is aircraft worth it?
 

im playing a 2009 battle,U.S.M.C vs Sweden,me as the marines,and my aircraft keep getting shot down very easy,so i was wondering if there worth the points?

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

I almost never purchase aircraft. IMHO, too risky that they will never get a good shot on anyone before decent AAA drives them away. When I do choose them, I tend to go for those with standoff attack capability.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

well i love aircraft till SAM lunchers start showing up more often,i find them very useful till then but after the SAMs show up they keep dyeing on me :mad:

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

If you send aircraft into an area with a high concentration of SAMs they will die. That's what the SAMs were designed to do. There are a wide range of opinions on whether aircraft are useful or not and who you are fighting and when in the game you use them and what direction you send then in and out of and what the visibity is all play a factor.

Don

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

well the Swedens from what ive played buy those thermal SAMS and they cover a wide area,ive tried a couple of directions with the same result,aircraft DOOMED

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Have you tried SEADs first? If they are immobile SAMs you can first hit them with artillery.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

the immobile ones i handled pretty well in the fight,its the 2 or 3 man hand held ones that are getting 80% chance to hit my f18 that im having problems with

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

80% chance?my guess is that the pilot jettisoned his ecm pod and turned off the ecm to save battery :D, check the weapons accuracy, some shoulder launched SAMs are quite effective, i lost a warthog to a strela-3 or something similar, but had a Flanker surviving an I-Hawk

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

weapons accuracy is 120 IIRC ,the problem is there so many of them and u cant find them ill its to late and the aircraft are to pricey to do my WW2 plane wave tactic

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Well, you can either try to destroy the air refences first, or try to work around them.
SEAD aircraft are very important in both cases. They can, usualy, avoid getting hit by sams much. Use this to your advantage, to locate and destroy the sams or to organise an attack against the other targets you want to you use your planes, by attacking first with the SEAD planes, draw most of the enemy fire and then letting your strike aircraft hit their original targets without much threat.
Now, if the enemy has bought a stupid amount of air defences, then just deal with it by not buying any aircraft and basicaly making all his purchase points towards air defence, a waste of money.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Never buy fixed wing aircraft myself, if I do buy aircraft it is helos only. YMMV.

Cheers,
Wes

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Try to use some UAV (High ECM and little size), they have greater chance to avoid this kind of nasty boy. Repeat the reccon flight again and again until you run out of UAV (worst case) or they run out of ammo (:angel).
The manpad are relatively easy to spot (smoke on the shooting area), so use mortar to suppress or kill them between each flight.

Of course you could use the old russian method and crush wide areas under massive artillery barrage but the counter fire could be painfull, specialy against well equiped and trained country like Sweeden :p.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

i never thought of that,thanks for the idea:up:

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

I tend to play the USMC a lot (what can I say, service bias here :) ) and yes, I find aircraft of questionable value in WinSPMBT.

This is for a combination of reasons.
1) The AI always has hordes of MANPADS. (Usually 2 to 3 times as many as would "realistic" in my opinion)
2) Aircraft are to expensive for the amount of damage they generally do. I won't get into how many times I've had 4-6 aircraft waste their ammo on a lone infantry squad that happens to be in the middle of a tank company. Not that there aren't the occasional (VERY occasional) successes where an aircraft takes out half and infantry company or some such.
3) Even with stand-off weapons I see an amazing number of hits bounce off vehicles ("You hit for 100+ penetration VS 5 armor, shot fails to penetrate").

All that said I still add them to scenarios for "flavor" if not anticipated effectiveness.

For pure "bang for the buck" by on-map MLRS or HIMARS, about the same cost as aircraft and generally 3 to 5 times as effective.

If you can afford the cost, and number of aircraft slots you're allowed in a given battle, using UAV's to draw fire until the AI runs out of ammo is a VERY effective tactic. Just fly them on your side of the map to draw missile fire but stay out of machinegun range.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

i really like the marine core:up::cool:.

1) i find that so anoying,idk how many in real life there would be but i know i never use that much MANPADS

2)that is frusterating how mant times they shoot at infantry,and i know all to well about the non penatreting hits:mad:. a plane with regular bombs can be very effective on infantry but with all the SAMs goodluck getting it close enough to use there bombs...

i do buy HIMARS but only a battle here and a battle there,i find using them all the time takes the fun out of the game because ive destroyed the AI with those and it makes the battle easy.

i can afford the cost with my campain since its a batalion sized force so ill have to try using the UAVs :)

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Aircraft are not very useful items for close support - they never have been. The WW2 myth of tank-busting Typoons was just that - it was the trucks they destroyed, and so starved the tanks of fuel and ammo. Operations research post-war showed tiny actual percentages of kills by air on armoured targets. Any vehicle with a tin roof was actually rather immune to air attack. The Balkans ops were the same result, as were the Gulf War - even though that was in an open desert. The real tank killing was when the MBT turned up. Planes are better used for interdiction missions against the enemy supply lines than trying to plink tanks on the battlefield. CAS is really only a make-work mission for an Air Force that has surplus planes after that main effort.

SP does not model the operational and strategic levels - so you cannot go for his fuel convoys, arty batteries and ammo dumps in his operational depth.

CAS aircraft are really only worth the bother if you have complete air supremacy, to include having beaten down all AAA assets by a campaign of attrition. That can be modelled in a scenario, by not buying the enemy any air defence or only a few etc.

The only other reason for using CAS fixed wing air is to support land forces that are outside artillery support range. Other than a scenario situation, SP battles are automatically in artillery range of each other (long range C/B being about the only range issue).

Apart from some armies that historically have no AAA (e.g. Iraqi SAMS are unavailable at certain points, or the AI pick list simply ignores them), any AI-bought force will buy a healthy dose of AAA assets, and is more likely to buy more if it does not have air assets itself.

So - you could decide to play the long game and suppress the AAA assets before trying for the land forces (use of SEAD, artillery to counter any detected launch sites etc). But that is not going to contribute to the land battle, except perhaps to make it easier for any rotary wing air support. Enemy ADA assets generally are not much cop against the normal land forces after all, bar say ADATS.

Therefore unless it is a scenario which allows for the peculiarities of fixed wing CAS (it is a scenario with a lost patrol who only can get air CAS, or the Air Force has been presumed to blat all ADA assets over several weeks campaigning) then I really would not much bother with it past about say the 1973/5 period (Yom Kippur and Vietnam). Up till then and in WW2 the planes have a chance of surviving against air defences, but when radar directed AAA and useful SAMS get commonplace then, scenario use only IMHO.

Apart from that in generated games, I would tend to only use rotary wing assets, RPV etc. Attack helos can be reloaded, after all, and can use the ground contours as cover.

Since the armies are in arty support range, I would use the points on arty instead. Recce by scout helo or RPV used intelligently.

In WW2 and the 45-75 period, when attacking then I will buy strike fixed wing air once I have bought enough tube arty to support the attack. I programme them for reconnaissance strikes on my planned approach. If they survive, then that is gravy but the info about where tanks are placed in the defence is the main thing they are there to determine.

Of course - you can get an opponent in PBEM who forgets to buy ADA assets. That happened to me once, and my Hunters ruled the battlefield especially since once I realised his error, I could plan my passes from the rear of his side of the board to attack the tanks in the bum with 30mm ADEN fires :)!:

This quote is in the Military Quotations section of the GG and is perfectly true:

"The power of an air force is terrific when there is nothing to oppose it.", Winston Churchill: The Gathering storm, 1948

Cheers
Andy

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Thanks for the post Mobhack. That info is really usefull to a new guy ;)

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

I tend to CAS planes in the "midgame to endgame" phase. Contact with opponent forces is more or less well established in this phase and you probably are already probing their rear area (or getting you rear probed, excuse my language! :D) and getting in close range or engaging ADA assets/units. This is also the stage where many of your arty units run out of ammo. So I use them as a "reserve" artillery force. Many times I don't "commit" them at all.
High cost of modern air units is an issue but not that different from the more general issue of high cost modern "assets" as MBTs, IFVs etc.
As for combat effectiveness (in game terms)... well I don't like "super" units so the fact that planes are not always "spot on" with their cluster bombs or strafe to death a lone crew in the middle of chaos makes the instances where the bombing run goes as planned more "rewarding" as a game experience (or more frustrating if you're on the receiving end).

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

I recall seeing a quote of Iraqi commander of tank bn somewhere concerning the 1991 war... Something to the effect of "During the 30 days of air raids I have lost two tanks. Then, during 30 minutes of land combat, the rest."...

Just got a wild idea, would the game engine cope with assigning the planes for counterbattery (off-map) missions?

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Wouldn't your offmap (divisional/corps) artilery be protected by ADAs too? Wouldn't you need to include an "abstract" Air Defense battle?
.... uhmmm :dk:

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

hmm to bad,i really like using planes espacilly ones with bomb,o well

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

As I said, just a wild idea... Might be solved by letting planes pass over the map in "Level bomber" altitude, ie to be engaged only by heavier SAMs and not MANPADS and light AA?

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

I usualy go heavy with helicopters and people who have played against me at least once know that and are always ready with heavy air defences. I still don't see a particular problem with using fixed wing craft. I play modern battles almost exclusively. I just always make sure I use heavy SEAD missions who even if they don't destroy/disable SAMs, they do manage to draw several missiles to them, with some UAVs as an additional force, most of the dangerous air defences are, in one way or the other, neutralised, and the Strike crafts are more or less unopposed to do their work.
Considering I play as Greece which doesn't have some of the planes of major powers, and still manage to use them, it leads me to believe that perhaps you guys are not following the right tactics, or just are very unlucky.

If for example I only sent strike aircraft without any preparation, I don't know how many of them would make it to a second run. I realise that perhaps buying an expensive SEAD element (or of course more than a couple) might be seen as waste of money, but unless you go with 20+ stike crafts in the same turn, I don't see fixed wing craft working that well against a good opponent.

Just work more on it, but don't expect miracles. They can't win a battle on their own.

And if anyone wants to try it, please check this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=42821 (wink wink)

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

I think, you could use aircraft for interdiction missions, too. Ideally bombers with tons of heavy bombs could slow down enemy advance when bombing main road along its direction.. crates on the road make the move slower. Of course, this could be done with arty as well, but not in such a nice row :)

Personally I don't often play against full AI(purchase, deploy) at least I make the purchase.

I agree, aircrafts are good for scenarios and for PBEM when respecting some purchasing rules.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Hmmm, i think aircraft is worth if you use them the right way, obviously you need luck, but it doesn't play a major if your tactics are good,shell the enemy possible AA emplacements just before the strike IE, buy arty first, then aircraft, so that howitzers fire before aicraft expose, use SEAD, if the enemy has average AA, if good SAMs expected, get more SEAD,and some mortar to kill manpads

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Very good advice CaMpWiThAWP.
Always buy artillery before aircraft, so it fires to suppress air defenses just before a strike.
Also Buy SEAD aircraft first to help with last moment suppression.

Myself I tend to use aircraft mostly for on map counter battery missions, i.e. knocking out mortars and such. Usually takes 3 to 5 turns before you've spotted the positions via the smoke and if you use UAV's and the occasional helo pop-up to spot (and possibly run outta missiles) MANPADS I find it works fairly well. Around turn 10 in most games you're starting your initial assaults and not having enemy arty/mortars landing on you while you're doing so helps a lot.

Andy's (Mobhack) comments on real world aircraft effectiveness are spot on. At operational levels aircraft are invaluable, at tactical you're usually better served by artillery in-game (and often in real life).

And Marek_Tucan's quote about the 1st Gulf - "During the 30 days of air raids I have lost two tanks. Then, during 30 minutes of land combat, the rest." is correct if not quite complete ... it should read "During the 30 days of air raids I have lost two tanks. Then in 30 minutes of combat the with the Abrams tank, the rest." or something very close to that.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

In a campaign, you have to buy artillery (at least for core) before aircrafts.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Another option if you don't like the prevalence of MANPADS is to use the Mobhack tool that is provided with the game to edit the radio codes. Set the last digit to 1 means that AI will tend to skip the unit during purchase. This isn't a guaranteed cure, as the help file says:

"Rarity" in game terms does NOT necessarily mean "Rare". When the AI picks units for it's formations it starts at the bottom of the list and works up and it tends to favour the first thing it finds.

Try it, might make a difference. Andy and Don have been very good to us fussy gamers with lots of ways to adjust gameplay to suit personal tastes :up:. How many other games can you think of that are so flexible? Not many I'll bet.

Personally I'd like to see aircraft allowed in the core but I respect the decision not to do this and it doesn't stop me playing (to obsession :) ). There is enough scope to modify the game to suit almost every preference, so try out a few different options.

If the radio code thing doesn't work there is always the option to make some very radical changes, like giving each MANPAD unit only 1 missile, or chopping the units completely. That would make a very big difference and in my view is a step too close to cheating, but it can be done.

Health warning - any changes you make are entirely at your own risk, and don't use a modified OOB in PBEM. Scenarios and campaigns could be seriously wrecked as well.

I'm just pointing out that these options are possible - the choice is yours. It's a game and we can all enjoy it in the way that we like best, there isn't really a right or wrong here.

cheers,

Tim

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Or expand the MANPADS team to MANPADS section (atleast in the WarPac it was 6 men with 3 launchers or so), so in the end you have one unit (albeit with more missiles) instead of 3 and thus less MANPADS, though harder to kill. Fair's fair ;)

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Just my view but I think the AIs air defence is fine for the following reasons.
People tend to play more with helos than fixed wing.
Also tend to think air assets are far more common than they are so AI buys more AA than it should to compensate for this fact.
Yes some formations might work in conjunction with helos but not always & many dont.
Fixed wing use in my view is used pretty rarely in the game role really only to plug holes in arty cover.
Might lead an assault as additional punch to arty.
How many planes do you think would support 3 Companys, probably 2 if lucky called in for a specific task then might linger or clear off.
If they are used in large numbers then intel would probably expect them so AAA would be beefed up in the area this is represented by the extra MANPADS etc but should probably be represented by offmap area SAMs. The player would probably get upset though that only 3 of his 10 planes made it to the map because area SAMs got them so the extra MANPADS is a middle road.

If planes helos are not used till the middle portion of the game there survivability goes up as you can detect & neutralise the remaining AAA assets. Both are then far more effective as do not have to find own targets & if they fail to destroy the target have at least upset something in the area making the area ripe for ground forces to attack.
Because all air is fast it does not mean it should lead what it means is it can reach places fast so its a reaction force. Tanks spotted over there send your planes or move helos to boost the opposing force till slower help arrives. Preferably from an angle that gaves ground forces a flank shot if they need it.
And yes the best SEAD you can buy helps a lot

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

While I believe the way the AI handles air defence is fine, I wouldn't say the same about the placement of immobile SAMs. It places 3-6 units in a 3x3 area. As soon as you find one, they are all dead.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Artificial Intelligences - aren't.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Which is only realistic, mind you ;) You cannot run the data cables too far ;)

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

I am not so sure how realistic it is to put all your air defences in a 200x200 meters zone.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Take it as simulation of external FC radar - bear in minf that in SP, EACH SAM unit has its own, so keeping 'em concentrated offsets it a bit.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Well, even if I accept this as "realistic", it is a huge exploit-game balance issue IMO. The human player has to choose to either annihilate all the AI's static air defences in one turn as long as he locates a single unit of them, or ignore them to not exploit this, which doesn't feel very right either. I don't know, I just hope that the way the AI places them changes in the future. It's not a game breaking issue (and I am sure for many it is not even an issue), but...

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Same goes with your arty it should not be spread all over the map, in a nod to game scale tend to place mine 100-150m apart rather than adjacent.
Restrict your arty or its caliber & you will have a harder time takeing them out.
If mobile hit them with a mortar so they scatter if you don't like it then find them again.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

*blinks*

Who needs a harder time taking them out?
Maybe half the time, probably closer to 35%, do I manage to actually destroy the AI's artillery. After 2,3, often 4 barrages of counterbattery (using an entire battery of my guns VS one single position/hex) by me the crew may .. . may . . . abandon the weapon.

I sometimes wonder if I'm playing the same game folks talk about here *chuckles*.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

What is the point of spreading out my artillery? Does the AI ever attack it?

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Thats most certainly a yes but not in a half hearted maner seems to be mainly if its struggling for targets it will slap you hard. And I dont play the AI much.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

I don't even remember when it was the last time the AI attacked my artillery. I play single player often. The AI will attack my air defences some times, but not the other type of artillery.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Several things to take into account before doing onboard CB fire.

1st I often do not bother unless I know or think its a heavy gun.
2nd how far through the game is it could be running out of ammo soon anyway

These are important because your guns will be away from the front lines for a while
Call time of 1.5 plus 2 turns to bombard means 6 turns minimum they are not suppresing the front line.

If you do CB using a Batt is a waste unless a tight group.
2 Mortars or guns if they wont reach on target should route & convince to run with the second go in most instances. If they are in rough I would not bother or assign a 3rd gun. If you think did not hit to well or side seems to rally well leaving one gun for an extra turn falling just back from in the position it routed to should stop it recovering.
This is an ideal use for your plane that just has its cannon left send it in on turn 2 so you see it & know its running.

Basically if you are going to CB you need to route it badly enough so it continues running. 2 or 3 guns will achieve this & one will remind it to keep running.

Truth is though I only do it if I am struggling for targets or know its something nasty as arty is much more useful giving my front line an easier ride. Especially if you are a mech force the best defence against arty is to move strike hard & relocate before it hits. If playing foot sloogers all you can do is diperse if you think its coming in trying to get platoon leaders clear as a priority.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

What size game do you play & how much arty do you have compared to the AI. I always have less & would say it tries to hit it every 4 or 5 games, not sure as not thought about but think pretty rare in meetings probably because it does not normally have so much. Recent assault battle I did pre bombarded with smoke screen & AI hit my arty a couple of turns later with everything it had.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

I don't have much artillery. 3-4 platoons plus some mortars, in max size map and 30K wallet.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

You must just be lucky then or conversely I am not, it does seem to depend what mood the AI is in but moving has saved me several times.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

To be honest I've pretty well given up trying to fire mortars/artillery on the front lines.
With the automatic scatter for the first volley (unless you have a high tech FO spotting) and my incredible luck - I'm not joking or exaggerating when I say close to 75% of the time it scatters toward my units - and the lack of effect suppression seems to have on the AI until it builds to about 50+ I find I hinder myself far more then the AI trying to hit the front lines.
I tend to stick to countermortar/battery and air defense suppression.

Only on rare occasions have I seen AI controlled mortars/artillery/SAM's collect enough suppression from less then 3 to 6 tubes of anything smaller then 155mm for the crew to rout. I just wish my troops were that steady under fire!

That's probably the difference, I tend to play with infantry heavy forces so running away is rarely an option, and AI indirect fire has an uncanny ability to land at the worst possible place at the worst possible moment, so suppressing it really does have to be a priority.

I rarely play with more then two batteries of off-map artillery on my side, and I pretty much have to leave them to the automatic counter battery routine to deal with the battalions of artillery the AI tends to have. So most of my counterbattery is done with 60mm, 81mm, 4.2"/120mm mortars - not the most effective weapons in the world for it, but all that I have available.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

I assume you are playing with standard settings.

Your troops are obviosly rather close to the enemy always assume the first round will fall short in that instance.
The only time I tend to bombard if within 100m is cluttered terrain namely woods & urban pinning them means you can move adjacent unseen mortars are the tool for the job or light arty but not offboard ever if you are in close proximity. You place the arty in the hex behind them not on them if distance is only 100m between the forces. Z fire with anyone in your force thats stuck & then move in.


Yes they are the most effective weapons to use thats why I said use them. Don't know if I have ever CB fired with 60s mind you due to range.
Your FOO probably does not have LOS so the goal is to route not kill them esp if near the map edge. Small weapons with a high rate of fire are best for this 2 single mortars probably put out as many shells as 3 155s

Never bothered to test but try setting up a quick one human vs human make sure target has a morale of 70-75 say Russia or Nato.
Fire 3 single mortars or 2 doubles if use those for 2 turns & see effect.
If you like try with 155s they will probably just be pinned.
To make sure you leave one gun firing an extra turn to keep them running both if you think you missed.
Using bigger guns only really do if have a LOS not hopeing to kill them but might get lucky & break the gun.

Using arty generally if suppresing a suspected location might spread about but tend to concentrate on targets firing at adj hexes often. If you do not do this need to fire for several turns to have an effect as rally each time in between fires. Very important if they are dug in in which case I would probably use near double the guns stated if I had them.
Means you never have enough to go round so have to think ahead where you are going to need it.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Unless you have your units very close to the fire hexes, there is no way your arti will fire that far out.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

Hi all,

A bit late on the discussion, but I've just recently dug back into SP-MBT recently in resolving battles generated by GDW's The Third World War.

Anyways, I completely agree that aircraft in the game are generally not too terrible effective. I also agree with the reasons presented - namely that actual 'close support' really ISNT that effective within the time your average battle models.

Would it be possible to 'officially' reduce the point cost of the aircraft to model their in-game effectiveness (or lack there of ;) ). Are the points flexible to that sort of 'fudge factor'? I wouldnt want to see them super cheap or anything, but if almost everyone (including the coders) agrees that they arent that effective, it would seem logical to have the points match the perceived effectiveness.

Has this been proposed before or is there some other reason for not wanting to do this?

Anyways, thanks again for all the hard work. Regardless of all the other tactical games that come out, we always come back to SP-WW2 and SP-MBT. The modeling is simply superior to so many other games which boast more bells and whistles.

Re: is aircraft worth it?
 

If you think they are not cost effective why not just not buy them, if anything they are to cheap as making more expensive would mean people are less likely to use them.
Also the game bases cost on the units capabilities taking no acout of the useful battlefield info the pilot instantly radios to you.