Unhistorical Air system - WAD but a poor design in my opinion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West



Message


Peltonx -> Unhistorical Air system - WAD but a poor design in my opinion (1/2/2016 2:01:09 AM)

I been playing a game vs KWG here.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3957709&mpage=7&key=


He has posted allot of loss data himself so I like to first thank him for suppling so much data
[&o]

I have trended in game data for 10 turns, again you can go to thread and see the lose ratios I and KWG has posted with SS's.

Single turn loses and over all and how the loses are caused.

So here is the historical and in game data.

Here is a standard turn-you can go to thread and see allot more of the same but figured I put an example to save people
hrs of reading.

So all of the allied planes are used to tacticly bomb, they tactically bomb every single turn.

Germany has not been bombed for 10 weeks and no V-1 sites have been bombed.



[image]local://upfiles/20387/DCBDB2077C5D457090CD32A8B26B267C.jpg[/image]




Peltonx -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 2:03:35 AM)

Only 4 battles which total 8k dead and total dead for turn was 44,000 so 65%
of loses is caused by bombing alone and I am taking out 4-5k for attrition.
So 3 months of non-historical loses as we all know bombing only caused 10-15% of loses.
And we all know Operation Cobra lasted a week not 10 weeks even then it only caused 50%

Again if you want you can go to the thread and see more turns showing the same data, most of the loses are caused by bombing.

Liquadsky ran tests and was able to kill 20K per turn - in thread also.

[image]local://upfiles/20387/ECAFF6F79D244F07BD8DC6078A782FE6.jpg[/image]




Peltonx -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 2:05:43 AM)

Turn 49
WA Loses: 256,000
GHC Loses: 268,000
Turn 58
WA Loses: 342,000
GHC Loses: 554,000
Total loses last 10 turns
WA Loses: 86,000
GHC Loses: 286,000
Ratio: 3.5 to 1 Historical lose ratio for Normandy 1:1 and most caused by artillery fire not bombing.



[image]local://upfiles/20387/D4F67E35DF434A39BCC99F14D4D33896.jpg[/image]




Peltonx -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 2:06:41 AM)

There is down side to this exploit as can clearly be seen not bombing Germany or V sites give zip for VP’s and Loses are kept light because the planes kill at least 60-70% of the Germans.

[image]local://upfiles/20387/94BBC47F389E453F9DAC249FCBEF7D0D.jpg[/image]




Peltonx -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 2:09:21 AM)

I posted the data, the historical loses for Normandy, historical loses based on type.

If you like to post based on data historical or in game to say how this is not an exploit do, post away.

If your simply going to whine or say so and so exploites so that makes this exploit ok don't P

I like to look at data not silliness.

As we all know planes should not be doing 2/3 of the KIA for 10 weeks, sure a few weeks but this is simple another Middle Earth WAD exploit.

This is not Desert Storm, its WW II


KWG was nice enough to post this on operation Cobra

panzer lehr
Bayerlein left a remarkable account of the effects of the COBRA bombing and ground assault on his already war-weary command.
In response to postwar interrogation he wrote:

We had the main losses by pattern bombing, less by artillery, still less by tanks and smaller arms.
The actual losses of dead and wounded were approximately:

by bombing 50%
by artillery 30%
by other weapons 20%


So Operation Cobra lasted a week and loses were only 50% by bombing and yet WitW gives 60-70% for 10 weeks.

Recent analysis of ground combat deaths in various wars has shown that, for WW2,
military wounds and deaths were caused primarily by four sources:


Small Arms fire: 5-10% of wounds, <1% of deaths
Mortars, Grenades, Mines, and other lightweight explosive devices: 40-50% of wounds, 20-40% deaths
Artillery (primarily blast and direct fragmentation): 30-50% of wounds, 50-60% of deaths
Bombs: 5-10% of wounds, < 5% of deaths

The amounts varied heavily by the particular battle, as locale terrain plays a huge roll in determining both what
weapons are prevalent, and the effectiveness of each.
For instance, artillery had a very low impact on deaths in the various Pacific island campaigns, where the
vast majority of casualties were from mortars, grenades, and mines, followed by small arms. However,
in the various Western Desert campaigns, artillery had an even higher total (due to the open terrain and hard rocks,
which amplified artillery's effectiveness).



Major General J. B. A. Bailey, British Army (retired) wrote:


From the middle of the eighteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth, artillery is judged to have accounted for perhaps 50% of battlefield casualties. In the sixty years preceding 1914, this figure was probably as low as 10 percent. The remaining 90 percent fell to small arms, whose range and accuracy had come to rival those of artillery. ... [By WWI] The British Royal Artillery, at over one million men, grew to be larger than the Royal Navy. Bellamy (1986), pp. 1–7, cites the percentage of casualties caused by artillery in various theaters since 1914: in the First World War, 45 percent of Russian casualties and 58 percent of British casualties on the Western Front; in the Second World War, 75 percent of British casualties in North Africa and 51 percent of Soviet casualties (61 percent in 1945) and 70 percent of German casualties on the Eastern Front; and in the Korean War, 60 percent of US casualties, including those inflicted by mortars.[36]

— J. B. A. Bailey (2004). Field artillery and firepower



Looking for more data but looks like 10% of loses were caused by "bombing" and 50-70% by artillery fire depending on weather/terrain ect ect.



[image]local://upfiles/20387/49B3C08A7FBA41D687E6145BE939E39C.jpg[/image]




Peltonx -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 2:18:36 AM)

Clearly there is something wrong. I gave all units 1 or 2 AA units and posted AA Regiments in every town/AB in the fighting area over the 10 weeks.


1. Lose ratio is off by 3x Historical was 1 German for 1.5 allied
2. Loses caused by bombing is 5x Historical was 10-15% not 60-70%
3. Operation Cobra lasted a week not 10
4. No down side to exploit or poor design how ever you want to look at it.

Fixes.

1. Up V sites VP out put.
2. As KWG posted after 1 bombing run the AA dropped off allot - it should not-appears to be a clear ammo bug same as WitE
100% of the AA in a hex should not be wasting ammo on a 10 plane bombing run. I explosed this exploit in my game vs MT.
3. Clearly plane bombing is way over powered and needs to be turned down about 400%







Seminole -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 4:52:30 AM)

quote:

1. Lose ratio is off by 3x Historical was 1 German for 1.5 allied


Since the strategy/tactics differ, how exactly is that germane? I've asked this before, but you never respond to it.
You seem to expect 'historical' casualties irrespective of the strategy and tactics employed. Why?

quote:

2. Loses caused by bombing is 5x Historical was 10-15% not 60-70%


see above
If he is doing 20x the historical amount of tactical bombing, should he still only cause 'historical' casualties with it? If so, why?

quote:

3. Operation Cobra lasted a week not 10


Why did Operation Cobra last less than a week historically?

quote:

4. No down side to exploit or poor design how ever you want to look at it.


There are certainly trade offs, but is it not also possible that the Allies erred historically in not providing more tactical support instead of strategic bombing?

quote:

2. As KWG posted after 1 bombing run the AA dropped off allot - it should not-appears to be a clear ammo bug same as WitE


Another area to look into here is disruption.
I noticed doing a lot of unit bombing in the Rommel Attacks scenario that many of the losses were being borne by AA (do FBs try to focus on SEAD?), but mainly I was creating disruption.

Check out 9.4.1:

quote:

During the Logistics phase, ground elements in units gain additional fatigue based on the unit’s morale. Following this the ground elements may take damage based on the fatigue of the ground element... Units adjacent to an enemy unit during their logistics phase gain 4 times as much fatigue and there is 16 times more probability that damaged ground elements will be destroyed during this phase compared to units not adjacent to an enemy unit. This represents the additional stress and strain of being in the front line.
...
Disruption from combat is converted into fatigue before any new combat...


Might explain the decline in proficiency of your AA to subsequent attacks.

quote:

3. Clearly plane bombing is way over powered and needs to be turned down about 400%


By your own observation Panzer Lehr suffered 50% of their losses to aerial bombardment under Cobra. How do you reconcile reducing the losses by 75% when KWG is committing many more aircraft than Cobra, and for a longer period of time? Given that his commitment is larger, longer, and if I'm not mistaken your own troop concentrations are higher, shouldn't we expect an even higher percentage of losses to airpower under KWG's Super Cobra?

I'm not sure who is privvy to what is going on 'under the hood', but I'm very curious how terrain and fortification level affect air attacks. e.g. Bocage creates LOS problems at ground level, but would pretty much be clear terrain to the fly boys. Certainly not the same as trying to find and bomb targets in woods or rough.





HMSWarspite -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 6:22:02 AM)

Pelton seems to expect historical losses regardless of the game situation and tactics. All seems a bit strange to me... I would say Middle Earth, but he's been so good in not using the term I will refrain😊.

Pelton, he's losing Vp every turn, so is not winning, he won't be able to keep it up for ever (winter etc), and you could easily mitigate it further. We really don't know how realistic this is, as there is no history to give direct precident and I haven't seen any real analysis in the elements except Cobra, and no real analysis of that.

I really don't think this definition of exploit will catch on (use of a feature or tactic in game that deviates from history and doesn't help you win- in which case most of my games are full of exploits!)




HMSWarspite -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 6:33:50 AM)


quote:



Looking for more data but looks like 10% of loses were caused by "bombing" and 50-70% by artillery fire depending on weather/terrain ect ect.




But Pelton, you have missed another significant issue. Some tens of thousands of German civilians were killed by area bombing and missed precision bombing even in July 44. The game is way out of whack there too, the casualty percentages are way off. This is a big issue. Huge. Completely Middle Earth. How can the game be so far out on that percentage of casualties. He isn't getting any manpower hits at all! You ought to include that in your posts.😴




Red Lancer -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 10:14:25 AM)

This is not an exploit.

- Strategic Bombers were used to attack ground formations. Therefore this tactic must be allowed to be used in the game.
- The SBP VPs are part of the game to ensure that strategic bombers need to attack cities and their industry. KWG is not gaining valuable SBPs needed to gain a victory and we have no idea how many VPs KWG has failed to gain by not bombing the Reich.
- The argument that losses should match history in this game is utter nonsense. Notwithstanding the fact that the bombing is way beyond history neither is the defensive strategy historical. In 1944 the Axis managed to man a single frontline and never managed to create an operational reserve as they had to commit units piecemeal as they arrived. Where in history was the equivalent of three hexes of defensive lines and significant Panzer reserves? There wasn't.
- What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You cannot criticise ahistorical play in your opponent when you employ ahistorical tactics in almost every aspect of your gameplay. Furthermore you should not criticise the game when you are on the receiving end of someone who maximises the toolset to their benefit too.

Please do continue the argument but let's drop the inflammatory phrases like 'Desert Storm Exploit'.




KWG -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 12:08:40 PM)

"The analysts point out that in June, July, August and September the 8th Air Force did a lot of tactical bombing, whereas in October the 8th Air Force engaged in exclusively on strategic targets."


WW2
"the 70-75% casualties are from fragmentation producing weapons, this includes bombs, artillery, hand grenades, mortars, etc. and was gathered from casualty data. The doctors or graves registration personnel didn't concern themselves with what weapon actually caused the fragmentation. Just like a gunshot wound is a gunshot wound, they don't generally know if it came from an infantryman's rifle, a sniper or a machinegun. It could be/was further refined by after action reports, if the battle included artillery and mortars but no aircraft then you know bombs weren't a factor."






quote:

As we all know planes should not be doing 2/3 of the KIA for 10 weeks, sure a few weeks but this is simple another Middle Earth WAD exploit.


Why is a few weeks ok but not more?


How many civilians were killed by aircraft?
What if that destruction was applied to the battlefield instead?


Ive posted lots of info showing that some of the commanders at the time wanted to do such.
But then, what is a QUOTE from people actually there compared to a statistic from years later.


Can I get "50-70% by artillery fire" enemy casualties even when I have no artillery in the battle?
It can be said that Naval guns caused less than 1% of ground casualties in ww2. So units on the coast can expect the same, just 1% casualties?

In game, as many troops as there are being bombed in would be hard not to hit something.

Are you saying aircraft are too powerful? OR Iam using them too much?

quote:

3. Clearly plane bombing is way over powered and needs to be turned down about 400%

If you are saying that they are too powerful and should be coded down, then for WiTE 2.0 it may be best to leave that small number/bomb load of Luftwaffe on the airfield.
Or will their effect have to be coded back up?


quote:

2. As KWG posted after 1 bombing run the AA dropped off allot - it should not-appears to be a clear ammo bug same as WitE
100% of the AA in a hex should not be wasting ammo on a 10 plane bombing run. I explosed this exploit in my game vs MT.


For clarification which post was that?



quote:

Germany has not been bombed for 10 weeks and no V-1 sites have been bombed.


THAT IS NOT TRUE



You are more than likely going to win, or have you crunched the data and hexs ,till the end, and it shows a possible different ending?

quote:

If your simply going to whine or say so and so exploites so that makes this exploit ok don't P

"whine"? If so Iam merely a faint echo.




///////////////// This pdf can be found and it makes for a good read.
[image]local://upfiles/43155/6B4566076D5E43EEAB50BE9B99D71ACF.jpg[/image]




Peltonx -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 1:26:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

1. Lose ratio is off by 3x Historical was 1 German for 1.5 allied


Since the strategy/tactics differ, how exactly is that germane? I've asked this before, but you never respond to it.

I have answered this 2 other time, but will again. The different lose ratio is caused by an poorly designed air system.

You seem to expect 'historical' casualties irrespective of the strategy and tactics employed. Why?

I also answered this before but will again. There is no strategy or tactic, its an exploit of the system that give 70% of loses caused by bombing. Historically that simply was not possible, so the design is poor. 70% of loses were caused by artillery.

quote:

2. Loses caused by bombing is 5x Historical was 10-15% not 60-70%


see above
If he is doing 20x the historical amount of tactical bombing, should he still only cause 'historical' casualties with it?
If so, why?

There is no If we know he is based on his and my data, so that's not a question. We know the same thing can be done by simply bombing troops on the coast before u even invade.


quote:

3. Operation Cobra lasted a week not 10


Why did Operation Cobra last less than a week historically?

Logistics and The most important constraints in safely employing airpower were well known to the army’s senior ground commanders. Even if the air forces attacked at the right time and place, there was still no guarantee they'd hit the enemy.Accuracy was problematic.For medium bombers to have a 95 percent chance of hitting a 6,000 square foot target, they had to drop 600 bombs (medium bombers were considered 2.5 times more accurate than Cobra's main punch, the heavy bombers).



quote:

4. No down side to exploit or poor design how ever you want to look at it.


There are certainly trade offs, but is it not also possible that the Allies erred historically in not providing more
tactical support instead of strategic bombing?

NO as per the above post. HVY bombers were useless and even medium next to useless tring to hit a target, in other words they were usless tacticly.


quote:

2. As KWG posted after 1 bombing run the AA dropped off allot - it should not-appears to be a clear ammo bug same as WitE


Another area to look into here is disruption.
I noticed doing a lot of unit bombing in the Rommel Attacks scenario that many of the losses were being borne
by AA (do FBs try to focus on SEAD?), but mainly I was creating disruption.

Check out 9.4.1:

quote:

During the Logistics phase, ground elements in units gain additional fatigue based on the unit’s morale.
Following this the ground elements may take damage based on the fatigue of the ground element... Units
adjacent to an enemy unit during their logistics phase gain 4 times as much fatigue and there is 16 times
more probability that damaged ground elements will be destroyed during this phase compared to units not adjacent
to an enemy unit. This represents the additional stress and strain of being in the front line.
...
Disruption from combat is converted into fatigue before any new combat...


Might explain the decline in proficiency of your AA to subsequent attacks.

Good points that make it clear that spamming small recon and bombing missions caused a major impact on "stress" This same exploit was used allot in WitE and was nerfed after it became the tactic of the day. You attack with a 1 CV unit and it would cause 100% of the defending units 50+ CV to fire all weapons. So you attack 5 to 6 times with 1 cv units them attack with a 20 CV stack vs a 50 defending and win 75% of the time because the defender was out of ammo+ fatigue ect ect. 2by3 ignored this exploit for 6+ months because I pointed it out but had to fix it when everyone started using the exploit.

quote:

3. Clearly plane bombing is way over powered and needs to be turned down about 400%


By your own observation Panzer Lehr suffered 50% of their losses to aerial bombardment under Cobra.
How do you reconcile reducing the losses by 75% when KWG is committing many more aircraft than Cobra,
and for a longer period of time? Given that his commitment is larger, longer, and if I'm not mistaken
your own troop concentrations are higher, shouldn't we expect an even higher percentage of losses to airpower under
KWG's Super Cobra?

I'm not sure who is privvy to what is going on 'under the hood', but I'm very curious how terrain and fortification level affect air attacks. e.g. Bocage creates LOS problems at ground level, but would pretty much be clear terrain to the fly boys. Certainly not the same as trying to find and bomb targets in woods or rough.




What targets?

Communications wasn't a panacea, because pilots found it difficult to fix their exact positions even under ideal conditions.Fighter pilots went into battle with their maps strapped to their knee -- reading coordinates, flying their aircraft, watching out for enemy planes, antiaircraft fire, friendly troops, civilian non-combatants and enemy targets all at the same time.Fighter pilots when asked how they decided when they were behind the enemy lines claimed:

It was quite simple. All they [pilots] did was watch

the roads and when they saw a Frenchman flogging a horse and drawing a cart down the road they knew they were over German held territory. On our side of the line, trucks and transportation lined the road, generally bumper to bumper.[10]

As imprecise and haphazard as the task of locating and identifying the enemy lines was for the fighters, the difficulty increased exponentially for medium and heavy bombers flying at much higher altitudes.



http://isme.tamu.edu/JSCOPE00/Carafano00.html




KWG -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 1:34:37 PM)

quote:

There are certainly trade offs, but is it not also possible that the Allies erred historically in not providing more tactical support instead of strategic bombing?
quote:


NO as per the above post. HVY bombers were useless and even medium next to useless tring to hit a target, in other words they were usless tacticly.



In retrospect von Rundstedt regarded the St-Lo bombing as "the most effective, as well as the most impressive, tactical use of air power in his experience."




Peltonx -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 1:39:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

quote:

There are certainly trade offs, but is it not also possible that the Allies erred historically in not providing more tactical support instead of strategic bombing?
quote:


NO as per the above post. HVY bombers were useless and even medium next to useless tring to hit a target, in other words they were usless tacticly.



In retrospect von Rundstedt regarded the St-Lo bombing as "the most effective, as well as the most impressive, tactical use of air power in his experience."


That's a quote where is your data?

As has been posted General's make stuff up to fit there story or save there butts, allied or axis.

trolling does not = debate




KWG -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 1:42:34 PM)

Where is my data?


RIGHT WHERE YOU LEFT IT.

quote:

KWG was nice enough to post this on operation Cobra

panzer lehr
Bayerlein left a remarkable account of the effects of the COBRA bombing and ground assault on his already war-weary command.
In response to postwar interrogation he wrote:

We had the main losses by pattern bombing, less by artillery, still less by tanks and smaller arms.
The actual losses of dead and wounded were approximately:

by bombing 50%
by artillery 30%
by other weapons 20%




Peltonx -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 1:43:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Pelton seems to expect historical losses regardless of the game situation and tactics.
All seems a bit strange to me... I would say Middle Earth, but he's been so good in not using the term I will refrain😊.

Pelton, he's losing Vp every turn, so is not winning, he won't be able to keep it up for ever (winter etc), and you could easily mitigate it further. We really don't know how realistic this is, as there is no history to give direct precident and I haven't seen any real analysis in the elements except Cobra, and no real analysis of that.

I really don't think this definition of exploit will catch on (use of a feature or tactic in game that deviates from history and doesn't help you win- in which case most of my games are full of exploits!)


We all paid money for a product that claimed to model historical events during WW II

If that product is modeling a Desert Storm air system and not WW II something is wrong.




Peltonx -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 1:50:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite


quote:



Looking for more data but looks like 10% of loses were caused by "bombing" and 50-70% by artillery fire depending on weather/terrain ect ect.




But Pelton, you have missed another significant issue. Some tens of thousands of German civilians were killed by area bombing and missed precision bombing even in July 44. The game is way out of whack there too, the casualty percentages are way off. This is a big issue. Huge. Completely Middle Earth. How can the game be so far out on that percentage of casualties. He isn't getting any manpower hits at all! You ought to include that in your posts.😴



Very good point.

One reason Cobra only lasted a week was because of political. We were bombing our allies civilians.


During the bombing Allied planes killed and wounded an unknown number of French civilians, as well as hundreds of American soldiers.

a 2nd reason was friendly bombing.

Nor does General Bradley mention that Brigadier General F. H. Smith, the Director of Operations for the Allied Expeditionary Air Force at the July 19 meeting at Stanmore had briefed Bradley that there might be “gross bombing errors causing troop casualties.”[29]In short, General Bradley’s own accounts of the Cobra bombing did much to obfuscate his personal responsibility.The evidence suggests he knew the front lines troops would incur casualties.He was willing to take that risk. He was not, however, prepared to acknowledge this truth publicly. His explanations are a disingenuous moment in what is regarded as an otherwise honorable and distinguished career.

Why General Bradley made such poor choices with regard to this particular aspect of the campaign cannot be confidently fixed from the available evidence.However, it is clear that whether due to a serious tactical misjudgment, intentionally assuming the terrible risk of killing and maiming his own troops, or unrealistic wishful thinking on his part, General Bradley failed to adequately address the issue of protection for his ground forces.


3rd was lack of targets.


pilots when asked how they decided when they were behind the enemy lines claimed:

It was quite simple. All they [pilots] did was watch

the roads and when they saw a Frenchman flogging a horse and drawing a cart down the road they knew they were over German held territory. On our side of the line, trucks and transportation lined the road, generally bumper to bumper.[10]

As imprecise and haphazard as the task of locating and identifying the enemy lines was for the fighters, the difficulty increased exponentially for medium and heavy bombers flying at much higher altitudes.







Red Lancer -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 1:53:28 PM)

I do not condone any trolling. KWG is not trolling - he is providing information to support his opinion (which I infer is that his use of airpower is legitimate). If every time someone posted their concerns about the game and the Dev Team speed of response I classed it as trolling, some would have been banned ages ago.





KWG -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 1:58:16 PM)

This sums it up best:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is not an exploit.

- Strategic Bombers were used to attack ground formations. Therefore this tactic must be allowed to be used in the game.
- The SBP VPs are part of the game to ensure that strategic bombers need to attack cities and their industry. KWG is not gaining valuable SBPs needed to gain a victory and we have no idea how many VPs KWG has failed to gain by not bombing the Reich.
- The argument that losses should match history in this game is utter nonsense. Notwithstanding the fact that the bombing is way beyond history neither is the defensive strategy historical. In 1944 the Axis managed to man a single frontline and never managed to create an operational reserve as they had to commit units piecemeal as they arrived. Where in history was the equivalent of three hexes of defensive lines and significant Panzer reserves? There wasn't.
- What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You cannot criticise ahistorical play in your opponent when you employ ahistorical tactics in almost every aspect of your gameplay. Furthermore you should not criticise the game when you are on the receiving end of someone who maximises the toolset to their benefit too.

Please do continue the argument but let's drop the inflammatory phrases like 'Desert Storm Exploit'.



quote:

We all paid money for a product that claimed to model historical events during WW II

If that product is modeling a Desert Storm air system and not WW II something is wrong.



And you want me to play WW1. NO... this man -Doolittle- says we will adapt, innovate and overcome.



Doolittle, always the innovator:
" We have developed a very efficient type of anti-aircraft marking. Twelve AA guns can mark a straight line something over 2 miles long with about a 400-yard interval between bursts. This will be ideal for marking front line troops."

WARNING FOLLOWING PHOTOGRAPGH MAY CONTAIN GRAPHIC EXPLOIT FOR SOME VIEWERS
[image]local://upfiles/43155/DBBCC0C8CA8D4BEA81641CFA8E8034A9.jpg[/image]



AND as Ive stated in many posts Iam not doing a straight-up Cobra NOR Close Air Support
Do you want me to finish my "BOMBING LAB" thread as to how the missions would cover a 10 mile hex?




Peltonx -> modeling Desert Storm or WW II? (1/2/2016 2:18:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is not an exploit.

- Strategic Bombers were used to attack ground formations. Therefore this tactic must be allowed to be used in the game.

I agree but its modeled poorly by the current ruleset based on historical data.
1. pilots when asked how they decided when they were behind the enemy lines claimed:

It was quite simple. All they [pilots] did was watch

the roads and when they saw a Frenchman flogging a horse and drawing a cart down the road they knew they were over German held territory. On our side of the line, trucks and transportation lined the road, generally bumper to bumper.[10]

As imprecise and haphazard as the task of locating and identifying the enemy lines was for the fighters, the difficulty increased exponentially for medium and heavy bombers flying at much higher altitudes.
2.The most important constraints in safely employing airpower were well known to the army’s senior ground commanders.
Even if the air forces attacked at the right time and place, there was still no guarantee they'd hit the enemy.
Accuracy was problematic.For medium bombers to have a 95 percent chance of hitting a 6,000 square foot target, they had to drop
600 bombs (medium bombers were considered 2.5 times more accurate than Cobra's main punch, the heavy bombers).
3. the game also does not model civilian or frieldly fire (allied planes bombing allied troops).
During the bombing Allied planes killed and wounded an unknown number of French civilians, as well as hundreds of American soldiers.

So based on the historical facts the air system does not model 2 and 3 and 1 is way over powered based on historical data and in game data.




- The SBP VPs are part of the game to ensure that strategic bombers need to attack cities and their industry.
KWG is not gaining valuable SBPs needed to gain a victory and we have no idea how many VPs KWG has failed to
gain by not bombing the Reich.

I agree that SBP VP's are part of the game and need to attack citys, but again based on in game data KWG is not and there is no down side to not using his hvys/med bombers to hit citys ect
Also the game is not just about not losing VP's for allies, because that gives Germany VP's. WA's gain VP's from citys also and if you can kill off 75% of the German troops using air power and not ground troops your saving VP aka gaining VP's
Your coin has 2 sides not one side.


- The argument that losses should match history in this game is utter nonsense.

So your saying this game does not model WW II, but Desert Storm?

Notwithstanding the fact that the bombing is way beyond history neither is the defensive strategy historical.

In 1944 the Axis managed to man a single frontline and never managed to create an operational reserve as they had
to commit units piecemeal as they arrived. Where in history was the equivalent of three hexes of defensive lines
and significant Panzer reserves? There wasn't.
- What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
You cannot criticise ahistorical play in your opponent when you employ ahistorical tactics in almost
every aspect of your gameplay. Furthermore you should not criticise the game when you are on the receiving
end of someone who maximises the toolset to their benefit too.

So your saying its and exploit?

or that

all exploits are equal and all players should exploit the game?

I am not doing anything unhistorical. I have a single line up front and the 2ns line is units getting replacements this was a standard things done during WW II.

Point out 1 thing I am doing that's not historical in my game. That's your opinion nothing more.
I am sending all units to the front and rotating out depleted units to receive replasements - what is so unhistorical about that?
Your seem to be making a personal attack and not sticking to the data.

We all thought we were buying a product that modeled as close as possible historical combat during WW II.

As with WitE the game required dozens of patches nerfing exploits (use of a feature or tactic in game that deviates from history
and helps you win. Examples of past nerfed exploits

1. HQBU spamming
2. invasion spam
3. ammo exploit/ammo bug
4. 1v1=2v1
5. spam bombing of AB's
6. spam para drops

The question is does the toolset model what the product claimed to model when people bought the game? When an exploit/bug/ poor modeling is found does the design team fix the problem.










KWG -> RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? (1/2/2016 2:21:33 PM)

Many of the things you have brought up have already been replied to in the other threads.

Evaluating Bradley’s Decision

Half a century later, the debate over the Cobra disaster has lost none of its vitality.Today, typing on a keyboard far from the terror of the hedgerows, it is a simple task to point out the shortfalls of the bombing plan.On that July day, the issue seemed very different.An officer at the front concluded:

I believe every man in the company will agree that if we have such an attack again they would want the bombing just where it was, right to our lines.We would rather take the ones that fall on us to get the effect on the Germans in front of us.



The issue, however, was not whether or not the bombing should have been conducted, but if the commanders had done everything possible to mitigate the risks.



Another problem during Cobra was that commanders hadn't ensured that the ground troops were adequately prepared.Even though troops were supposed to withdraw 1,200 yards from the no bomb line, some units were positioned as close as 800 yards or less.Others pulled back shortly before the air strike, but were not told to dig-in.The 2d Battalion, 120th Infantry Regiment, for example, which was hit hard on July 24, was deployed in battle formation preparing to attack, not dug-in and protected. Lieutenant Chester H. Jordan in the 3rd Battalion, 47th Infantry Regiment recalled, “I reasoned the Germans would be in no shape to throw anything at us so why dig a hole.”When the attack started his platoon “cheered the bomber on like kids at a football game,” until the first short bombs began to land.[25]The failure to take protective cover was invitation to disaster.

The preconditions for disaster were the cumulative result of three critical failures; inadequate coordination with the supporting air forces, inability to mark the forward positions of ground forces, and the lack of warning and protection of the troops.But, what the reports fail to fully emphasize is that none of these shortfalls were beyond General Bradley's control.




Peltonx -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 2:22:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I do not condone any trolling. KWG is not trolling - he is providing information to support his opinion (which I infer is that his use of airpower is legitimate). If every time someone posted their concerns about the game and the Dev Team speed of response I classed it as trolling, some would have been banned ages ago.




Posting a quote is not providing any historical or in game data.

Its a quote trolling for an answer that has nothing to do with data.

That's what leads to the personal attack silliness and gets threads off topic.

Why its called trolling. Gets people off topic - see its working all ready [8D]




KWG -> RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? (1/2/2016 2:22:21 PM)

quote:


Germany has not been bombed for 10 weeks and no V-1 sites have been bombed.


THAT IS NOT TRUE

?????




KWG -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 2:24:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I do not condone any trolling. KWG is not trolling - he is providing information to support his opinion (which I infer is that his use of airpower is legitimate). If every time someone posted their concerns about the game and the Dev Team speed of response I classed it as trolling, some would have been banned ages ago.




Posting a quote is not providing any historical or in game data.

Its a quote trolling for an answer that has nothing to do with data.

That's what leads to the personal attack silliness and gets threads off topic.

Why its called trolling. Gets people off topic - see its working all ready [8D]


quote:

Where is my data?
RIGHT WHERE YOU LEFT IT.
quote:KWG was nice enough to post this on operation Cobra panzer lehr Bayerlein left a remarkable account of the effects of the COBRA bombing and ground assault on his already war-weary command.
In response to postwar interrogation he wrote:
We had the main losses by pattern bombing, less by artillery, still less by tanks and smaller arms.
The actual losses of dead and wounded were approximately:
by bombing 50%
by artillery 30%
by other weapons 20%













KWG -> RE: Is this a Desert Storm Exploit or WW II? (1/2/2016 2:28:03 PM)

quote:

You are more than likely going to win, or have you crunched the data and hexs ,till the end, and it shows a possible different ending?




Peltonx -> RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? (1/2/2016 2:36:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

quote:


Germany has not been bombed for 10 weeks and no V-1 sites have been bombed.


THAT IS NOT TRUE

?????


That's a statement not proof.

I do not remember seeing a single city or V site bombed after your invasion.

Mybee I missed it do you have any proof?




KWG -> RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? (1/2/2016 2:47:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

quote:


Germany has not been bombed for 10 weeks and no V-1 sites have been bombed.


THAT IS NOT TRUE

?????





That's a statement not proof.

I do not remember seeing a single city or V site bombed after your invasion.

Mybee I missed it do you have any proof?



You have the turn so its in your hands. Here is collaborating proof from a similar statement
[image]local://upfiles/43155/0FFED474CE4645248C3C956664FD5712.jpg[/image]




Peltonx -> RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? (1/2/2016 2:47:46 PM)

So no one is going to refute the data?

I don't see anything to refute the in game or historical data

Does anyone think the in game or historical data is wrong?

If so do your have data to support it?

I am sure there is other data that shows different % ratio's but from what I have found and others when we were looking at WitE ratios in
dev forum these #'s are all close.

To be clear I like WitW as I did WitE,
but all games have flaws modeling history and people will find these flaws some quicker then others.

There is nothing wrong with admitting this and fixing it. I also gave ideas for fixing the issie in this thread so I am not just trashing the game, but giving ideas on how to fix the issue as I have always done in the past no matter the exploit pro german or pro allied.







Red Lancer -> RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? (1/2/2016 4:30:49 PM)

The data is not wrong but your use of the data in your argument is.

- I do not doubt your data is correct but the use of it in this context is utterly flawed. History is not being followed so historic data has no validity.
- The use of Cobra or Goodwood ( or Totalise or Charnwood or Tractable or Bluecoat) to prove a point in this argument is flawed as in these instances the air attacks were on a single day and not over a week as is being employed.
- Your data will only be valid if you set up a scenario that models Cobra or Goodwood accurately - same squadrons, same units in the hex and same duration - i.e. one day out of seven.
- You criticise people mixing quotes with data but then do so yourself. Your quote on how pilots recognised enemy territory is out of context as Cobra used red artillery smoke and cerise panels to mark the target not French locals.
- There is no exploit but KWG is pushing the game to the limit as you yourself do.
- Your play in Normandy is unhistoric because:
-- You are rotating formations - the Germans did not have enough to do this.
-- Although German defensive doctrine did have fall back lines they were not normally ten miles behind they were less so that means they were in the same hex - on the Bourguebus Ridge there were 5 lines going back 6 miles - here you have them up to 3 hexes / 30 miles deep.
-- There were no significant fall back fortifications built and no fortified units employed in Normandy.
-- You have Panzer formations in reserve - I cannot find an example where a unit was held back for over a week.
-- If you stockpiled depots from 1943 then that is ahistoric.
-- If you don't attack that is ahistoric.
- Your past history does not provide you carte blanche as the arbiter of what is correct in any 2by3 game.





DicedT -> RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? (1/2/2016 5:50:00 PM)

When looking at history and why things did -- or more importantly, did not -- happen, it's important to ask WHY.

So in the case of battlefield carpet bombing, there are two possible explanations for why the Allies didn't do it:

1) They were stupid or unimaginative.
2) There were technological and doctrinal barriers. And as a matter of fact, Allied ground commanders were not thrilled with carpet bombing after 8th Air Force, which was actually not trained or equipped for pinpoint bombing, killed a lot of American troops in Normandy. Meanwhile, the Bomber Barons screamed every time a B-17 or Lancaster was diverted from the Bomber Offensive.

Which brings up one of the problems with a game like WITW: What level of command are you simulating? The Allied commander loses VPs for not strategic bombing, which suggests that he has a boss above him setting priorities. So does that mean that he shouldn't be able to overrule Hap Arnold and "Bomber" Harris and use their heavies for carpet bombing?

On the other hand, the Germans have all sorts of advantages that the real generals didn't, like the privilege of being able to withdraw from parts of France and Italy without being sent before a firing squad. So maybe the Allies need to have an ahistorical capability of their own.

Michael




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.859375E-02