Luftwaffe Useless Strategically?

[battlevonwar]

I have noted that the Luftwaffe which doesn't get shifted over right away to tactical air power is pretty useless in stopping a Russian Retreat... Is accurate in other's views?

[Flaviusx]

How can you tell this? What IS the effect of the Luftwaffe if left to its own devices, this is all under the hood. I assume that it is reducing the chances of Soviet armies activating, but that is just a guess.

It's not like the Wehrmacht really needs the extra tactical air support in the first few turns when it is still fully gassed up and fresh. It can sweep aside whatever it can reach.

The real problem for the Axis is sustainability and logistics. I don't really see tactical air making a difference there.

[pierreoza]

yes luftwaffe decreases the chances at activate russians armies ( -30 points of init ) for the first turns.

[Flaviusx]

In that case, best to leave it alone. That's a huge reduction in the possibility of activation. Keeping the Soviets pinned down early is far and away more useful than a bit more offensive power via tactical air.

[lancer]

Hi,

This effect is randomised each turn (within set parameters) but it's typically sizable.

If you play the Soviets you can see the effect in your activation reports.

Cheers,
Cameron

[KenchiSulla]

Good to know, better to spend the PPs used to activate air support somewhere else it looks like...

[battlevonwar]

Very interesting, I ran two turns against the AI, better results with the Luftwaffe supporting ground troops. Far better results and lower casualties, but the AI is not a human opponent.

[lancer]

Hi battlevonwar,

The Soviet AI has been given a few advantages. They are still affected by the Luftwaffe but probably not to the extent that a human Soviet player would be.

Cheers,
Cameron

[mannerheim4]

2 things are keeping me from buying this game, I think.

First, the DC engine Air War is terrible. When I played Germans v Poland, I had a difficult time destroying even a few Polish tanks. If the DC Air engine is used, it is way too frustrating, forget it.
Secondly, I'm afraid that the Soviet divisions will be at full TO&E strength, which will make the initial breakthrough too difficult. I've done a lot of research on Barbarossa and too many games presume that the Soviets are at full strength on their border units, when most hardly had any AT equipment, vehicles, or artillery of substance. Glanville says this was Stalin's strategy all along, to use the border armies as speed bumps and utilize shortages on the Dnepr units. Whether that was Stalin's plan or just incompetence, the Russians shouldn't have full strength units. I don't think we can modify those things in the DC engine.

[Tac2i]

1) There are no on map air units in DCB. The air component is handled through the play of cards. Basically you can provide tactical support to the ground pounders or use to restrict Soviet movement.

2) Re TO&E of Soviet at start units: I'm no expert of TO&E but the Germans receive significant combat bonuses in the first few turns and the Soviet Armies struggle to get activated so they can even move. A competent German player is going to rip the Soviets up pretty bad in the early going.

This game as a lot to offer with its innovative decisions layer and how the various commander interactions affect game play. I think you would enjoy the game but only you can make that decision. If you haven't already read some of the AARs and/or view some of the available videos.

ORIGINAL: mannerheim4

2 things are keeping me from buying this game, I think.

First, the DC engine Air War is terrible. When I played Germans v Poland, I had a difficult time destroying even a few Polish tanks. If the DC Air engine is used, it is way too frustrating, forget it.
Secondly, I'm afraid that the Soviet divisions will be at full TO&E strength, which will make the initial breakthrough too difficult. I've done a lot of research on Barbarossa and too many games presume that the Soviets are at full strength on their border units, when most hardly had any AT equipment, vehicles, or artillery of substance. Glanville says this was Stalin's strategy all along, to use the border armies as speed bumps and utilize shortages on the Dnepr units. Whether that was Stalin's plan or just incompetence, the Russians shouldn't have full strength units. I don't think we can modify those things in the DC engine.

[ChuckBerger]

Mannerheim, I agree with you on DC1 and DC2 having terrible air war models. DC2 especially, with air combat results that bear no relationship to reality. It ruined DC2 for me.

But don't let that hold you back from DC3. The DC1/2 air war engine is NOT in this game. Air activities are entirely abstracted. You don't move individual air units around, you don't see them fight - instead, you decide where the air power gets focused, and it does its job. Take it from a sceptic, the air aspects of DC3 work very well in simulating the historical situation.

[mannerheim4]

Webizen,

Interesting change regarding air power. So what is the effect at the tactical level if one decided to use air support? Can you decide to continue interdicting the Soviet Airpower? Use them for Recon? Bomb railheads? Or is it more abstracted?

As to the TO&E and combat bonuses, that's all well and good IF you are able to wipe out all of those "full strength units" in a pocket. But if they escape, that causes a problem. The activation of ARmies sounds interesting. Of course, I haven't played it yet. I had fully expected that the game was going to revolve around Army level decisions and that the "AI" would actually play out the combat part. I do remember that the DC engine was not so easy to break through full strength units. The War in the East by Grigsby did a pretty good job on simulating the break through and subsequent battle on the Dnepr. I am leaning towards purchasing based on your and Chuck's discussion on the Air rules being different. DC Air rules ruined the game for me.

Thanks for your comments

[battlevonwar]

I didn't buy GG's version of the war in the east, but I love his games. I don't think this is very much the same cupcake.

Also this is limited to '41(which is in many mind's the only year the war was open for debate at all, if at all)

The Air can play two roles. Tactical is when you say assign a PG or Army Group Tactical Air Support which gives combat bonuses. You must also have Airbases near..things will effect their ability like how much fuel you allocate them and I'm pretty sure your relationship with Goring. Each Army Group, North, Middle and South all get one group that receive air focus. I assign it to my Panzers to help give them extra power.

The same goes for Artillery and other options to further power or burden your assault.

The abstract part that attacks bridges, rails, roads, trucks, communications and HQs is not seen. Only plays out for the beginning of the campaign. That will obstruct the movement of the Red Army. The AI receives a bonus as it would likely really get creamed without one.

I am not sure how I feel about the Air being abstract more or less. Some games make WW2 airpower over kill.

The full strength Red Army Units and the power of them I don't know much about. The way the game is made, you don't see much resistance until around the 8th week. You have to be clever enough in that time to find a way around the retreating forces. I have pocketed 500k say in that period. Killed off the rest.. I would say that you require a little more clever skill than my own to beat that. I looked at Historical German Losses in the months of opening Barbarossa and mine were much much lower pointing to the fact I think the Germans could have an option for more aggression at a cost. This would allow for larger pockets.

ORIGINAL: mannerheim4

Webizen,

Interesting change regarding air power. So what is the effect at the tactical level if one decided to use air support? Can you decide to continue interdicting the Soviet Airpower? Use them for Recon? Bomb railheads? Or is it more abstracted?

As to the TO&E and combat bonuses, that's all well and good IF you are able to wipe out all of those "full strength units" in a pocket. But if they escape, that causes a problem. The activation of ARmies sounds interesting. Of course, I haven't played it yet. I had fully expected that the game was going to revolve around Army level decisions and that the "AI" would actually play out the combat part. I do remember that the DC engine was not so easy to break through full strength units. The War in the East by Grigsby did a pretty good job on simulating the break through and subsequent battle on the Dnepr. I am leaning towards purchasing based on your and Chuck's discussion on the Air rules being different. DC Air rules ruined the game for me.

Thanks for your comments

[mannerheim4]

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

I didn't buy GG's version of the war in the east, but I love his games. I don't think this is very much the same cupcake.

True, those games focused more on the nuts and bolts down to the squad level, which was too much. However, Barbarossa played pretty well and the Panzer breakthroughs and subsequent stop at the Dnepr are well simulated, not overly challenging. I think it will come down to me playing it and seeing for myself how morale is modified, etc., once the initial first turn modifiers wear off. I am seeing some complaints, so I'll hold off a bit and see what others think and whether there will be a patch.

The Air can play two roles. Tactical is when you say assign a PG or Army Group Tactical Air Support which gives combat bonuses. You must also have Airbases near..things will effect their ability like how much fuel you allocate them and I'm pretty sure your relationship with Goring. Each Army Group, North, Middle and South all get one group that receive air focus. I assign it to my Panzers to help give them extra power.

The same goes for Artillery and other options to further power or burden your assault.

I like the sound of that. Concentrate on Army level decisions and not get lost in the weeds too much.

I am not sure how I feel about the Air being abstract more or less. Some games make WW2 airpower over kill.

I haven't played many games where airpower is "over kill". Usually, it is underwhelming. I can understand that there is "too much control", as there was not very good air to ground communications at the time, but airpower was the best way to wipe out tank concentrations and interdict roads/railroads to a huge degree. The DC engine was pitiful in simulating air to ground support. You were lucky if you killed a few tanks over the course of a game with your airpower assets - as the Germans!

The full strength Red Army Units and the power of them I don't know much about. The way the game is made, you don't see much resistance until around the 8th week. You have to be clever enough in that time to find a way around the retreating forces. I have pocketed 500k say in that period. Killed off the rest.. I would say that you require a little more clever skill than my own to beat that. I looked at Historical German Losses in the months of opening Barbarossa and mine were much much lower pointing to the fact I think the Germans could have an option for more aggression at a cost. This would allow for larger pockets.

I think this could have been very easily done. The trick will be to see on Action Point useage by the Panzers to form those pockets and hold them in the first few weeks.

Thanks for your comments.

[gunnergoz]

At this grand operational level of simulation, I like the abstraction of the air war as executed, however it has to be done with a great deal of thought behind it since there are so many variables that change over time. If the game's numbers, formulas and calculations of air power's effects are off by much, it will either dilute air power to relative insignificance or render air power OP, at least compared to historical levels.