Airpower interdiction in these games

[FM WarB]

I have always thought (unless I've missed a change) that the interdiction model is faulty as it permits no FlaK or SAM fire in ground defense.
Are there any scenarios with no interdiction effect, but perhaps more robust air oobs, to use as one wishes to hit rear area roads?

[Glenn Saunders]

but perhaps more robust air oobs, to use as one wishes to hit rear area roads?

How do you propose you hit units on roads in the rear if you can't see them "as one wishes"?

If you don't want interdiction in the game you can disable it in the PDT but if you replace it with "a more robuse Air OOB" it won't be interdiction.

Glenn

[Dog Soldier]

I have always thought (unless I've missed a change) that the interdiction model is faulty as it permits no FlaK or SAM fire in ground defense.

There are two interdiction pdt values.

Allied and Axis Air Interdiction: Percentage by side that an interdiction will occur. This includes a subjective value for the interdiction planes being driven off by flak, getting lost, intercepted, or just not finding a target.

Interdiction Effect: Percent damage the interdiction attack could make if it finds the target and drive the attack home. This value could be considered to already have been set low enough to consider flak assets not represented in the game that are:
1. Static Flak - Assets protecting key intersections, supply routes, urban areas and bridges.
2. Mobile Flak - Assets assigned to guard convoys of reinforcements, supplies etc then return to a depot for new orders.

Another factor is whether the interdiction attack flight is intercepted en route, or over the target area. A part of the interdiction effect could be considered to have been lost by this type of interference from air force assets friendly to the ground units in question, thus reducing the percentage for the effect in the pdt. Are you certain this was not considered when the games were developed?
Some planes in the interdiction group could have aborted for a host of reasons and thus reduced the strike potential of any single interdiction attack. Are you sure this is not covered in the percentage in the pdt? Why are you sure?

So why do you think the model is faulty and does not consider the effect of ground defense against air interdiction as you state in your post? Do you have data that points to a particular percentage of air interdiction missions being successfully flown and damage done by such missions during any PzC game published so far? If so, I am sure HPS would like to hear about your hard data.

As long as one is creating a "more robust air oobs", one could include a lot more air recon missions. Turn off the limited air recon optional rule and set the interdiction values in the pdt to zero.

I think this is what FM WarB is trying to accomplish. The only issue, is for the player to swallow the assumption that the additional air assets were really involved in the battle as interdiction forces and not being "pulled" from other strategic missions outside the scope of the game battle. Also that there is then perhaps a lot more flak units in the game OOB then currently exist. If this is fiction and the players like it, then there is no problem.

Dog Soldier

[FM WarB]

If FlaK is effectively modelled into the interdiction effect, then I must admit to including too much FlaK and A/A in my Bulge oobs. Any that were not fixed had little usefulness gaurding rear area roads and became antitank (88s and 90mm) or antipersonel (quad mgs, etc) weapons.

I suppose what I'm proposing is some way to induce FlaK to to be used more oft as FlaK.

[Dog Soldier]

One unintended consequence would be the phasing player only using 2/3 MP every turn to bring up reinforcements from the rear area. PzC / MC is turn based. Using air strikes for interdiction simulation, no one should leave a column in transport mode at the end of a turn. Such a column could be spotted and bombed by the "more robust air oobs" units from the enemy. The exposure to attack seems greater than using the pdt values method. If your intention is to slow down reinforcement movement, then the solution above should accomplish that.

All I am saying is the sweeping opening argument of this thread about interdiction by pdt values being "faulty" is inaccurate. The pdt values method is simple, but not faulty as you claim. If you desire more complexity, that is what the editors are for.

Best wishes for you to work it out in your mod.

Dog Soldier

[FM WarB]

Thankyou for your responses and explanations, Dog Soldier and Glenn.

Has the subjective interdiction effect been quantified based on what FlaK was available? And is that why such FlaK was not present in the stock Bulge oobs?

Thanks for pointing out the unintended consequences.