively and it made it a lot easier to overrun and surround units, even those with similar or better maneuver speeds. As Italy in '40 I have very few fast-moving divisions, but the leg infantry was handily overrunning MOT divisions, and I stalled a major counterattack (once the Froggies realised I'd opened the back door with my lead elements 2 provinces south of Gay Paree) long enough to set up a (slightly wonky) defensive line, using just a 3-stack of TACs with mostly '36 tech on area.

 

[PrivateJoh]

Hi everybody,

As opposed to HoI2 (where interdiction affected organisation and ground attack strength), I have not notice any difference between ground attack and interdiction in my games. Both of them produce roughly the same number of casualties on the enemy.

So, is there any one that really knows how to use these two to best effect? Some facts would be appreciated instead of "if you do not know the difference you should not play this game". I have been already playing for quite a while.

Cheers,

PrivateJoh

 

[Johan]

Ground attacks is for targetting units currently in battle, and interdiction those that are moving behind.

 

[unmerged(171774)]

Hi everybody,

As opposed to HoI2 (where interdiction affected organisation and ground attack strength), I have not notice any difference between ground attack and interdiction in my games. Both of them produce roughly the same number of casualties on the enemy.

So, is there any one that really knows how to use these two to best effect? Some facts would be appreciated instead of "if you do not know the difference you should not play this game". I have been already playing for quite a while.

Cheers,

PrivateJoh

The difference is in "targeting" techs in CAS air doctrine (reserves and front line focuses) > they made ground attack better when attacking enemy troops in battle. Interdiction have no such improvements, but I guess it benefits from 1.3 new "superior air tactician" leader trait.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

I believe that ground attack damages strength and interdiction damages organisation. I may be wrong though.

That was the case in HoI2, but no longer. Which I appreciate. It's just not plausible that one would make attacks that would disorder the enemy without actually damaging them, or viceversa.

 

[bbasgen]

Ground attacks is for targetting units currently in battle, and interdiction those that are moving behind.

Interesting. Very good to know. So, this means units in "reserve" -- e.g. queued up for the battle but not actively participating?

If that is the case, it seems interdiction is a seldom needed tactic.

 

[e-stab]

I think he meant

ground attack => units in combat
interdiction => units moving around (not in combat)

 

[unmerged(7509)]

Interesting. Very good to know. So, this means units in "reserve" -- e.g. queued up for the battle but not actively participating?

If that is the case, it seems interdiction is a seldom needed tactic.

Interdiction is still very useful for stopping the movement of the enemy, so you can overrun them or get to a vital province first.

 

[womble]

Interesting. Very good to know. So, this means units in "reserve" -- e.g. queued up for the battle but not actively participating?

If that is the case, it seems interdiction is a seldom needed tactic.

Sorry to belabour the point, but you're missing it.

An example (now I've got the game up and can refer to it...) to illustrate how splendid interdiction is.

I'm (still) Italy. It's autumn '40. I've pushed the French back off the Alps and past the Rhone while the Germans pile up their units in front of Paris. My attack is stalled because my units (largely infantry) are constantly bumping into routed French (and American Expeditionary) divisions and having to reorganise before slogging on to the next province. Though a desperate hail-Mary breakout pulls a lot of French attention away from their capital, I have to fall back behind the Rhone because I have no units ready to fight and broaden the breakthrough. All along, I've been ground attacking the heck out of the Schwerpunkt with my TACs and NAVs and, when I don't need then to maintain air superiority, my CAGs. But I've hardly encircled a single French Division, so there are as many units facing me now as there were when I repulsed their initial attempts to do a Hannibal, plus all the additional attention that getting to the borders of Orleans attracted.

While I'm sitting behind the Rhone (having successfully used Strat Move to disengage apart from one trapped Div) watching the French and their Yankee allies retake the land I'd grabbed, I read about how useful Interdiction is, and resolved to use it next time I surged for the Atlantic coast and Paris.

Which I have now done, to significant effect. Pinning the Rhone Valley provinces down with a 3TAC, a 3NAV and usually a 2CAG allowed me to annihilate the French forces that faced me to the west and break all the way to Bordeaux. As my lead elements got to Poitiers and La Rochelle, and the region of Bourges, south of Paris, the Cheese-eaters reacted (part of the point: draw them off the defense of Paris) and the 3TAC stalled a Corps-strength advance in the region that contains St-Vaury for long enough for me to extricate units from around Bordeaux and form up in Bourgneuf, directly south of their forces in St-Vaury. That motorised 4-6 and its friends just behind it would have been cutting me in two if it weren't for the interdiction.

I'd rushed a division north to Cholet/Nantes, too and paradropped 1 division (I'd lost the other two in an ill-advised attempt to storm Malta) on Nantes, but the defenders in Cholet would have minced up such a small attack. Interdiction (3NAVs) stopped two more Divisions throwing those two back or reinforcing Cholet long enough for motorised divisions to come from Bordeaux (not Strat) and fight a battle to get to come help.

Interdiction can change a situation from 'fluid' to manageable like a snowflake on a beaker of supercooled water.

 

[DazKaz]

Ground attacks is for targetting units currently in battle, and interdiction those that are moving behind.

Thanks Johan
Any chance of getting some hard data though, like.

1, How long is the unit delayed per interdiction mission? I would guess 4 hours.

2, Does it have any extra effects on strategically re-deploying units i.e a bonus to damage, or an extra time delay needed for them all to get back on the train, clear damaged tracks, push off burning carts?

Thanks

 

[e-stab]

I'd say
1, 0 hours.
2, None.

It is my understanding that the only difference is the targeting algorithm, not the type or extent of damage done.

 

[DazKaz]

I'd say
1, 0 hours.
2, None.

It is my understanding that the only difference is the targeting algorithm, not the type or extent of damage done.

I hope your wrong

 

[bbasgen]

Interdiction is still very useful for stopping the movement of the enemy, so you can overrun them or get to a vital province first.

How interesting. So interdiction reduces enemy unit speed? I suppose this is somewhat similar, in effect, to logistical strikes which reduce infrastructure levels and, by consequence, speed?

 

[unmerged(7537)]

I think he meant

ground attack => units in combat
interdiction => units moving around (not in combat)

AFAIK it even says so in the tool tip...

 

[DazKaz]

Air interdiction (AI) is the use of aircraft to attack tactical ground targets that are not in close proximity to friendly ground forces. It differs from close air support (Ground attack HOI3) because it does not directly support ground operations and is not closely coordinated with ground units. Unlike strategic bombing, air interdiction is not meant as an independent air campaign; its ultimate purpose is still to allow ground operations rather than to defeat an enemy by air power alone.

The purpose of air interdiction is to delay, disrupt, or destroy enemy forces or supplies en route to the battle area before they do any harm against friendly forces. Even at such degree, used in an interdictive offensive assault against enemy forces without friendly forces involved. A distinction is often made between strategic and tactical interdiction. The former refers to operations whose effects are broad and long-term; tactical operations are designed to affect events rapidly and in a localized area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_interdiction

Without the delay element its just another ground attack so pointless. If it's not delaying in game it's either broken or badly implemented.
If it is working I would be very interested to know some figures about how long it delays, and if it has any additional effects on strategically re-deploying units.

 

[DazKaz]

Bump:
I'm still confused about this. So many different opinions. Can anyone help plz?
What I'm hoping for is someone that can tell me the exact effects of Interdiction missions, especially the delay element, as opposed to Ground attack, especially on strategically re-deploying units.

I know nothing at all about modding/programing, but would it be possible to look for that kind of info in the game code?

 

[womble]

I carefully watched an interdiction target province... the units in it stopped moving (their littel movle arrow disappeared) while the Interdicting planes were getting an "Interdiction" result in the floating green text. When the planes returned to base, the unit started moving again (its arrow came back). This was using a single stack of planes, and I'd estimate the arrow was absent about half the time.

I don't know how you'd necessarily be able to determine the effect on a strat mover, as you wouldn't know it was strat moving, and I don't think the AI uses Interdiction, or at least I've only so far seen GA reported.

 

[DazKaz]

I carefully watched an interdiction target province... the units in it stopped moving (their littel movle arrow disappeared) while the Interdicting planes were getting an "Interdiction" result in the floating green text. When the planes returned to base, the unit started moving again (its arrow came back). This was using a single stack of planes, and I'd estimate the arrow was absent about half the time.

I don't know how you'd necessarily be able to determine the effect on a strat mover, as you wouldn't know it was strat moving, and I don't think the AI uses Interdiction, or at least I've only so far seen GA reported.

Thanks for your feedback Womble but the same thing happens with Ground attack missions, bringing me to the same point about what is the difference?
I don't understand why information like this is so top secret. Surely the programmers know what is happening, don't they? Why not put it in the tool tip, or in the manual.
I must confess I am beginning to believe it has been badly implemented/not finished, like so many other things in the game in a rush to get it out the door, and the only difference Is that the AI Will target moving units as a preference when set on Interdiction, and units in combat when set on ground attack. But if like me you don't trust the AI to do anything, and you target all your missions yourself using ground attack on a moving unit will have the same effect as using Interdiction.
I hope I'm wrong.