This question is rather multi-part, but still inter-related:

 

When an air group consists of more than one member of only one aircraft type, how are unused fuel and weapons allocated among the individual members? That is, is each individual member tracked independently, or is there some sort of overall "formula" that determines the allocations?

 

For example, if only one member of a group gets re-fueled, does that fuel remain associated with that one individual member, or does it effectively get distributed evenly among all the group members?

 

Similarly, when an air group expends part of its total available weapons, do those weapons come equally from all members of the group, or do some members expend all of their weapons, while others retain some or all of theirs? (And is there any way to see this?)

 

When individual members of such groups get shot down, or split-off from the group, how are the currently-remaining weapons and fuel allocated among the remaining members (or between the split groups)?

 

When an air group consists of mixed types of aircraft, how does this affect or change the way these allocations occur?

 

When an air group consists of multiple sub-groups of the same type/loadout of aircraft, how does this affect or change the way these allocations occur? What about when they are the same aircraft type with differing loadouts (and possibly differing fuel ranges)?

 

I am curious about these things as the result of some observations (or from some recent discussion, in one case):

 

First, I've seen the number of remaining weapons of an air group not be proportioned "equally" after member(s) of the group got shot down - sort of implying that the weapons are tracked on an individual member basis.

 

Second, when air groups have been split, I've seen cases where one group had proportionally more remaining weapons that the other - further supporting the idea that weapons are tracked on an individual member basis.

 

Third, I've seen cases where there were multiple sub-groups of the same aircraft type/loadout in a group, and when partial weapons were automatically allocated to a target, they all came from the first sub-group only. This seems to imply that at least sub-groups have their remaining weapons tracked independently.

 

Recent discussion mentioned situations where there was inadequate fuel to top-off all members of the group, and touched on how fuel might be allocated in such a case. Other discussion mentioned the possibility that tanker(s) could be split-off prior to re-fueling all members, and left me wondering what effects this "unbalance" would have on the affected group - or if the fuel would be "evened out" among the group members for the purposes of tracking it in the game.

 

It also left me wondering how re-fueling allocation works in the case of mixed groups consisting of two or more sub-groups of aircraft that have different fuel ranges - due to a/c type or loadout. In particular, does it "allocate" the amount of fuel given to each type such that the entire group will have the same remaining fuel range? (If not, what range would the range circle and BINGO computation be working with, and would this lead to situations where some of the aircraft could run out of fuel before the others, and so forth?)

 

So, I'm curious what actually happens in these situations... and whether the player has any control over any of this (other than which weapons of each sub-group get allocated against a target)? Is fuel allocation handled in a similar way... and does the player have any influence over fuel distribution, other than forcibly splitting-off tankers prematurely)? And what sorts of unanticipated results should one watch out for in these situations?

 

Thanks.

Refueling doesn't work (at least not in the fashion you might expect from a group of uniform types) in mixed type air groups, JoeK.

 

See page 67 of the manual.

When an air group consists of more than one member of only one aircraft type, how are unused fuel and weapons allocated among the individual members? That is, is each individual member tracked independently, or is there some sort of overall "formula" that determines the allocations?

 

For example, if only one member of a group gets re-fueled, does that fuel remain associated with that one individual member, or does it effectively get distributed evenly among all the group members?

 

Similarly, when an air group expends part of its total available weapons, do those weapons come equally from all members of the group, or do some members expend all of their weapons, while others retain some or all of theirs? (And is there any way to see this?)

 

When individual members of such groups get shot down, or split-off from the group, how are the currently-remaining weapons and fuel allocated among the remaining members (or between the split groups)?

 

When an air group consists of mixed types of aircraft, how does this affect or change the way these allocations occur?

 

When an air group consists of multiple sub-groups of the same type/loadout of aircraft, how does this affect or change the way these allocations occur? What about when they are the same aircraft type with differing loadouts (and possibly differing fuel ranges)?

 

I am curious about these things as the result of some observations (or from some recent discussion, in one case):

 

First, I've seen the number of remaining weapons of an air group not be proportioned "equally" after member(s) of the group got shot down - sort of implying that the weapons are tracked on an individual member basis.

 

Second, when air groups have been split, I've seen cases where one group had proportionally more remaining weapons that the other - further supporting the idea that weapons are tracked on an individual member basis.

 

Third, I've seen cases where there were multiple sub-groups of the same aircraft type/loadout in a group, and when partial weapons were automatically allocated to a target, they all came from the first sub-group only. This seems to imply that at least sub-groups have their remaining weapons tracked independently.

 

OK, this is pretty complicated stuff, but I think I can address some of it. I was running a refuelling test and saw some of this information.

 

First, multi-plane groups exist as GROUPS, which are composed of at least one UNIT, each of which has at least one plane. All planes in a unit probably need to be identical. A great deal of information is available in the unit window.

 

Second, I am not saying how or why things are calculated, merely what you can see.

 

1) All planes in a unit have the same fuel status. No idea how weapons remaining are allocated. Each unit is tracked individually. Resources are probably not ever transferred between units.

 

2) You can split planes out of a unit at will. This may affect weapons available. For example, if the unit has 5 bombs and 4 planes, probably one particular unit gets an extra bomb.

...

First, multi-plane groups exist as GROUPS, which are composed of at least one UNIT, each of which has at least one plane. All planes in a unit probably need to be identical. A great deal of information is available in the unit window.

OK, then I've been misunderstanding "Units" all this time, as I thought a "Unit" was an individual ship, plane, sub, missile, etc. and didn't realize that it was instead a sub-division of a Group. (But apparently only in terms of air Groups?) Anyway, this will alter my understandings of things quite a bit.

 

Second, I am not saying how or why things are calculated, merely what you can see.

 

1) All planes in a unit have the same fuel status. No idea how weapons remaining are allocated. Each unit is tracked individually. Resources are probably not ever transferred between units.

 

2) You can split planes out of a unit at will. This may affect weapons available. For example, if the unit has 5 bombs and 4 planes, probably one particular unit gets an extra bomb.

 

OK, individual tracking would be consistent with my observations, where, for example, I've seen air groups get split (along type/loadout boundaries) and the resulting two separate groups showed differing range circles... and I've seen cases such as air groups having, say, four planes with 11 AAW missiles left (out of 16 originally), and one member gets shot down, and the group then has just seven AAW missiles left (Which seems to indicate that when a plane gets shot down, it's full original missile load gets subtracted from the total remaining for the group - also implying that the individual planes did not expend their missiles "equally" among them in prior battle - which is a bit of a surprize to me, yet not implausible). It does mean, though, that one might be in for a bit of a nasty surprize if a group had, say, a total of five missiles remaining, and then one member got shot down, which would leave the survivors of the group with only one missile among them (assuming an original load of four missiles per plane).

For fighter units that are low on missiles eg. a pair with only one missile left, you may want to send some of them home early, assuming you have the resources to micromanage it. It may not be worth the bother.

OK, then I've been misunderstanding "Units" all this time, as I thought a "Unit" was an individual ship, plane, sub, missile, etc. and didn't realize that it was instead a sub-division of a Group. (But apparently only in terms of air Groups?) Anyway, this will alter my understandings of things quite a bit.

 

Yeah, to be clear, for air units only, a 'unit' can be a number of aircraft of the same type launched together with the same loadout; i.e. 2 A-6E with SEAD loadout, or 12 F-15E with GP is one unit each, but 2 A-6Es with GP and 2 with ASuW are also 2 units, as are 2 A-6E with GP, and 12 F-15E with GP. If you launch any of those groups together at the same time, they'll make a group of the 2 units, but the only time you should ever launch them as one group is when they're all standoff weapons, same plane type, or all 'bomb-range' weapons, same plane type. Otherwise, you're wasting fuel on one type of plane or the other, most likely.

 

I rarely launch more than 4 of anything at one time, though, unless I'm mass-ferrying. The Harpoon Ai gets confused by multiple-axis attacks fairly easily, so I try to attack from multiple directions when I have the time/range to do so, and I'll take the time to figure missile flight times so as to get (for example), Harpoons in range just in time to soak up the first launch of SAMs just as the HARMS come into SAM range. If the HARMs get a hit on a Top Dome, more of the Harpoons survive, after all.

 

OK, experts: how much can a Prowler cut off of Mr. Grumble's range in the current GE? I don't figure you can pull anything like what's described in The Sixth Battle, but I wonder how much IS possible. I'm perfectly willing to test, but if someone's done the work, I'd be happy to not reinvent the wheel.

OK, experts: how much can a Prowler cut off of Mr. Grumble's range in the current GE? I don't figure you can pull anything like what's described in The Sixth Battle, but I wonder how much IS possible. I'm perfectly willing to test, but if someone's done the work, I'd be happy to not reinvent the wheel.

 

In the 2011.001 GE with the latest HCDB we have...

 

Prowler ECM value 50

Admiral Lazarev (sorry if I picked wrong 'Kirov') longest ranged radar 300nm Top Pair

SA-N-6 range 81nm

In this situation the Prowler would loiter at 81nm and reduce the Admiral Lazarev's radar range to 227nm, not much improvement and doesn't decrease the SA-N-6 envelope at all.

 

 

In the hypothetical case that the GE would use directors we could do like the book and jam the Palm Frond directors 40nm range

Prowler ECM value 50

Palm Frond 40nm range

SA-N-6 range 81nm

If the Prowler loitered at 81nm the Palm Frond would be reduced to 31nm.

If the Prowler managed to get to 40nm the Palm Frond would be reduced to 7nm, really putting a hurt on the SA-N-6.

 

 

Funny, I was just re-reading The Sixth Battle the last day and a half of my vacation, back to work tomorrow!

 

 

Okay, never mind the hypothetical case, all it does is illustrate my ignorance. Brad tells me Top Dome are the SA-N-6 directors and Palm Frond are SS sets

Edited April 3, 201115 yr by TonyE
CV32 corrects the TonyE

OK, experts: how much can a Prowler cut off of Mr. Grumble's range in the current GE? I don't figure you can pull anything like what's described in The Sixth Battle, but I wonder how much IS possible. I'm perfectly willing to test, but if someone's done the work, I'd be happy to not reinvent the wheel.

 

In the 2011.001 GE with the latest HCDB we have...

 

Prowler ECM value 50

Admiral Lazarev (sorry if I picked wrong 'Kirov') longest ranged radar 300nm Top Pair

SA-N-6 range 81nm

In this situation the Prowler would loiter at 81nm and reduce the Admiral Lazarev's radar range to 227nm, not much improvement and doesn't decrease the SA-N-6 envelope at all.

 

 

In the hypothetical case that the GE would use directors we could do like the book and jam the Palm Frond directors 40nm range

Prowler ECM value 50

Palm Frond 40nm range

SA-N-6 range 81nm

If the Prowler loitered at 81nm the Palm Frond would be reduced to 31nm.

If the Prowler managed to get to 40nm the Palm Frond would be reduced to 7nm, really putting a hurt on the SA-N-6.

 

 

Funny, I was just re-reading The Sixth Battle the last day and a half of my vacation, back to work tomorrow!

 

Actually, I can loiter a Prowler at ~27 nm at vlow. Will that cut the envelope any, or will radar horizon hurt me? Also, I got to 24 nm, he fired 5 missiles at me (1 at a time) and couldn't hit. However, as soon as I fired HARMs from behind the Prowler, he could fire at those pretty well, so, yeah, no Sixth Battle shenanigans, but, I think I have a few ideas on how to use less missiles on a Russian SAG because of this, too. I can also loiter at I think 50 nm at 'Low' altitude and not get fired on.

Actually, I can loiter a Prowler at ~27 nm at vlow. Will that cut the envelope any, or will radar horizon hurt me? Also, I got to 24 nm, he fired 5 missiles at me (1 at a time) and couldn't hit. However, as soon as I fired HARMs from behind the Prowler, he could fire at those pretty well, so, yeah, no Sixth Battle shenanigans, but, I think I have a few ideas on how to use less missiles on a Russian SAG because of this, too. I can also loiter at I think 50 nm at 'Low' altitude and not get fired on.

 

Line of sight Large Ship to VLow for radar is 26nm in the game (radar horizon) so the jamming should not help you (other than point defense to reduce the SAM Ph).

 

Large Ship to Low is 53nm