Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Nerfing the LW fuel drops.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Nerfing the LW fuel drops. Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/2/2013 10:34:12 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6398
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

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



_____________________________

GHC WitE 24 - 4 - 8
GHC WitW 0 - 0 - 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk
Post #: 1
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/2/2013 11:19:59 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 2
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/3/2013 12:01:58 AM   
Cannonfodder


Posts: 2082
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: online
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.





_____________________________


"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


(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 3
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/3/2013 6:02:08 AM   
morvael


Posts: 5048
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: online
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.

(in reply to Cannonfodder)
Post #: 4
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/3/2013 8:19:13 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 2319
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
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?



< Message edited by Aurelian -- 1/3/2013 8:21:21 AM >

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 5
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/3/2013 8:59:34 AM   
morvael


Posts: 5048
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: online
Airlift by heavy level bombers should be ineffective to the point of being useless, as history shows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising_Airlift_(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 reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 6
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/3/2013 10:25:07 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 804
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 7
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/3/2013 12:34:52 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1227
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

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_Uprising_Airlift_(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...

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 8
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/3/2013 2:53:46 PM   
hfarrish


Posts: 767
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

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).

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 9
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/3/2013 10:33:16 PM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 2405
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
The JU88 is the BEST TRUCK EVER!

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 10
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 5:55:24 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21944
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
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.

< Message edited by Joel Billings -- 1/4/2013 5:56:20 AM >


_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 11
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 2:31:55 PM   
Deserted Fox

 

Posts: 150
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline
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


(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 12
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 2:59:17 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6398
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

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"?

_____________________________

GHC WitE 24 - 4 - 8
GHC WitW 0 - 0 - 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 13
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 3:02:27 PM   
Iota

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 10/5/2011
From: Europe
Status: offline
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

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

< Message edited by Iota -- 1/4/2013 3:03:09 PM >

(in reply to Deserted Fox)
Post #: 14
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 3:08:13 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Deserted Fox)
Post #: 15
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 4:05:11 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1227
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

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?

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 16
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 4:05:44 PM   
hfarrish


Posts: 767
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 17
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 4:53:18 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6415
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
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

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 18
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 5:01:20 PM   
el hefe


Posts: 3245
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: online
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
Sabre 21's perpetual arch-nemisis

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 19
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 5:22:33 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3071
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: online
quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

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....


quote:

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

< Message edited by Walloc -- 1/4/2013 6:36:28 PM >

(in reply to janh)
Post #: 20
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 6:51:10 PM   
el hefe


Posts: 3245
Joined: 10/28/2002
Status: online
Agreed. Effectiveness of a tactical air force should not be measured in number of kills. IMO there are a number of intangibles (that are difficult to translate into a game) in which tactical air forces play a dominant role.

The first being the psychological impact of being a ground soldier and being unable to fight an aerial enemy moving at a high rate of speed, pop up immediately with little time to react, and deliver heavy firepower. The psychological effect has a greater impact than the actual damage caused by the aircraft. As such having air support is a significant morale boost to the friendly troops while the inverse is true as well. You can see the psychological impact just by our own perceptions based on our readings of WW2 accounts. I have assumed in the past that close air support have devastating results based on soldier accounts and their overwhelming fear of aerial attacks. The actual results of these attacks are underwhelming based on post war research as to which Rasmus has already pointed out. You can see numerous examples in 1941 in which German forces were significantly delayed and one of the major reasons for this was because the Soviets had achieved local air superiority. Some examples include the Luga battles near Leningrad, the advance on the Crimea in the Autum of 41, and some of the Dnepr River crossings. The Luftwaffe could simply not be present everywhere. Additionally, you can see numerous examples of Soviet divisions holding out while surrounded for a week or two even after numerous German ground attacks. Once the Germans diverted Luftwaffe ground attack assets on these pockets is when the Soviets began to break en masse. This happened during the Smolensk encirclement battles.

The second significant impact is that close air support airpower desynchronizes (spelling?) ground operations. A carefully planned offensive ends up being piecemealed because of air attacks. Even though the actual losses to aerial attacks are light, the attacks cause certain maneuever elements to lag behind in their advances and this exposes other ground elements that are advancing on schedule to be subjected to more ground attacks. This allows the defender to more effectively mass defensive firepower on uncoordinated assaults. You can see examples of these in the Mortain assaults in 1944 and the Soviet counterattacks around Smolensk in 1941.

Possible WitE system suggestions (If Trey had his way:

1. Actual damage due to air attacks should be light. (System seems about right now)

2. The side with overwhelming air support should receive a significant morale boost while the defending side receives a significant degradation of morale. If air superiority is contested then they should even each other out.

3. Areas in which the enemy has local air superiority should result in ground units having significanly reduced MPs (This is coming in WitW).

4. The real physical impact of air support on ground operations should be disruption to ground operations. I know WitE has it but I am unsure of its actual effect on the ground combat result. The side with the overhwhelming close air support should get a significant CV shift and vice versa.

5. Remove the rule in which an isolated unit automatically losses CV/morale. Make isolated CV loss a function of supply (a starved unit should suffer morale loss) and lack of air support in ground combats. Properly supplied isolated units with air support should be able to perform as well as they could if they were un-isolated.

6. Have a system to organize a tactical air force to support specific ground elements (Coming in WitW).

7. Remove the HQ Build Up completely but replace it with a priority supply system. The player could designate which HQs (Army Groups, Armies, and Corps) would receive higher or lesser priority and then the build up of these supplies would be within the normal constraints. (Also coming in WitW). The magical press button and I recieve max supplies is not good for the game.

Possible WitE System Impacts (and why this relates to the original thread):

1. Discourage players from using bombers as fuelers if they could see a noticeable impact of air support on ground operations.

2. It would give the Soviets an ability to counterattack with local air superiority.

3. Attacking isolated pockets without close air support should be more difficult with more casualties. This would raise the Germans casualty rate since it is already very low in the early game. It would have a delay impact on German operations in 1941. It would also cause more casualties for the Soviets in the late war and delay their advance as well.

4. Force players to deal with the reality that they will have to focus on a limited number of priority efforts ie "I cannot be strong everywhere".

5. Close air support would have more of an obvious impact on ground operations.


Trey




[/quote]

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
[/quote]


_____________________________

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

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
Sabre 21's perpetual arch-nemisis

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 21
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 6:56:01 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6398
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
The planes don't fully fuel a unit, they top them off.

Normal supply gets you to 18-35(depending on distance to RH) then bombers and transports top off divisions.

Corps are set-up as all PZ or all Mot.

This tactic is not a total game changer vs someone that knows how to set-up a with drawing checker board. You can still get out all industry, rail out good units to north/center and still have a 4 or 5 deep checker board.

Sure the south will be completely lost, but North and Center will hold and hold in 42.

The issue then becomes can SHC get to Berlin without the lost manpower centers in south? I think it depends onSHC blizzard O, pocketed units in 42, GHC infantry moral by late 42 and then the SHC players skill at building the 2.0 machine.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 1/4/2013 7:00:07 PM >


_____________________________

GHC WitE 24 - 4 - 8
GHC WitW 0 - 0 - 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 22
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 7:11:46 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6398
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Tactical ground support was how Germany cleaned house in 1939-1941.

Germany had less of everything and the enemy had better equipment and more of it in most cases.

The allies tried to do what the Germans did, but were not very good at it.

Basicly Germany used a sharp knife to quickly kill things and the allies used a 50 pound mace to bludgeon things slowly to death.



_____________________________

GHC WitE 24 - 4 - 8
GHC WitW 0 - 0 - 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 23
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 7:23:47 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3071
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The planes don't fully fuel a unit, they top them off.

Normal supply gets you to 18-35(depending on distance to RH) then bombers and transports top off divisions.


Non of us are saying it fully supplies a unit, but it makes all the difference whether u have 20-25 MP or 45+MPs semi constandly in the mobile/ part of the mobile forces.


quote:


This tactic is not a total game changer vs someone that knows how to set-up a with drawing checker board. You can still get out all industry, rail out good units to north/center and still have a 4 or 5 deep checker board.

Sure the south will be completely lost, but North and Center will hold and hold in 42.

The issue then becomes can SHC get to Berlin without the lost manpower centers in south? I think it depends onSHC blizzard O, pocketed units in 42, GHC infantry moral by late 42 and then the SHC players skill at building the 2.0 machine.


Maybe u should ask Calkay58 about that. Is not that every thing u say is wrong, but when germans arrive near Kharkov at turn 3 and near D town at turn 4, as i understod it, i dont think ur impressions is true. No not saying its happening every game atm, but ofc as things are shown by pioneers more will learn and follow.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 24
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 7:37:37 PM   
Iota

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 10/5/2011
From: Europe
Status: offline
quote:

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.


Well, what to do with the german LW in T1?

ground support/my experience:
A well prepared attack in T1 without ground support is successfull in 10/10 and maybe 19/20 attemps
A well prepared attack in T1 with ground support is successfull in 9/10 and maybe 18/20 attemps
I dont know exactly why and I have no statistic, but that is my feeling/experience.
My Conclusion: Using ground support means the result is more unpredictable.

unit bombing:
in T1 not really necessary and the effectiveness is still a secret?

airfield bombing ... as Flaviusx said

So u can do nothing or drop supply.
To drop supply is not really necessary but gives a better feeling than doing nothing

Greetings

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 25
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 9:40:32 PM   
janh

 

Posts: 1227
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe
Agreed. Effectiveness of a tactical air force should not be measured in number of kills. IMO there are a number of intangibles (that are difficult to translate into a game) in which tactical air forces play a dominant role.
...

Possible WitE system suggestions (If Trey had his way:

1. Actual damage due to air attacks should be light. (System seems about right now)

2. The side with overwhelming air support should receive a significant morale boost while the defending side receives a significant degradation of morale. If air superiority is contested then they should even each other out.

3. Areas in which the enemy has local air superiority should result in ground units having significanly reduced MPs (This is coming in WitW).

4. The real physical impact of air support on ground operations should be disruption to ground operations. I know WitE has it but I am unsure of its actual effect on the ground combat result. The side with the overhwhelming close air support should get a significant CV shift and vice versa.

5. Remove the rule in which an isolated unit automatically losses CV/morale. Make isolated CV loss a function of supply (a starved unit should suffer morale loss) and lack of air support in ground combats. Properly supplied isolated units with air support should be able to perform as well as they could if they were un-isolated.

6. Have a system to organize a tactical air force to support specific ground elements (Coming in WitW).

7. Remove the HQ Build Up completely but replace it with a priority supply system. The player could designate which HQs (Army Groups, Armies, and Corps) would receive higher or lesser priority and then the build up of these supplies would be within the normal constraints. (Also coming in WitW). The magical press button and I recieve max supplies is not good for the game.

Trey


Well said, Trey and Rasmus. My impression also was that air losses were rather ok, at least for what I know. Pavel gave some sources back then if I remember correctly, and it was pretty evident he had done some serious research on that part of the model. Generally it seems that a lot of research went into many aspects of WitE, from rail cap to anything. Air support and preliminary bombardment cause disruption just like in AE, but whether this is equivalent or effective enough to cause a clear shift in combat odds or something that would mimic a "desynchronisation" of operations in the end result I wouldn't be sure. Although in 41 it is not really needed to test this, but when entering LG or breaching some fortified hexes upon a river crossing it appears LW does make its presence felt. Especially in 43 or later, whenever I get chances for some Wehrmacht counterattacks against a more evenly footed Red Army, LW CAS appears to be much more important. It can shifts odds, not dramatically in my experience, but the bit that it sometimes requires to get 2:1 or better odds.

Reducing the isolation penalties or making them depended on their true cause, aka supply level, might already force a rethinking of LW usage in 41. And as you say, it will slow Wehrmacht progress, increase losses and give the Soviet units more chance for fighting. It would even limit the impact of the Lvov pocket, though not solve the issue really.

(in reply to el hefe)
Post #: 26
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 10:13:49 PM   
turtlefang

 

Posts: 334
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline
The actual studies I've seen on CAS for AFV and soft vehicle kills in WWII match Walloc observations very closely. A quick summary of the US & British Army reports on the Falaise pocket show that:

- Air kills on tanks were over reported by a factor of 10 to 15

- Soft vehicle kills were over reported by a factor of 5 to 10

Based on interviews with German prisoners during the war, the primary impact of air power interdiction was, in order:

- Forcing larger unit dispersal to minimize losses
- Decreasing movement rates as movement needed to be conducted in batches and jumps rather as continuous modes
- Destroying a fuel dump that would occasionally cause refueling problems
- Congestion from striking critical bottlenecks
- Mistiming of attacks or disjointed attacks due to units getting to the jump off points late
- Stringing a unit out as different elements were delayed by different amount of time resulting in piecemeal commitment to combat

Tactically, air power resulted in the following issues:

- Observation/Fwd Observer from low flying aircraft (the Number One cited item)
- Loss of surprise due to aerial scouting
- Loss of tactical flexibility to change position in certain types of ground
- Artillery suppression
- Disjointed efforts on both the offensive and defensive due to suppression fire/bombing

Finally, the one thing that was noted was that if a convoy was caught on the road in the open in line, an aircraft could shoot it to pieces in one to three passes. Especially if operating in pairs.

Kills weren't mentioned very high on the list.

The proposed "fixes" in WITW look like that address most of the issues.

As far as the JU88 flying fuel goes, you could do it but you really need to ramp up the losses due to wear and tear on the air frame. No manner how you store it or ship it, gasoline fumes really tear up the inside of an air frame (exception is specially build fuel tankers) - which is really thin to begin with anyway. I've seen it happen when shipped in the rural parts of Asia using DC-10-10s. And BG William Tunner "Willie the Whip" - who commanded the air forces shipping supplies over the Hump to China - estimated that air frames shipping gasoline lasted only 1/3 as long as those shipping non-toxic supplies.

So I have a hard time seeing the German bomber command saying "Sure, stick that gas on my expensive air frames so we can cart it around for your panzers, we don't care that it will eat up the air frames and make us infantry replacements in a month or so".

Non-toxic supplies, on the other hand, were carried all the time by bombers by everybody. However, not many spearheads were kept supplied by these bombers.

On the other hand, if its a game balancing issue, then so be. That's just the way it is.

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 27
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 11:22:21 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 6398
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The planes don't fully fuel a unit, they top them off.

Normal supply gets you to 18-35(depending on distance to RH) then bombers and transports top off divisions.


Non of us are saying it fully supplies a unit, but it makes all the difference whether u have 20-25 MP or 45+MPs semi constandly in the mobile/ part of the mobile forces.


quote:


This tactic is not a total game changer vs someone that knows how to set-up a with drawing checker board. You can still get out all industry, rail out good units to north/center and still have a 4 or 5 deep checker board.

Sure the south will be completely lost, but North and Center will hold and hold in 42.

The issue then becomes can SHC get to Berlin without the lost manpower centers in south? I think it depends onSHC blizzard O, pocketed units in 42, GHC infantry moral by late 42 and then the SHC players skill at building the 2.0 machine.


Maybe u should ask Calkay58 about that. Is not that every thing u say is wrong, but when germans arrive near Kharkov at turn 3 and near D town at turn 4, as i understod it, i dont think ur impressions is true. No not saying its happening every game atm, but ofc as things are shown by pioneers more will learn and follow.

Kind regards,

Rasmus


Back in the day when we all could mule ect Flaviusx/Kamil/Hoooper/MT/Katza and TDV had no problem stopping it.

This is no wheres near as powerful, but vs average to poor SHC players it can easly smokem and make someone look better then they really are.

Sapper cant keep all 3 PG's at 45+ only 6-8 mot units in south and 3 or 4 in north. He cant get to Leningrad on turn 4, Moscow or Rostov on turn 7 and Stalingrad on turn 11. MT, myself and a few others did that alrdy back in the day.

Whats going on now is 1/4 of that.

I have only played one game as SHC and I could stop Sapper, so I am dam sure Flaviusx/Kamil/Hoooper/MT/Katza and TDV would be able to stop Sapper, when and if he desides to play a game on the server.

We all "look" uber until we play a player of equal or better skills.

_____________________________

GHC WitE 24 - 4 - 8
GHC WitW 0 - 0 - 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 28
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/4/2013 11:40:23 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21944
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
I find myself agreeing with Pelton (and many others here). Basically, things are what they are and we're not looking to change them. Players are free to use a house rule to limit bombers and air transport. I expect WitW will be nothing like WitE when we are finished with air transport (logistics is different, air system is different, and we have known for a long time that we had to deal with bomber transport issue when balancing WitW). Trey has pointed out that air is important, and some of the current WitW system has incorporated impact of interdiction on movement/supplies/disruption. Exactly how this might impact isolated units is still to be developed in WitW. My impression has been that ground support can have a substantial, if somewhat hidden impact on combat through the disruption it causes to ground units (as opposed to outright losses). I don't have enough data to know yet if it is felt more in WitW than WitE. We have not yet moved the air transport and paradrop system into the air resolution phase in WitW so I can't speak to how they will differ (although paradrop system is already quite different as you can drop on enemy units and can scatter), but I can tell you that the other air missions are very different in how they work in WitW compared to WitE (and they are still changing).

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 29
RE: Nerfing the LW fuel drops. - 1/5/2013 1:22:25 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 766
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Back in the day when we all could mule ect Flaviusx/Kamil/Hoooper/MT/Katza and TDV had no problem stopping it.

This is no wheres near as powerful, but vs average to poor SHC players it can easly smokem and make someone look better then they really are.

Sapper cant keep all 3 PG's at 45+ only 6-8 mot units in south and 3 or 4 in north. He cant get to Leningrad on turn 4, Moscow or Rostov on turn 7 and Stalingrad on turn 11. MT, myself and a few others did that alrdy back in the day.

Whats going on now is 1/4 of that.

I have only played one game as SHC and I could stop Sapper, so I am dam sure Flaviusx/Kamil/Hoooper/MT/Katza and TDV would be able to stop Sapper, when and if he desides to play a game on the server.

We all "look" uber until we play a player of equal or better skills.


Well actually Saper has already defeated Kamil and that was before he really learned how to use air resupply. I believe Saper is now willing and able to play server games and I would love to see an AAR of a game against yourself, MT or Flavius.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Nerfing the LW fuel drops. Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.121