Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21

User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Air supply is grossly overpowered in WITE. I'm hoping this gets tamed in WITW, or the Western Allies will be in Berlin before 1944 is out. Everybody is just abusing the hell out of the Luftwaffe nowadays and making it do impossible things.

A quick fix would be to only let bombers drop supplies and not fuel. Only transports could drop fuel.

Not sure how big of a pain in the ass that would be to program

Beta Tester WitW & WitE
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by Flaviusx »

Even that won't do it come WITW time.

Just imagine the entirety of the US and British strategic bombing force used for fuel/supply drops once the landings in France break out of their beach heads. They will have literally thousands of them available, and these suckers have far greater loads than the twin engine bombers we see in the east.

In reality, political and service constraints would never have allowed this. The bomber barons had to be dragged kicking and screaming as it was to support the Normandy landings with the transportation plan. These guys thought they could win the war bombing strategic targets and weren't about to offer themselves up as a glorified fuel tank for the Allied armies.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
KenchiSulla
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: the Netherlands

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by KenchiSulla »

Even if resources were devoted to supplying the troops in the field, it wasn't as efficient as the game allows for at the moment. Currently you only need a flight of 2.5 JU-52 to move a panzer division of 100 tanks + supporting units 10 miles over clear terrain. That's 11 JU-52 to move a full corps (the added JU is for the HQ to move)..

What would help is have vehicles consume fuel from local HQs and NOT the global pool.. Global pool doesn't need to consume fuel to get it's goods where it's needed.



AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by morvael »

Simple - if something was technically possible but rarely used in reality - make it cost AP points (1, 2 or even 5) per bomber unit used to drop supplies.
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by Aurelian »

Simpler. It wasn't possible. The bomber generals were not about to allow it. As far as I've been able to determine, Ike never even considered it. Certainly Churchill would of wanted nothing to stop round the clock bombing once D-Day succeeded.

Why have all those C-47s et al?

Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by morvael »

Airlift by heavy level bombers should be ineffective to the point of being useless, as history shows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Upr ... ift_(1944)

Also, dropping supplies should be very ineffective for all craft, comparing to landing at an airbase close to the target. That's how Stalingrad was supplied for a time. Unfortunately WitE doesn't allow for such distinction.
SigUp
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:14 am

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by SigUp »

WITW should bring progress in that regard with the introduction of airfields. An idea would be perhaps that you can turn an airfield into a temporary supply point if you can ensure a constant stream of airsupply. Airfields also can be constructed for a cost of AP and given enough engineers or so. Plus, I think another issue could be, in order for a squadron to conduct airsupply, its airfield has to accumulate supplies (a la HQ buildup) first. Furthermore, penalize airdrop of supplies and especially fuel massively. I can't imagine dropping barrels with parachutes to be very effective.
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by janh »

ORIGINAL: morvael
Airlift by heavy level bombers should be ineffective to the point of being useless, as history shows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Upr ... ift_(1944)

Also, dropping supplies should be very ineffective for all craft, comparing to landing at an airbase close to the target. That's how Stalingrad was supplied for a time. Unfortunately WitE doesn't allow for such distinction.

In a sense it does -- for an air bases inside an isolated area, at least. But I get what you say. WitW may be a quantum leap regarding air war and then hopefully also air supply and such isolation issues. I wonder when they'll start releasing some more details...
hfarrish
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:52 pm

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by hfarrish »


I would be reluctant to start another game until air resupply is more tamed - combined with HQ buildup it is once again going to force Soviet players into a run away at all costs mentality, only this time its even worse because the rail constraints on the German are even less relevant (even with the limitation on air bases needing to be somewhat close to a rail line).
carlkay58
Posts: 8770
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:30 pm

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by carlkay58 »

The JU88 is the BEST TRUCK EVER!
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 33027
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by Joel Billings »

WitE was balanced with the idea that the Germans would use a lot of air transport to refuel their units (otherwise they can totally run out of fuel at the Dnepr). Don't disagree that it's probably more than it should be, but there is a cost to doing it (in aircraft and opportunity cost of using them for transport as opposed to bombing). The latest changes have removed the worst of the "abuses" that we were not aware of until pointed out by players. WitW will likely be different because the air transport missions will probably be flown in the air resolution phase instead of the land movement phase, and we've had it on our task list for many months to make sure the system does not allow heavy bombers to have the same ability to airlift as they do in WitE. I can't tell you what exactly will be done, but it will be very different from WitE. BTW, I can't think of anything that has changed for the better with regards to air transport since release of the game over 2 years ago. It's always been possible to fly large amounts of fuel to units if that is the number one priority of the airforce.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
DesertedFox
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 10:13 am

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by DesertedFox »

Hi Joel,

Appreciate all the work you guys have done on the game and your response to this issue. Whilst nothing has changed since the games release to make using heavy bombers a mere transport device a more viable option, its just that the Axis player has found another "angle" to game the system to his advantage.

This does result in a cost in terms of them NOT being used for bombing airfields and ground support, but I feel that their value in that area is undervalued in the current game form.

In my current game as the Russians, just started, its turn 7 and my losses in aircraft are

Air combat losses 971
Flak losses 7
Lost on the ground 0 ( yes ZERO, it's not a typo)
Operational losses 1116

Not a single air attack has been made on my airfields. Every turn, every heavy bomber has but one duty,
to resupply the mobile formations. Thus the Germans have been able to run his Panzers etc where ever he wishes,
in a most unrealistic manner.

Yes, I have more Russian planes which I can use at my disposal and I bomb his mobile formations every turn, but to no avail,
they just keep on keeping on.

If there is not going to be a fix to this then my suggestion would be a house rule, only transports can be used for transport to
"mobile formations" unless said mobile formations begin the turn isolated.

Seriously, this suggests that is why Hitler lost the war in the east, he used his heavy bombers against airfields, railway yards and ground support instead up refueling his panzers and marching east without any need to stop and resupply and rearm.

Mark

User avatar
Peltonx
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:24 am
Contact:

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by Peltonx »

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

WitE was balanced with the idea that the Germans would use a lot of air transport to refuel their units (otherwise they can totally run out of fuel at the Dnepr). Don't disagree that it's probably more than it should be, but there is a cost to doing it (in aircraft and opportunity cost of using them for transport as opposed to bombing). The latest changes have removed the worst of the "abuses" that we were not aware of until pointed out by players. WitW will likely be different because the air transport missions will probably be flown in the air resolution phase instead of the land movement phase, and we've had it on our task list for many months to make sure the system does not allow heavy bombers to have the same ability to airlift as they do in WitE. I can't tell you what exactly will be done, but it will be very different from WitE. BTW, I can't think of anything that has changed for the better with regards to air transport since release of the game over 2 years ago. It's always been possible to fly large amounts of fuel to units if that is the number one priority of the airforce.

There is no "cost" because air support in this game is way way under rated at least on German tactical air support. Its all about pocketing SHC units, planes can't pocket a thing. But panzer units with 45+ MP's every turn can.

The war is basicly over in 1941 other then wasting a few hundred hrs of playing time, if this exploit is not nerfed in the next patch allot of poeple are simply going to put the game on the shelf.

This is unhistorical and is going to be the first question asked about witw.

"Did 2by3 nerf the bomber exploit"?
Beta Tester WitW & WitE
Iota
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:59 am
Location: Europe

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by Iota »

Hi,

i am the opponent of Deserted Fox.

I want to clarify, that I have not found an new exploit/bug.
I use airsupply as always since release of the game.

Just one difference, I do not bomb airfields T1, but send supply instead.
But that is not my idea, blame Flaviusx [:D]

Just to set airsupply in relation:
I had a broken railline on T5, just next to a sec-unit.
I would rather go completly without airsupply, instead of beeing in danger of a broken railline during summer 41.

Greetings
Iota
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by Flaviusx »

Joel, what has changed is that now people are using the Luftwaffe almost exclusively for supply past turn 1. It has become a way to bypass the logistical system for the spearheads, and that system is already rather generous as is. Combined with the Lvov opener and the advance rates are dramatic and quite unrealistic in the south in 1941. Remember how much people worried about Rostov not falling? Yeah. That's not a problem anymore. It falls regularly and with ease now. The only thing that stops the Axis is mud and blizzard.

It's easy to see how this very same tactic could be used to even greater effect in WITW and the allies will be impossible to stop once they bust out of their landing sites in France. No logistical tether whatsoever, it's off to the races. But I am glad to hear you are looking for a solution for this.

WitE Alpha Tester
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by janh »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Joel, what has changed is that now people are using the Luftwaffe almost exclusively for supply past turn 1.

I beg to disagree. [;)] There are people who always have been using Luftwaffe almost solely in that role, and been saying so for a while. That hasn't changed.

Saper's recent feat to couple it with more force-economic measures like focusing it more on fuel-efficient Mot. Divisions to get more "unit-miles(hexes)" and, hence, pockets, makes it more clearly felt now. You can't blame him so, it is really logical and straight-forward. I somehow never thought of the idea to do so right from turn one and forget about bombing airfields filled with obsolete frames, but why not also try that?
However, maybe the larger factor that makes the impact of this air supply focus felt much clearer now is that all the other "extra supply" means have been toned down. With the early HQ-build-up tricks that were quite powerful, the "little" air supply added on top was in the noise.

The direct combat impact of LW CAS is rather small and really unnecessary for most (esp. fluid) situations in 1941 since Wehrmacht is qualitatively so far superior and Axis altogether numerically mostly on par wit the Red Army until late 41, which makes it almost a no-brainer to use it to haul stores.

I don't know whether that implies that bombing and CAS losses are too small in the model (I recall Helpless making a statement regarding tank kills by Ju-87 and IL-2, which are low but according to his numbers also ought to be that low), or whether it is just because Soviet LCU are too inferior numbers-wise or quality wise so that combined arms isn't necessary, or whether it is the lack of competition and bickering between Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht regarding usage privileges, pilot's ambitions etc. I would bet Luftwaffe would have rebelled against such a use, a misuse from their perspective certainly. SigUp's idea to use APs for bombers on supply missions would mimic the latter well?
hfarrish
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:52 pm

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by hfarrish »

ORIGINAL: Pelton


There is no "cost" because air support in this game is way way under rated at least on German tactical air support. Its all about pocketing SHC units, planes can't pocket a thing. But panzer units with 45+ MP's every turn can.


I think this is really a key point - realizing that there is no material opportunity cost to turning the entire Luftwaffe into a gas can (as well as realizing how easy it is to keep motorized divisions topped off) has turned the '41 Wehrmacht into an almost unstoppable beast for those who know how to utilize it.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by Flaviusx »

Taking a pass on bombing the airfields on turn 1 is a good idea, yeah. The Soviet air force is going to be mostly useless anyways for quite some time almost regardless of what the Luftwaffe does to it on the surprise turn, and blowing up a bunch of obsolete airframes is of questionable utility. (Which is why I always shrugged at those 5000+ plane losses on turn 1 the Axis could do in the old days. This stuff just didn't matter very much.) But I'm also wondering if the mobile divisions really need the extra fuel on turn 2, it seems to me that they only start running into fuel issues from turn 3 onwards.

Certainly ground support doesn't much matter until the Wehrmacht hits well fortified lines, which is not likely to happen until the late summer at the earliest, and only by Moscow and Leningrad. The south never really does solidify in 1941.

WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Great_Ajax
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by Great_Ajax »

The aspect that isn't considered is the psychological impact of aerial attacks on surrounded units. Historically isolated units can fight for a long time. The difference is the impact of air power and when combatants in effective close air support combined with ground attacks on isolated units is when morale begins to crumble and lead to mass surrenders. WitE doesn't take this into consideration as isolated units immediately lose a lot of effectiveness just because they are isolated. Because of this, air power isn't needed to crush the pockets and it can be diverted to unrealistically run fuel missions. It took sustained and combined ground-air operations to reduce pockets. Without significant air support for the attackers, the pockets end up looking like Stalingrad and Demansk rather than Kiev in 41. The only significant reason why the Germans held out so effectively at Stalingrad and Demansk was because of their ability to conduct aerial supply and prevent the Soviets from gaining air superiority in the area. Had the Soviets had gained air superiority, been able to mass aerial attacks on ground units, and deny aerial resupply, the results would have been much different.

In short, close air support, should be a requirement to effectively eliminating isolated units.

Trey
"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer
Walloc
Posts: 3143
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:04 am
Location: Denmark

RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

Post by Walloc »

ORIGINAL: janh
I don't know whether that implies that bombing and CAS losses are too small in the model (I recall Helpless making a statement regarding tank kills by Ju-87 and IL-2, which are low but according to his numbers also ought to be that low), or whether it is just because Soviet LCU are too inferior numbers-wise or quality wise so that combined arms isn't necessary, or whether it is the lack of competition and bickering between Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht regarding usage privileges, pilot's ambitions etc. I would bet Luftwaffe would have rebelled against such a use, a misuse from their perspective certainly. SigUp's idea to use APs for bombers on supply missions would mimic the latter well?

If one looks into the statiscal analytic work that for example Nicklas Zetterling among others have made on the both the eastern and western front, i think its safe to say that the claim made during the war and the perception of the ability for airforces to destroy AFV tends to be grossly over stated and vehicles in general if less so. I havent seen Pavels statement in this particular instance but i would prolly agree with him.
I provide a file(Ok, to large to attach but ill happilly send to any1 interrested) with a PH.D dissertation on 83rd TAG in the normany era among others claimed to one of the feasts of the TAC airforces. Using some of the same sources as Niklas Zetterling, in particular a british investagive team that exams every tank on the battlefield right after normandy.

For example at the height of the Mortain counter attack in a single day 2nd TAC and 9th AF claims 450 ish AFV destroyed which is funnily more than the german total AFV that participated and the british invetigative teams find 8 tank destroyed through air delivered weapons in the entire area which in all likelyhood would be from more than 1 day.
Is this the whole story, no. A number of tank this from german sources are abandoned by own crews. The moral factor of "Jabo's" most certainly have a factor in this. If so then and how do one represent that in games.

Another grey area is the like at start and beginning of Barbarossa. Luftwaffe claims of tank destroyed are very high. Problem when looking at these tank from russian side is in many if not the fact most cases are tank vehicles that have runned out of fuel and may or may not alrdy have been abandoned by its crews. So while u might in fact have lots of instaces of AFVs attack/"destroyed" by aircrafts, in reality it wasnt the luftwaffe's doing, but inability for soivet to resupply/ german heers advance blocking / making that ability to an inability and surrouding the soviet forces that is the reason behind the loss.
How do u represent such in games.

Which also brings to light another problem. According to the Luftwaffe this was a magnificent time. Simplistic said why would u stop attacking all these tanks when u think ur succesfull. Hench why use teh med bombers to bring fuel to teh heer when ur so succesfull. Question of perception and reality.
Ofc if u in game follow the above and make the attacks of airforces on ground units X strong/ or not so strong as the case might be. Players will know this through learning the game. U get information u in real life didnt. U dont get to suffer from the "false" perception of succes. So why not in the case of the game use Medium bombers as the Heer's supply truck number one, while wouldnt be a reality in history except in special cases, cuz the perception is the the med bomber is being used on others thigns with great effect.
How do u deal with that design wise.

Again the statiscal analytics made around Kursk, where the german percetion of for example the Ju 87G ability to destroy soviet tanks simply doesnt match up too the reality of losses.
ORIGINAL: janh
I beg to disagree. [;)] There are people who always have been using Luftwaffe almost solely in that role, and been saying so for a while. That hasn't changed.

Saper's recent feat to couple it with more force-economic measures like focusing it more on fuel-efficient Mot. Divisions to get more "unit-miles(hexes)" and, hence, pockets, makes it more clearly felt now. You can't blame him so, it is really logical and straight-forward. I somehow never thought of the idea to do so right from turn one and forget about bombing airfields filled with obsolete frames, but why not also try that?
However, maybe the larger factor that makes the impact of this air supply focus felt much clearer now is that all the other "extra supply" means have been toned down. With the early HQ-build-up tricks that were quite powerful, the "little" air supply added on top was in the noise.

I tend to agree with Jan, maybe the effecienty of this has been upped/improved seening greater results, but it has always been there.
ORIGINAL: janh
The direct combat impact of LW CAS is rather small and really unnecessary for most (esp. fluid) situations in 1941 since Wehrmacht is qualitatively so far superior and Axis altogether numerically mostly on par wit the Red Army until late 41, which makes it almost a no-brainer to use it to haul stores.

Exactly. The reality of the combat system ( and ubah soviet CC system according to some) is that one of the most importand factors in the succes of the Barbarrossa campaign is the use of GS/airpower, but u dont need the german tactical airpower too be succesfull at Barbarossa in game. If u dont need it for that, why not use it as the Heer's supply truck number one.
I actually agree on the design decision made that GS disrupts and can make a huge impact in combats and not destroying much cuz that in self IMO is highly historic. Problem is u dont need the GS to be succesfull, and if u dont ppl will ofc use it on some thing else. Hench Heer''s supply truck number one. Coupled with the fact as fuel delivers is highly overstated in its efficency.
Many times when fuel was deliver and it was often in history it was most of the times to "survive" tacticaly by the tank/units not being totally immoblile. Not to facilitate an advance to Kharkov in turn 3. Problem is ofc that distinction isnt made in game and prolly would be hard to do in a weekly turned game. Im not saying it never was use to facilitate advances but certainly not in the degree its possible in game. 12.5 JU 52 to fuel a fully mobilized division, right....

ORIGINAL: el hefe

The aspect that isn't considered is the psychological impact of aerial attacks on surrounded units. Historically isolated units can fight for a long time. The difference is the impact of air power and when combatants in effective close air support combined with ground attacks on isolated units is when morale begins to crumble and lead to mass surrenders. WitE doesn't take this into consideration as isolated units immediately lose a lot of effectiveness just because they are isolated. Because of this, air power isn't needed to crush the pockets and it can be diverted to unrealistically run fuel missions. It took sustained and combined ground-air operations to reduce pockets. Without significant air support for the attackers, the pockets end up looking like Stalingrad and Demansk rather than Kiev in 41. The only significant reason why the Germans held out so effectively at Stalingrad and Demansk was because of their ability to conduct aerial supply and prevent the Soviets from gaining air superiority in the area. Had the Soviets had gained air superiority, been able to mass aerial attacks on ground units, and deny aerial resupply, the results would have been much different.

In short, close air support, should be a requirement to effectively eliminating isolated units.

Trey

I would go futher and say u should rely much more than currently on GS in combat to be succesfull than as is now. U as attacker in my experience dont really need it in many situasion. IMO u should much more rarely been succesfull with out it than currently. This to both sides and through out the war.


Kind regards,

Rasmus
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”