How do I beat the enemy-army of 9 Medium tanks, 10 AA, six infanteri, All gathered in one. They are approaching me fast. I have 24 TB's and 3 strategic bombers and 5 rocketfighters
Please log in to post a reply.
Divide your tacs in 4 stacks of 6, and divide the other planes between them. Then patrol the enemy army (make sure they are in the blue circle). You WILL take some losses because of the heavy AA, and it will also take some time, but in the end you will kill him. You may need to change to patrol circle a few times; do it right after your "tic" (when the 15m timer in the bottom of your screen has just passed zero).
Oh and there is no need for duplicate posts on the same subject!
K.Rokossovski's advice above is very good. I would, however, divide my tactical bombers into 4 stacks of 5 squadrons each and 1 stack of four squadrons, for maximum offensive efficiency. It may also save a tactical bomber squadron or two.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Divide your tacs in 4 stacks of 6, and divide the other planes between them.
If you are unfamiliar with the in-game dynamic of "state-based damage efficiency," I would suggest that you enter the phrase in the search dialog box in the upper righthand corner of this page and start reading. Improving your understanding of SBDE and how it effects the performance of your unit stacks is one of the best ways to improve your game performance as a player.
The reason I advised to use six, is that they will keep their fighting power for longer. The enemy AA is sure to kill your own planes, and sending stacks of six will ensure that they will keep their optimal fire power (of five, as Montana said) after they have taken their first lost plane.
Right, what the people above said, about splitting your planes into groups.
He has mixed together his tanks and infantry, which is good news for you since his main hitting power (his tanks) will be approaching at foot speed. This will give you more time on target.
In the larger picture... you say they are "approaching me", but you don't mention any ground troops, so I'm guessing that he is approaching your core areas and there's no ground defense. Planes are good for defense since you can move then quickly, but as you see AA can make this expensive, so generally you want a mix of units to defend an area.
I understand your logic, and have employed your strategy in some situations, too. That said, a stack of six TB squadrons will lose one squadron at 16.67% damage (83.33% condition), and a stack of five TB squadrons will not lose a squadron until it has suffered 20.00% damage (80.00% condition). That can be the difference between losing three or four squadrons, and losing none at all. Of course, if all of your TB squadrons suffer 25% damage or more, for example, the result will be the same.K.Rokossovski wrote:
The reason I advised to use six, is that they will keep their fighting power for longer.
Personally, I always try to employ strategies that minimize damage and losses to my TB wings. The "Angry Birds" are my Big Stick, and I do everything I can to avoid unnecessary damage or unit losses to my tactical bombers. And any strategy that saves two or three squadrons, even with significant damage, and allows them to recoup their damage through the incremental unit "healing" process, is usually better to my way of thinking.
I should also mention that an actively engaged player also has the option of recalling his attacking/patrolling TB wings to their home base for a few minutes while refueling and recombining them into SBDE-efficient stacks of five squadrons after suffering losses . . . . but that requires the player to actively manage his attacks and not leave his troops on auto-pilot for hours at a time.
To the original question:
bombard with 16 to 24 units of artillery, scoot back an hour and hit it again. Repeat several times to weaken the enemy, and then patrol over it with your planes as described above.
Lol, I don't think he has that much artillery.VorlonFCW wrote:
bombard with 16 to 24 units of artillery,
But he certainly should more than ZERO, which is what most rookies have.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Lol, I don't think he has that much artillery.
Since he has no artillery in his stack, bombarding with artillery is a great strategy. Just keep ground unit(s) in front of your artillery in case he is advancing towards your artillery. You should also have AA in with your artillery in case he is able to bring airplanes into range to attack your artillery.
Hitting with artillery and retreating gradually weakens his stack.
Defending with AT and infantry can slow him down. Both are better on defense.
About 3 vs 5 stacks. I beleive Roko is right that 3 will do better over the long battle. I think I've run situations like this in the calc, but wouldn't hurt to check it. 5 stacks would do more damage per hour, but they each tic as separate armies. But the 5 stacks will lose their punch per tic faster and wind up with a disadvatage. But if you are on you can start with 4 stacks of 5 and when you lose one bring it back and replace with 5. That isn't more efficient, but it's still faster without losing too much efficiency. In this case though 3 stacks is also nice because he has 3 strats.
If you are actively managing your battles, and your opponent is not, you simply withdraw your 5-squadron tactical air stacks if and when they lose a squadron (and are thereby reduced to 4-squadron stacks), and then pull them back for 25 to 30 minutes to refuel and recombine them into 5-squadron stacks again. Easy-peasy.DxC wrote:
About 3 vs 4 stacks. I beleive Roko is right that 3 will do better over the long battle. I think I've run situations like this in the calc, but wouldn't hurt to check it. 5 stacks would do more damage per hour, but they each tic as separate armies. But the 5 stacks will lose their punch per tic faster and wind up with a disadvatage.
That said, my larger point is this: a 6-squadron stack will lose a unit before a 5-squadron stack does. That's also a big part of the SBDE concept.
Yes, but there is a misunderstanding about it in terms of efficiency vs speed. A single large stack is more efficient in terms of losing less total troops over a long battle where you expect to lose quit a lot as in this case. It takes longer though, and that is often the critical part. If you are are trying to avoid losing a single unit while actively monitoring than yea, reducing the stack can save the unit, but in this scenario bigger stacks are better.MontanaBB wrote:
That said, my larger point is this: a 6-squadron stack will lose a unit before a 5-squadron stack does. That's also a big part of the SBDE concept.
Please see the first part of my response above, regarding withdrawing your tactical air stacks and recombining them into 5-squadron stacks again when unit losses are suffered which reduce them to 4-squadron stacks.DxC wrote:
A single large stack is more efficient in terms of losing less total troops over a long battle where you expect to lose quit a lot as in this case. It takes longer though, and that is often the critical part.
Yea, I pointed that out before you, but that is not the issue I'm getting at.
DxC wrote:
But if you are on you can start with 4 stacks as 5 and when you lose one bring it back and replace with 5. That isn't more efficient, but it's still faster without losing too much efficiency.
I do understand your point regarding this issue:DxC wrote:
Yea, I pointed that out before you, but that is not the issue I'm getting at.
I also know that a 6- or 7-squadron stack is going to suffer unit losses faster than a 5-squadron stack. That's just the simple mathematical consequences of the SBDE concept in practice. In a hypothetical example where we have 30 tactical bomber squadrons, I posit that it is better to organize them in six 5-squadron wings, rather than five 6-squadron wings, withdraw them immediately when they are reduced to five 4-squadron wings and one 5-squadron wing, and then recombine them into five 5-squadron wings and return them to battle. Lather, rinse, repeat. The tactics I am suggesting draw maximum benefit from the SBDE math, in terms of maximum offensive efficiency, as well as minimizing/delaying unit losses. Obviously, these tactics are going to work best when the player is actively managing his air attack and is checking the status of his air wings at the air combat ticker's 15-minute intervals. If the player must be away from the game for 30 minutes or longer during the air attack described, then I would probably employ the tactics you suggest.DxC wrote:
A single large stack is more efficient in terms of losing less total troops over a long battle where you expect to lose quit a lot as in this case.
Montana, you may be right in a situation where you BOTH have all the time in the world to finish the batlle, AND can be on for the duration of the air battle.
But what Dx is saying, when you have to withdraw your planes for two valuable ticks (that's only a 2x15m flight from your air base) AND you're imperfect in terms of time efficiency (for example by taking the planes back NOT immediatly after their tick, OR by failing to reorganize them the MOMENT they are back at your air base) you lose even more time. And the OP said the enemy was advancing at him, which means he cannot afford to lose valuable fire power (ticks) by these reorganizations. So yeah, I stick by my 6-tac stack advice.
Actually, having to recall and regroup does take time, but that is not what I mean by losing efficiency. First of all it was probably confusing that I used the word "effeciency", without defining it, since SBDE contains the same word. Here I would define effeciency as their_HP_loss / your_HP_loss. The best way to maximize this equation is to have every tic of a stack at maximum power relative to enemy. The most effecient stack by this definition is to put all your units into one stack. Even though the SBDE value will be low, the stack will always tic at maximum per tic power and their/your HP will be maximized. When you split into good SBDE stacks of say 5 TACs they have non optimal power unless the TACs are all at 100% condition, which is rare. Using large stacks does take a lot longer though and I also use 5/5 or 6/6 stacks 90% of the time for the sake of speed. In practice I would only use large stacks if it was a big battle where I was sure to lose a lot of units and their/your HP was more important than time. I was not promoting using this in general, but just trying to clarify that a stack at low SBDE is not necessarily the horrible thing it is often made out to be, and is, at times, the best way to go.K.Rokossovski wrote:
But what Dx is saying, when you have to withdraw your planes for two valuable ticks (that's only a 2x15m flight from your air base) AND you're imperfect in terms of time efficiency (for example by taking the planes back NOT immediatly after their tick, OR by failing to reorganize them the MOMENT they are back at your air base) you lose even more time.
Just to emphasize, I normally do use 5/5 INT/TAC but it depends somewhat on average condition and time till DC when some healing can occur and other factors. Here I have over 100 planes but condition is around 88 so if I make a big stack right away I will lose a bunch. So first I will patrol with 11 5/5 stacks on a mass of AA and bring higher condition stacks back as I lose planes. If I start with high condition stacks I will use bigger stacks instead so if I can get some high condition after losses I will put them in larger stacks to patrol. Of course, when stack condition drops below 100-100/stack-size I can split them to avoid losing planes, but at some point you got to lose them in big battle. The heal at DC is a consideration and one could calculate the optimum in terms of HP loss effeciency and heal. If it's worth it you might want to bring stacks even below 5 to end up with more HP at the end. But, in general, it's probably good to use stacks of 5 for fast take down and reasonably ok HP effeciency, and possible lower than 5 in some cases. However, disregarding heal, one big stack is better in terms of their/your HP.
10 Lv1 AA is 50 defense points. His infantry and tanks will soak up damage. The level of the TBs makes a big difference. Level 1 TB have 1 armor attack.
L2 TB have 2 armor attack. I don't know what the SBDE of a 24 TB stack would be. Having one stack would spread the anti-air fire of the defending units.
Lv1 TB 1 x 24 planes X SBDE of 50 would be 12 attack points x random factor
Lv2 TB 2 x 24 x SBDE of 50 would be 24 attack points x random factor
The higher the SBDE of the 24 TB stack the more damage it could do.
If the ant-air points of the enemy are low, than smaller stacks deliver more damage.
The condition of the 24 TB at the start makes a big difference too.
Wanted to chime in and confuse you all even more 
There are of course also hidden calculations and mechanics going on in combat. One of note is called "overwhelm factor", which simulates encircling enemies, but which to some point also counteracts SBDE. The overwhelm factor basically compares the total attack damage of the attacker with the total defense damage of the defender, and the higher the damage of the attacker compared to the defender, the closer his damage output comes the theoretical maximum of 100% (plus x-factor). The maximum is reached when the attacker's damage is 20 times higher than defender's damage. If the stack's damage does not exceed the damage value of the defender or is even smaller, it can get as low as 30% of the theoretical maximum (+x factor). That is also the reason why many players observe in normal fights that their units deal less damage per tick than what is shown in the unit details, because the values shown are the theoretical 100%, before x-factor.
If we put both overwhelm factor and SBDE together, the most efficient army (regarding damage output) would be a large stack consisting of many different unit types, to reach a high stack damage while not lowering SBDE. But one can have many different goals in combat. If the goal is to get over with combat as fast as possible, forming multiple stacks is the way to go, as attacks go out faster from both sides.
Oh and even all what I just wrote is only a simplification of how combat is actually calculated, and there are other factors as well. So please still don't take it literally
Please log in to post a reply.
