Hi and some questions

[Morgan Schiff]

Hi

Happened to stumble across this forum by chance. I used to play GG's v1.0 like 10 years back and this looks great. Of course I haven't played the game for eons and will take awhile to reacclimate.

2 questions: I read that v3.2 has reworked the airstrike routine. In v1.0, assuming I have 5 groups of 100 bombers each in 1 HQ and attack a single target using one group at a time, I inflict far more damage than if I used all 5 groups in one strike. Has this been fixed?

Also, browsing thru' a few of the threads I notice there's a scenario for a Soviet attack in mid 1942. Very interesting. Will I need this wirhack thingy to try that or will the v3.2 of WIR do? Thanks in advance and also to all who have improved on this game thru the years!

[loveman]

regarding ur first question .
the answer is yes . quite a few player use this option and believe me u havent a hope in hell of defending against it.

[Lokioftheaesir]

Originally posted by Morgan Schiff
Hi

Happened to stumble across this forum by chance. I used to play GG's v1.0 like 10 years back and this looks great. Of course I haven't played the game for eons and will take awhile to reacclimate.

2 questions: I read that v3.2 has reworked the airstrike routine. In v1.0, assuming I have 5 groups of 100 bombers each in 1 HQ and attack a single target using one group at a time, I inflict far more damage than if I used all 5 groups in one strike. Has this been fixed?

Also, browsing thru' a few of the threads I notice there's a scenario for a Soviet attack in mid 1942. Very interesting. Will I need this wirhack thingy to try that or will the v3.2 of WIR do? Thanks in advance and also to all who have improved on this game thru the years!

Morgan

*A set of generally accepted house rules are in use that proscribe more than I Interdiction from a particular HQ to a specific target. So if you wish to do multiple interdictions on a target each must come from a seperate HQ. (the house rules are mainly for pbem)
Go to dave's site for a copy of them and other goodies.. (possum's '41 scenerio is top notch)
http://www.davescorner.de/games/wir/rules/rules_en.html

*The '42 Soviet attack scenerio has two threads running at the moment 'Great Patriotic War,real one' and 'Stalin Attacks' (i'm soviets in this one).
You unzip the scenerio to the game folder and start play from scenerio letter. However playing it pbem needs some work with editwir to replace the old '42 camp with the new one.

Loki

[Morgan Schiff]

Thanks for replies.

Loveman
By "yes" do you mean the problem has been fixed or are the house rules still needed to circumvent this airstrike issue?


Loki,

Your current PBEM in "Stalin attacks" was I presume started on an earlier version, perhaps 3.1 or something. After upgrading to v3.2, have you been able to continue the game without hitches?

[RickyB]

Originally posted by Morgan Schiff
Thanks for replies.

...
Loki,

Your current PBEM in "Stalin attacks" was I presume started on an earlier version, perhaps 3.1 or something. After upgrading to v3.2, have you been able to continue the game without hitches?

The only issue I have run into with the scenario (I am in the other current game being posted) is that the total losses are totally messed up. Otherwise, we have not had any problems with it in our update in versions.

Regarding air power, Arnaud did some tweaking, but it appears that he fixed the readiness loss from these multiple attacks, rather than losses. I believe it is better than before, but losses from separate attacks are still higher, I think.

[Josans]

Originally posted by loveman
regarding ur first question .
the answer is yes . quite a few player use this option and believe me u havent a hope in hell of defending against it.

Or is a cheater, right loveman?

[loveman]

I believe i did not use this word josan u brought it up.
i also believe i did not direct that word against u.
all i intended to point out that a player cannot hope to defend against multiple air attacks and do forgive me if i misinterpreted lorenzos rules for i am a mere mortal in this world and have no time to fall out with any person over this issue .
i wished to piont out that i think the only wat to defend against this tactic is use every cheat i know and i know a few but as an honest player will try to never use them .
the only thing i seek is FAIRPLAY

[Muzrub]

Or is a cheater, right loveman?

Why is it josan when someone even slightly goes near the cheater word you rise up in defense?

[Josans]

Originally posted by Muzrub


Why is it josan when someone even slightly goes near the cheater word you rise up in defense?

Is not for the post is for the comments loveman sent me in an e-mail referent to our game.

Once again, he accused me. He said that he counted more of 18 german airstrikes along the front that is for him the maximus number of airattacks the german can do if i did more than 18 airstrikes so whats mean loveman reflexions ?

Whats mean to say in the middle of a game that against tactic only he can win doing cheats? And all after many games playing with him and always I´ve played the same manner.

I think before to accuse anyone of something better is re-read the Lorenzos rules as I said to him.

And Muzrub, really is not the first time. And as you can see Im very susceptible about this kind of reflexions.

[matt.buttsworth]

There is a problem with the Lorenzo rules. One strike per target from HQs, but that means each HQ can launch one strike per bomber unit and co-ordinate them to get the same number of strikes on one target as was possible before as long as the targets are within range.
ie before HQ 1 hits unit A 3 times.
HQ 2 hits unit b 3 times
HQ 3 hits unit c 3 times.
Now with lorenzo rules
HQ 1, 2 and 3 hits unit A once each
HQ 1, 2 and 3 hits unit B once each
HQ 1, 2 and 3 hits unit C once each
And units A, B, and C still get the **** bombed out of them.
That is what I think could be happening. Legal but still a game exploit.
My suggestion.
only one tactical bombing per unit attacked.
Attacker can decide whether or not it is a single bomber or all bombers but no multiple attacks on defending units from different HQs to get round the Lorenzo rule.
I think such a house rule would work better than a rule that can be mathematically exploited to produce an identical result.

[Josans]

Originally posted by matt.buttsworth
There is a problem with the Lorenzo rules. One strike per target from HQs, but that means each HQ can launch one strike per bomber unit and co-ordinate them to get the same number of strikes on one target as was possible before as long as the targets are within range.
ie before HQ 1 hits unit A 3 times.
HQ 2 hits unit b 3 times
HQ 3 hits unit c 3 times.
Now with lorenzo rules
HQ 1, 2 and 3 hits unit A once each
HQ 1, 2 and 3 hits unit B once each
HQ 1, 2 and 3 hits unit C once each
And units A, B, and C still get the **** bombed out of them.
That is what I think could be happening. Legal but still a game exploit.
My suggestion.
only one tactical bombing per unit attacked.
Attacker can decide whether or not it is a single bomber or all bombers but no multiple attacks on defending units from different HQs to get round the Lorenzo rule.
I think such a house rule would work better than a rule that can be mathematically exploited to produce an identical result.

Matt why is a game exploit?

Ah!!! The game exploiting is another thing that I´ve been accused before. I thought, that after many threads about this issue, I will never been accused again using the Lorenzos rules. A rules that I thought all people was agree.

Also I believe that if you think that a rule is a game exploit why dont talk to your opponent about the exploit and try to agree about a new rule?

[loveman]

Perhaps the best way to use air power is as follows.
say an hq has 2 fighters and 3 bombers , then the hq should only if interdiction or bombing use the bombers in 1 mission , e.g. one strike using all 3 bombers and not 3 individual ones.

[matt.buttsworth]

It is a problem with discussing. That is why I objected to that one of Lorenzo's rule as I could see the exploit (ie the effect of multiple bombing of one unit was what that rule was meant to stop) coming.

[Morgan Schiff]

The air strike routine heavily favours the Luftwaffe; the VVS is quite useless until 1944 and even then. While the current house rules do help curb a single HQ pounding crap out of a single enemy target, but historically many units had the *** pounded out of them, e.g. Germans in Normandy/Bulge and Russians at Kursk. In latter instance, I believe the Luftwaffe actually drove off a complete tank corps with airstrikes alone!

BTW, would anyone like to give me a PBEM game? I currently rate myself a lowly 5 or so out of 10, and would like to take on someone who's also about 5 or 6. No Mansteins and Kesselrings please, not yet. 1941 campaign, either side is OK. Can usually play one turn/day.

Email addy: schiffster@hotmail.com

cheers

[davewolf]

Originally posted by matt.buttsworth
There is a problem with the Lorenzo rules. One strike per target from HQs, but that means each HQ can launch one strike per bomber unit and co-ordinate them to get the same number of strikes on one target as was possible before as long as the targets are within range.
ie before HQ 1 hits unit A 3 times.
HQ 2 hits unit b 3 times
HQ 3 hits unit c 3 times.
Now with lorenzo rules
HQ 1, 2 and 3 hits unit A once each
HQ 1, 2 and 3 hits unit B once each
HQ 1, 2 and 3 hits unit C once each
And units A, B, and C still get the **** bombed out of them.
That is what I think could be happening. Legal but still a game exploit.
My suggestion.
only one tactical bombing per unit attacked.
Attacker can decide whether or not it is a single bomber or all bombers but no multiple attacks on defending units from different HQs to get round the Lorenzo rule.
I think such a house rule would work better than a rule that can be mathematically exploited to produce an identical result.

Matt

I often hit one single unit by more than one HQ in the same turn, but certainly not with the intention of cheating. I just didn't think about the question if it is cheating before because it seems to be just historical behaviour to me. IMO it should be possible to let every air unit within range join an attack. To do this without carrying out the described (still legal) procedure there would have to be more HQ than available. So it cannot be implemented in WIR in a historical accurate way.
Because the combat results are probably just like the illegal way that behaviour might become classified as cheating. I would accept that, anyway it would add one more topic to the 'What-I-don't-like-in-WIR' list. Nevertheless WIR is of course in different matters a really great game.

Dave

[matt.buttsworth]

Dear Dave,
I never used the word 'cheat.' I said legal but game exploit indicating thought is needed on the topic.
I also hit units with aircraft from more than one HQ. That is concentration of airpower which is fair enough.
The problem comes in that wir allows multiple air attacks to be more devastating than one big attack. wir 4.2 is said to have fixed up the readiness issue (that is good, before readiness of a repeatedly bombed unit fell to almost zero) but posts say the casualties from multiple attacks are still greater.
My objection is not to concentrated air power, but, as I made clear in teh example above, to multiple hqs launching numerous selected air raids on various opposition units, to create the same bombing pattern as multiple air raids from a single HQ on opposing units. thus in my ABC example, each 1, 2, 3 unit was bombed three times.
this is exactly the same game exploit that the lorenzo rule prohibiting multiple air attacks from teh same HQ on a defending unit was designed to prohibit using a mathematical trick to get round teh intent of the lorenzo rule.
I therefore suggest, either 1 interdiction attack per HQ (or air field or strategic strikes for that matter) where multiple HQs are hitting the same targets.
or when one HQ is attacking alone (Often a super HQ as Loki and others create) one air attack per target (unit, HQ or strategic) from that HQ.
That allows some splitting of aircraft from one HQ.
I hope that clarifies the issue.
As soon as Wir version ? makes one attack the same as multiple attacks in terms of losses, the need for this houserule will disappear.
And despite everything, I agree, it is a great game. That is why we all play it.

[davewolf]

Originally posted by matt.buttsworth
Dear Dave,
I never used the word 'cheat.' I said legal but game exploit indicating thought is needed on the topic.
I also hit units with aircraft from more than one HQ. That is concentration of airpower which is fair enough.
The problem comes in that wir allows multiple air attacks to be more devastating than one big attack. wir 4.2 is said to have fixed up the readiness issue (that is good, before readiness of a repeatedly bombed unit fell to almost zero) but posts say the casualties from multiple attacks are still greater.
My objection is not to concentrated air power, but, as I made clear in teh example above, to multiple hqs launching numerous selected air raids on various opposition units, to create the same bombing pattern as multiple air raids from a single HQ on opposing units. thus in my ABC example, each 1, 2, 3 unit was bombed three times.
this is exactly the same game exploit that the lorenzo rule prohibiting multiple air attacks from teh same HQ on a defending unit was designed to prohibit using a mathematical trick to get round teh intent of the lorenzo rule.
I therefore suggest, either 1 interdiction attack per HQ (or air field or strategic strikes for that matter) where multiple HQs are hitting the same targets.
or when one HQ is attacking alone (Often a super HQ as Loki and others create) one air attack per target (unit, HQ or strategic) from that HQ.
That allows some splitting of aircraft from one HQ.
I hope that clarifies the issue.
As soon as Wir version ? makes one attack the same as multiple attacks in terms of losses, the need for this houserule will disappear.
And despite everything, I agree, it is a great game. That is why we all play it.

Matt

There isn't any problem. I think I did understand what you were saying. I only used a qoute of your post to show to which specific topic I want to apply.
What I want to say is that air power concentration CAN in extreme cases lead to the exploiting behavior you described. This MIGHT BECOME classified as cheating. (I know you didn't say IT IS cheating.) And that's what I would regret.

So I'm not offended in any way. Otherwise we should ask Muzrub if he'd be able to join. Because he already missed most of a certain different discussion.

Dave

[czerpak]

Originally posted by matt.buttsworth
There is a problem with the Lorenzo rules. One strike per target from HQs, but that means each HQ can launch one strike per bomber unit and co-ordinate them to get the same number of strikes on one target as was possible before as long as the targets are within range.
ie before HQ 1 hits unit A 3 times.
HQ 2 hits unit b 3 times
HQ 3 hits unit c 3 times.
Now with lorenzo rules
HQ 1, 2 and 3 hits unit A once each
HQ 1, 2 and 3 hits unit B once each
HQ 1, 2 and 3 hits unit C once each
And units A, B, and C still get the **** bombed out of them.
That is what I think could be happening. Legal but still a game exploit.
My suggestion.
only one tactical bombing per unit attacked.
Attacker can decide whether or not it is a single bomber or all bombers but no multiple attacks on defending units from different HQs to get round the Lorenzo rule.
I think such a house rule would work better than a rule that can be mathematically exploited to produce an identical result.

First of all : I never agreed with this particular rule, but since it was generally agreed I had to follow it.
I agree with opinion that units in range should be able to attack, regardless of HQ. I never seen in any other game such restrictions. And it is enough to read Rudel's memories to see what Stukas could do to Soviets ( flying several misions a day !!!)

And obviously Matt is right that one could achieve the same result by doing it another way without breaking a rule.
Maciej

[Muzrub]

I often hit one single unit by more than one HQ in the same turn, but certainly not with the intention of cheating

Dave do you hit one army with the bombers of one HQ?

eg

HQ- 1 bomber set to Airfield
1 Interdiction
1 ground

Do you choose interdiction then change after the interdiction strike with the airfield bombers after you slect them for interdiction for another bomber run- then change the ground to interdiction for another bomber run?

Thus 3 bomber runs to 1 army- 10% loss each time!

Thats cheating!

Thats what Loveman and matt is saying!

And from what I can understand what Josan is defending against!

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Muzrub
Dave do you hit one army with the bombers of one HQ?

eg

HQ- 1 bomber set to Airfield
1 Interdiction
1 ground

Do you choose interdiction then change after the interdiction strike with the airfield bombers after you slect them for interdiction for another bomber run- then change the ground to interdiction for another bomber run?

Thus 3 bomber runs to 1 army- 10% loss each time!

Thats cheating!

Thats what Loveman and matt is saying!

And from what I can understand what Josan is defending against!

Muzrub

Thanks for your comment. Anyway if you read all the posts you'd see that Matt already explained the two options of multiple bombing and you'd also see that I didn't mean the option you described.
Just a comment of mine.

Dave