Single wing air groups

[5rgj]

Playing TFH as UK.
Summer 1943 I have quite a large air force and have got a bit tired of micro-managing it. I have tried setting air groups stances to Defensive or even Passive as I understand that they will stop attacking before being destroyed. However, with multiple wings in the air group the percentage calculation seems to be done as an aggregate, so it is quite possible for one wing to be at nearly 100% and another at 0%. So the group will continue to attack resulting in the complete loss of one wing. My only thought on how to work around this would be ensure that air groups only have one wing. I would simply select multiple units in cases where I needed more than one wing of air power.
So the questions are, is this a correct assessment of how/why the stances still result in units fighting to the death, are there reasons why multiple single wing air units would be less efficient than a single multiple wing unit doing the same job?
Hope that makes sense
Thanks

 

[Kovax]

I'm pretty sure that your assessment of the problem is correct. The solution appears to be viable, unless only one of those single-unit wings flies for some reason, while the others remain grounded. In that case it will absorb all of the incoming fire, use up its defensiveness on the first couple of shots, and then get shredded. It would also require a LOT more air leaders, and if you lose a plane, I think (not positive) that the leader is gone. It should be no different in terms of stacking penalties, since the total number of planes on each side of the combat determines the penalty, regardless of how they're arranged. Probably worth trying.

 

[5rgj]

Thanks for the reply

You have a good point about the one single-unit wing flying if all the others are grounded. It is almost the same problem the other way around - instead of damaged units continuing to fly until destroyed you could have healthy units committed to suicide missions!

I did think I would need a lot more leaders but the UK does have quite a few. However, if a leaderless unit was always paired with a lead unit wouldn't that help - after all only one leader shows up in the battle detail window.

Unfortunately, this is beginning to sound like as much micro management as the original system.

 

[Count Blue]

This kind of problem is solved by the "reserve" stance. Say you have a stack of four planes on any given airport then you may put a stack of four more in "reserve" stance there.
Once one unit of the "fighting" stack is below the given level (agressive, defensive, passive) it will get swapped out for one of the fresh units from the "reserve" stack.
You will need usually 50% of reserve stacks to make this work for prolonged periods of time sometime even 100% depending on area and enemy resistance.
The reserve stack will repair while its stationed on that airport.

This solution requires very little micromanagement. You have to check from time to time if the "reserve" stacks are still fit.

Bear in mind that all planes account for the capacity of the airport so if it is low, for example like 4, only 4 planes will get repaired at one time.
If more are damaged they will have to wait for repairs.

 

[Kovax]

Good point about the airfield size. If you've got a group of 4 planes, and the airfield can only repair 3 at a time, it can lead to the destruction of the 4th plane. Each day, the planes fly and take damage, but only the FIRST 3 of the 4 get repaired. Regardless of the mission priority setting, that 4th plane will continue to fly as long as the rest are in good shape, keeping the average condition above the mission's minimum cutoff.

Reserves seem like an answer, but as stated, you still need to keep an eye on things every so often. Air combat is just micromanagement intensive, practically any way you handled it, and just when you thought you could sit back and let things run, your front advances and it's time to move them to a new forward air base.

 

[5rgj]

Ah yes the reserve mission. Thanks for reminding me that that exists, I did try it in the early days but it didn't seem to work very well. Your explanation suggests I didn't have either enough planes and/or big enough airfields. As you say air forces do seem to be labour intensive, I guess I just notice it more because I'm less interested in that aspect. Thanks again for the suggestions.

 

[GarfunkeL]

If you really want to bring down the amount of micro, forget CAS/TAC and only use fighters and strategic bombers. Put groups of 4 INT above each enemy airfield you can reach and send the big bombers to do their thing. That way you don't need to do anything except move fighters forward as you capture enemy airbases. Against the AI, you don't really need the extra firepower from air. Just to be safe, you could have one group of 4 TAC just for emergencies.

 

[5rgj]

Hmmm interesting suggestion, thanks