Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13)

 
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 West >> The War Room >> Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 1/31/2015 2:09:54 PM   
Nico165b165


Posts: 393
Joined: 1/28/2007
From: Mons, Belgique
Status: offline
With the changes in the latest beta (NF more efficient), I wanted to setup some tests to see how thoses changes impact the campaign of the bomber command (BC).

So, here's the idea :

Scenario : air tutorial campaign, WA player vs Axis AI, challenging
Reco : REC from coastal command, 2-hex area around Essen (Rühr)
Target : manpower in the 2-hex area around Essen

No use of 8th AF, no change in the AD's between turns.

Test 1 : the "normal" one. Mosquitos altitude 26.000, everything else at 18.000.
Test 2 : the "prudent" one. Everything at the highest possible altitude. Mosquitos still at 26.000, Lancaster and Halifax at 22.000, Stirling at 19.000.
Test 3 : the "risky" one. Mosquitos at 18.000, everything else at 13.000.

I'll focus on the biggest raids, the ones with the Lancaster/Halifax.


Test 1 - normal

Turn 1 :



Turn 2 :



Turn 3 :



Turn 4 :



End game VP :



End game air losses :



We can already tell the difference with/without fighters escort. Without, damages tend to get bigger, and the Luftwaffe stays untouched.

Worst losses came when the weather was excellent on turn 3. It was raining on every other turn.

The bombing is not very effective. Somes raids are just total waste.

< Message edited by Nico165 -- 1/31/2015 3:12:09 PM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 1/31/2015 2:16:00 PM   
Nico165b165


Posts: 393
Joined: 1/28/2007
From: Mons, Belgique
Status: offline
Test 2 - prudent

Turn 1 :



Turn 2 :



Turn 3 :



Turn 4 :



End game VP :



End game air losses :



All results very similar to test 1. Even flak losses stays the same despite the higher altitude.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nico165b165)
Post #: 2
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 1/31/2015 2:37:21 PM   
Nico165b165


Posts: 393
Joined: 1/28/2007
From: Mons, Belgique
Status: offline
Test 3 - risky

Turn 1 :



Turn 2 :



Turn 3 :



Turn 4 :



End game VP :



End game air losses :



Now that's some different results... The risky test clearly merits its name.

We finally have some better hits with our bombers. Not enough to make a big VP difference though.

Flak losses are multiplied by a factor 3, this is no surprise.

Air losses are very interesting to study : they were a bit lighter than at the higher altitudes when the weather was fair or worst, but much heavier when the weather was excellent (turns 3 and 4). I got the same result in this other post.

So we have a pattern : big BC raids at night with clear sky, no or not enough escort and below 20.000 feet means a great probability of horrendous air combat losses.

Going at the highest possible altitude minimizes the risk but not that much.

Flak is deadly at lower altitudes, whatever weather we have.

All in all, the best thing to do with BC seems to use them at 13.000 feet when it rains while avoiding high density flak-zones. Of course, in the longer campaign and with the 8th AF, the thinking might be different. Axis can't cover everything with flak, NF will be needed during the day, etc...

< Message edited by Nico165 -- 1/31/2015 3:37:48 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Nico165b165)
Post #: 3
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 1/31/2015 6:25:45 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Now, what would be really interesting is to compare losses/damage against daylight raids. I havn´t tested it myself but my hunch is that you are better off doing daylight raids. The damage/loss ratio for night attacks seems really, really bad. Even in the "normal" scenario you lose about 150 planes on average. Thats a lot of losses to take for very little return.

Here is an example of a daylight attack from my MP game. Not much worse then your night attacks when it comes to losses. And this is on a version before the NFs were beefed up.



(in reply to Nico165b165)
Post #: 4
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 1/31/2015 7:47:33 PM   
Nico165b165


Posts: 393
Joined: 1/28/2007
From: Mons, Belgique
Status: offline
Yeah, I see similar losses when the big 300-pack from the Luftwaffe fall on your lightly escorted bombers.

I could make the day/night comparaison quite easily. I have a turn 1 save from each night test with every AD already setup. I just need to change everything from night to day and run them again. Gonna try that.

_____________________________


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 5
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 1/31/2015 8:42:26 PM   
Nico165b165


Posts: 393
Joined: 1/28/2007
From: Mons, Belgique
Status: offline
Interesting results...

Test 1b - normal, daylight raids

Turn 1 :



Turn 2 :



Turn 3 :



Turn 4 :



End game VP :



End game air losses :



So, the comparaison between "normal day" and "normal night" :

+50% flak losses
+200% air combat losses
+80% bombing VP
+30% Axis losses
clear sky has proportionnaly the same terrible effect of doubling the losses

-> more effect for much more heavier losses. Unsustainable in the long run, but interesting for a one-time surprise attack. I got more manpower damage during turn 1 "day" than during the 4 turns "night". Notice than on turn 1, there are less enemy fighters attacking us. I guess the AI recognize where the bombing are and send more fighters in this area the next turn.

-> second test, same strategy, but this time we're only going out on turn 1. Then we go to rest till the end of the scenario.

Turn 1 :



Same pattern : less fighters waiting for us, acceptable losses, very good damage done.

Delete every AD and next phase, next phase till end game screen.

VP :



Losses :



And we have been able to avoid an axis decisive victory by only using bomber command one week with daylight raids ! Commander JocMeister get a promotion for his brillant idea

So yeah, I second the idea that we're better off making some 1-turn only daylight attack, then go hide and do the same somewhere else later. The VP/losses ratio strongly favours this strategy.

_____________________________


(in reply to Nico165b165)
Post #: 6
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 1/31/2015 9:56:23 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 15791
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
Interesting results. Honestly not much testing is done with BC flying at day light. Night time damage looks quite low in some cases, it could be out of OBOE range. Probably H2S accuracy needs some boost. Thanks for sharing.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Nico165b165)
Post #: 7
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 1/31/2015 10:36:31 PM   
Nico165b165


Posts: 393
Joined: 1/28/2007
From: Mons, Belgique
Status: offline
And maybe BC day light bombing is also too efficient ? If I compare the fate of Essen :

4 weeks of night bombing 4 days a week : +2% and +8% manpower damage, ressource production destroyed.
1st week, 1st day, 1st daylight raid : +100% manpower damage, city erased from the map on both tests.

The gap between day and night efficiency is gigantic.

_____________________________


(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 8
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/1/2015 8:37:48 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Nice work with the testing Nico! Nice to know I was right (I seldom am )!

I think the loss/damage ratio for night attacks has to be looked at. There has to be something in night bombing that makes it a viable alternative to daylight bombing. As it is now there isn´t much to justify going at night (IMO). Losses are simply way too severe for the return.

(in reply to Nico165b165)
Post #: 9
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/1/2015 9:44:33 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
I think this test needs to be split in to 2. The test (as currently done) mixes game mechanics testing (effect of escorts, and altitude) with AI responses (first turn no defensive fighters). The best way to do that is simply play as both sides, but give the Germans a script. For example have a turn 0 (pre-test where you shift fighters according to certain rules), then save it, and use that as a basis or all the 'turn 1' alternatives. The Germans can be left to intercept with what you have given them, or (as a later add on test) you can experiment with defensive ADs to explore player options (and see what the AI could do). This will clear up the mechanics test.

On the general results of Day vs Night, I think the game needs to be very careful. In the absence of separate day and night experience for bombers we run the risk of night just being a dark day! This isn't a silly comment; lets compare 8th AF and BC (i.e. strategic bombing day and night). Shall we assume early factors are not relevant (i.e. USAAF CONUS training all in weather a lot better than average Europe, and BC settled on flying Pathfinder lead streams, with rates of bombers through the target in the later war several per minute league)? 8AF flies close formation, in complex boxes, and each squadron (or Group, not sure which) bombs from the lead bomber who works on visual contact (usually). Thus each group will tend to drop a concentrated pattern, but groups may scatter one to the next. Results should be a bit lumpy - they can miss completely, but if they hit, will tend to hit well (on point targets... Manpower I see is different). BC all bomb individually, on markers which may be ground, or air. Ground markers will be accurate as a pathfinder will correct them until they are good (broadly at least, and especially after the introduction of the Master Bomber). Neither force could have swapped tactics without a great deal of training. Thus, BC in the daylight should not be able to be a clone of 8AF, and not just for the obvious reasons (defensive fire power). When they did fly by day, they flew a pseudo stream (gaggle if you like) and only survived without huge losses because the LW was basically held off by casualties or the huge escort force. The bombers bombed on markers (albeit adapted for daylight IIRC). Thus, BC in daylight should be able to give about the same result as their best result at night (clear skies, concentrated raid). They should not be able to be as good on point targets (factories etc) as 8AFas often... there should be a much smoother spread of results, with fewer really big successes but doing some damage more often.
8AF (just to complete the story, and no disrespect intended to their brave a/c) would be completely unable to get any results at night... They can't fly close formation, and each a/c needs to aim own bombs. Individual navigation is far more important. Thus they should be in the early Bomber Command league - most bombs don't get within 5 MILES of the target. Training to address these issues might have been theoretically possible, but should take a unit out for weeks if not months.

I feel very strongly that we need a game where the real limitations of the forces involved are reflected. If BC routinely gets used as the 8th AF Mark2, that will mean the game is irrevocably flawed in my book. Unless Bombers get separate Day and Night experience, I think we need something that reflects the real world. This is not 'attempting to just simulate history'. Rather it is attempting to have a game about WW2 rather than Killer Zombies of Mars.

One solution that doesn't need the tracking of day and night experience is to allocate strategic commands as Day or Night... units under their command get a hit to effectiveness if out of kilter with their command philosophy. You would have to ban switching BC and USAAF strategic bombers. The Tactical commands (if used at night) should all stink, so I don't think there is an issue there. The command limitation would also reflect the huge support and infrastructure the 4 engined heavies need and so provide a limitation on their use being too flexible as well... It could also be done by nationality... US and CW

I have seen how WITE is gamed to death and we need to try and anticipate...

< Message edited by HMSWarspite -- 2/1/2015 10:47:24 AM >


_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 10
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/1/2015 9:59:34 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


You mean like Fighter-Bombers trained as Fighters getting a malus flying as a bomber? And visa versa?

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 11
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/1/2015 10:14:58 AM   
loki100


Posts: 9932
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite


I have seen how WITE is gamed to death and we need to try and anticipate...


This I so completely agree with

During one of the too many stushies in the WiTE forum where someone found a game breaking (and winning) trick, there was an interesting comment from someone who also plays WiP:AE. In effect that community spot gamey tricks and agree not to use them, a core of the WiTE community spent a lot of time finding them and building entire edifices of game play around them. I know which mindset I prefer.

To the issue, you are right in your description of the two approaches to strategic bombing and that crews trained to one couldn't easily swap over.

I think you can stick to using BC at night if you are realistic at the start. Moral and experience really matter in terms of the effectiveness of any attack, at the start BC can hit a city, so follow that logic, build experience by going for manpower with the right bomb load. Amongst all the inconsequential attacks you will have some that really pay off. Look for easy targets, a city with 4 manpower may also have low flak, a successful attack helps with experience.

Don't ignore the training mission, don't let fatigue build up, and with the new patch, don't go out of fighter range. I do think that as you build experience and so on, even at night BC starts to pay dividends as the game progresses.

_____________________________


(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 12
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/1/2015 10:55:01 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


Just for fun I tried the 8th airforce with NF's attached to see what they could do bombing the Hamburg region at night.

They hit very little, but also took very little damage. In fact, they shot down more planes then they lost.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 13
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/1/2015 4:41:07 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Yep, that's the sort of thing. Possibly bigger.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 14
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/1/2015 7:38:50 PM   
Nico165b165


Posts: 393
Joined: 1/28/2007
From: Mons, Belgique
Status: offline
A few word about the philosophy of what I'm trying to do here. I'm a fan of wargames, history and science. That's one reason why I have an interest in WitW : it's as much an historical and technical encyclopedia as it is a game. You can always use it to learn new things about that period (and don't forget the editor and its database).

For the ground war, I read or played this theater for years, so I tend to use what I know about history to decide what to do in the game. In most cases, I find that what made sense in reality makes sense in the game. Things like don't invade outside of aircrafts cover, tanks prefer plain rather than mountain, artillery and engineers needed against an entrenched enemy, etc... Just feel natural.

For the air war, my pre-WitW knowledge is more like "ok, there were the british who bombed cities at night, then there were the americans who bombed other stuff during the day". I had no idea of the ideal altitude to drop bombs from a Lancaster, OBOE range or Luftwaffe night fighting capability. So here I use the game to learn about history. The problem is that I'm not always sure if what I find is something which was plausible, or if I did something the devs had not expected.

That's where the community and the contact with the devs here is really appreciated. After Helpless post, I found this article about OBOE and H2, then went back to the manual and the editor to see how they were represented in game. Warspite gave a real good insight about what was or was not possible. Thanks for this !

As for the tests hypothesis, it's impossible to truly isolate one parameter in this game, because there are so many things at play at the same time. Look at weather effect here by example. I took the case of a smaller AI reaction to simulate a "surprise" attack instead of a continued campaign over the same place. We already saw what happens when 300 fighters come after you -> unsustainable losses if you don't have a big escort with you. But we always need to keep the context in mind when analyzing the results to try and find correlations between parameters and results.

This explains why WitW is so difficult to balance properly. Every change to one parameter can provoke hundreds of other changes and you can't test them all. Then with every change you have to look at the VP balance again. And for a proper VP balance, you need a lot of games running till the last turn -> lot of time devs and testers don't have. So I wouldn't pay to much attention to VP at this stage, and put more emphasis on "winning" on the terrain. Especially if you try new things the devs did non expect, like using BC during the day. Probability is that the VP system was never tuned to take that into account, and in this case even the bombing system was not tuned for this. So it's more an experiment to learn and make the game better than a way to win.

_____________________________


(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 15
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/2/2015 6:18:16 PM   
David Chandler

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 12/9/2014
Status: offline
This thread is very interesting and enlightening as to the philosophies that should be behind the game; and I heartily agree with the suggestion that BC should act like BC and 8AF like 8AF if WITW is to be the best available simulation of the war. However (like everything else in life) things aren't always simple. If memory serves me correctly by late 1944 one of the BC groups was routinely performing daytime missions on a massive scale (I just looked it up, it was 3 Group: for example, 3 Group sent 136 Lancasters to Homberg on Nov 8, 1944; 122 a/c to Castrop-Rauxel on Nov 11, 1944; 183 a/c to Homberg -man they must have hated those hats- on Nov 20, 1944; 21 back to Homberg on Nov 21 1944; 168 a/c to Gelsenkirchen on Nov 23, 1944 - and so on). Other groups sometimes got into the act, for example 4, 6, and 8 Groups sent 479 a/c to Muenster on November 18, but it was mainly 3 Group, using a specialized blind-bombing device called G-H. The parameters given to the group, according to BC War Diaries, was to operate during days when there was full cloud cover but under 18,000 feet. They were still using the technique, which was often quite effective, during daylight raids in April '45. As the war neared its end, but beginning in mid-1944, other groups started bombing during the day when conditions warranted. It was not particularly rare, and worked mainly because the Luftwaffe had already been rendered substantially hors-de-combat (sp?). The Germans were capable of an occasional tactical mauling at this stage but not of any substantial attrition that could change the course of the CBO. I point all this out not that I think BC should be able to operate like the 8AF (clearly it shouldn't) but because simple solutions will not get the game nearer to history. The concerns raised by HMSWarspite in his excellent post are very real, but we have to remember that under the right conditions BC could and did sometimes operate in daylight. How to replicate that is the question, and frankly I haven't got a clue.

(in reply to Nico165b165)
Post #: 16
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/3/2015 7:03:27 AM   
Musikka

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 12/5/2014
Status: offline
I just started my 3rd 43-45 campaign as allied vs AI axis. First one on normal difficulty was a draw, second one on challenging ended up in a disaster. I did not pay any attention to my troop ship losses, and when I invaded France I was unable to reinforce my beachheads because I was out of troop ships. My infantry was pushed to sea by panzer units while my armor was on England wondering how to cross channel :)

This time I took BC out of night shift and started pounding Ruhr by day. I gave all 8th AF Thunderbolts to BC and even transferred some Warhawks from med and re-equipped them with Thunderbolts. If Thunderbolts are based to easternmost bases in England they just barely have range to escort BC to targets in Ruhr. I also put number of requested escort aircraft to a high number in AD settings, now my raids are escorted by 200+ Thunderbolts. At first losses were pretty much the same as with night raids (using 1.00.13) but bombing results were way better. Another difference is, that Luftwaffe is having significant losses also. After a couple of turns number of Luftwaffe fighters opposing Ruhr raids has been dwindling down. So results have been quite good.

This works only for bombing Ruhr, but for those other targets there's 8th AF escorted by Mustangs and Lightnings.

By the way, is there something strange with Thunderbolt loadouts? If I leave em to auto, drop tanks are used, however if I manually try to select drop tank loadout, it does not exist...




(in reply to David Chandler)
Post #: 17
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/3/2015 1:06:04 PM   
David Chandler

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 12/9/2014
Status: offline
This last post illustrates precisely the difference in philosophies between the goals of the people who play the game: those who want to win and those who want to simulate history. It's not a hard border between the two: I like to win as much as the next guy, but not if it requires acting in an ahistorical fashion. I am not condemning Musika's approach: he bought the game, and is free to play it the way he wants. If that's how he enjoys the game most, more power to him. My father, God rest his soul, spent hundreds of dollars on the old SPI board games (Wellingtons Victory, Breakout & Pursuit, The Destruction of Army Group Center ad infinitum) and probably only actually played them a dozen times total. He enjoyed looking at the pieces, the maps, the orders of battle, as he felt it gave him a better understanding of the historical event. That's how he enjoyed the games, and who's to say he didn't have the right to do that?
That being said, it is clearly ahistorical to utilize Bomber Command like a new Mighty Eighth. For those who disagree, consider the following: the nocturnal bomber offensive ate up a HUGE percentage of the UK war effort (I've seen estimates of about 50%) and was designed (certainly by 1943) as just that: a nocturnal bomber offensive. The Lancaster was designed to carry a maximum bomb load without having to worry overmuch about defending itself against day fighters. And if anyone thinks that Eisenhower or Marshall could have simply ordered BC to operate in the daytime with US escorts, one need only point to the repeated efforts by sir Charles Portal (as Chief of the Air Staff the de facto head of the RAF) to order Arthur Harris (the head of Bomber Command) to make oil plants a primary target. After much argument Bomber Harris agreed to consider carrying out his superior officer's orders (an amazing statement in a military context) but then simply ignored them, continuing to bomb German cities while tossing smaller raids at the oil targets when opportunity arose, to shut Portal up. If the head of the RAF couldn't get Bomber Command to switch its target priorities, what chance do you think Eisenhower or anyone else would have had to get BC to change its entire operating philosophy? Next to none, I think.
How this translates into game terms I don't know. I will continue to play within the parameters that I believe are dictated by history. Others will enjoy the game just as much finding ahistorical methods of winning. They paid their money and they have the right to play the way they want. Who's to say who is right and who is wrong? I suppose the best solution might be the prior suggestion of separate experience ratings for day and night, with very wide differentials, if that's feasible technically. But as it stands now, if I ever play HTH with Musika, bet on him, 'cuz he'll kick my butt, with his Stirling bombers razing my cities by day while I'm forced to scramble Ju-88s up against the escorting P-51s.

(in reply to Musikka)
Post #: 18
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/3/2015 1:29:36 PM   
Chuske


Posts: 387
Joined: 7/6/2010
From: Exeter, UK
Status: offline
Could be tricky to penalise a player for ahistorical use of P47s in BC. Maybe an admin point or VP penalty could be applied but there prob still a workaround. I suggest house rules are best way to solve this. The WITP:AE community uses house rules a lot in that players agree beforehand what they can and cant do.

Another point is the German side is also ahistorical as they aren't limited by Hitler. If you play Breakout scenario as Axis you can pull back whereas historically the Fuhrer insisted on holding Normandy and even counter-attack at Mortain. This to me is a good thing as would be hard on the Axis player if he had to obey Fuhrer directives. So WitW can only be historical up to a point.

Any game like this is tricky to design to give players freedom and what-ifs but not feel too historical.

In the end no design will make everyone happy so I guess the question is does WitW present a good compromise between history and possibility?

< Message edited by jonboym -- 2/3/2015 6:11:09 PM >


_____________________________

The user formally known as jonboym

WITP:AE - Useful Info for Beginners

WitW Tutorials

WitW Beta/Alpha Tester

(in reply to David Chandler)
Post #: 19
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/3/2015 2:20:44 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2793
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
Just my 2 cents.

I personally would not like to be penalized if I wanted to play a "what-if" game and do things that weren't done and see what would happen. If things were hard-coded in the game then I would be.

There's two types of players in WITW just like in WITE and WITP:AE. The "purists" who tend to stick with what was historically done and the "what-ifers" who like to play around and see what would happen if something differently was done.

Bottom line is neither is wrong. This is a game not a history book and no game should be a replay of history. The best resolution would be house rules like in WITP:AE. If a "purists" and "what-ifer" plays together they'd simply have to agree to what degree non-historical actions could take place if at all.

I personally only play against the AI and I wouldn't want my game hindered by any hard-coding put in to stop something that I may or may not even consider doing as I do tend to lean towards the "purist" more than "what-ifers". But still I'd like that choice and think other should have it too IF that's what they want and decide on if playing another person.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Chuske)
Post #: 20
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/3/2015 2:39:09 PM   
Musikka

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 12/5/2014
Status: offline
For me trying out this kind of ahistorical stuff is big part of enjoyment I get out of playing games like WitW, for history lessons I can watch documents or read books :)

On the other hand, for the most part WitW seems to reflect difficulties faced by allies pretty damn well. After playing WitW I have a better understanding why war in Europe went as it did.



(in reply to Chuske)
Post #: 21
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/3/2015 3:47:26 PM   
David Chandler

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 12/9/2014
Status: offline
I was thinking about this topic all morning (hey, there's seven feet of snow in the yard here in Massachusetts) and one of the things I was idly considering (in a very abstract way, as if I have any influence on anything or anyone) was penalties or prohibitions for assigning a nationality to another country's organization (e.g. US P-47 groups to Bomber Command) when I remembered something which has nagged at me since I bought WITW. This might not be the appropriate thread but does anyone know why the game omits the Twelfth Air Force? This was the US Mediterranean equivalent of the 9th AF, as I'm sure everyone here knows. Instead all the tactical air in the Med theater is lumped together in the multi-national Tactical AF. By the way, this causes problems when you invade Southern France, as you need to duplicate tactical Air Directives, e.g. one Ground Attack AD for the Riviera and another for the Italian mainland. If you have limited AD's in the TacAF, this can be a strain. To vaguely tie this into the current thread I will point out that this precedent tends to argue against my very-hesitant proposal that some sort of mechanism be used to keep the several air forces uni-national.
It's been over ten years since I've played Bombing The Reich but I seem to recall that you couldn't place US fighter groups into an RAF org, or vice versa. I could be wrong on this. And that worked fine. On the other hand, I enjoy WITW as it is, and am happy with no changes. Ground rules work fine with me if I ever play HTH again.

(in reply to Musikka)
Post #: 22
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/3/2015 3:59:22 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
It's not a matter of penalising anyone for playing ahistorical its stopping impossible gambits. The 8th bombing at night is ludicrous its science fiction. I feel the first expansion should be of a political, leadership and intelligence nature to reflect "reality" You don't invade in 44 it's Japan first, you don't wipe out your targets as the 8th Ernie King gets new Carriers, no time to be teaching thousands of pilots to fly at night when there were inter service rivalries not to mention international ones.

(in reply to Musikka)
Post #: 23
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/3/2015 11:14:15 PM   
David Chandler

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 12/9/2014
Status: offline
Regarding the German player being ahistorical in not having to follow Hitler's orders, there is a difference between restricting implausible or impossible behaviors and forcing a player to favor certain legal strategies over other legal strategies. In any war game the player is assuming the role of a particular commander, be it Lee or Napoleon or Alexander the Great, or (in tactical games) some nameless company commander. In WITW you are assuming the role of either, basically, Eisenhower's HQ or OKW. You should be able to make the decisions plausible and appropriate for that level (when to evacuate Normandy, for example) but not necessarily outside that level (to send USMC divisions to Europe, for example, or -more to the point- transfer the USAAF P-51 groups to Bomber Command).
As bad as Hitler's decisions often were, I have to admit his penchant for setting up the French ports as fortresses have caused me a major headache in WITW. When the Allies break out in the early summer of 1944 they have few enough divisions as it is; having to fight for the ports ties up valuable units that should be steaming hell-for-leather for Germany, at the expense of a few low-grade infantry units. Although I did somehow catch the Frundsberg SS-panzer division in one of the Biscay ports.

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 24
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/4/2015 9:59:04 AM   
Chuske


Posts: 387
Joined: 7/6/2010
From: Exeter, UK
Status: offline
I think we are likely to be here for a long time if we end up discussing what level of command the player is and what he can and can't do and I think no two players would ever exactly agree. This thread was started by Nico to discuss his experiments with bomber command, so any prolonged discussion of historical vs what-ifs or the missing 12th AF might be better in its own thread?

Personally I agree with dereck that all you need to do is look for opponents who are happy to play as you suggest, then you don't have a problem and those that want to play what-ifs can separately from you also agree to do so. That way everyone gets what they want, if we start having too many restrictions the game loses the options many like dereck and musikka want to play with, so by adopting house rules and avoiding those players that don't want to play your way I really don't see the problem.

If it still troubles you though starting a new thread to debate it is better than discussing in Nico's BC experiment thread.



< Message edited by jonboym -- 2/4/2015 11:47:03 AM >


_____________________________

The user formally known as jonboym

WITP:AE - Useful Info for Beginners

WitW Tutorials

WitW Beta/Alpha Tester

(in reply to David Chandler)
Post #: 25
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/8/2015 7:44:08 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
I agree that one can always have house rules. However, it seems illogical to model the number of jeeps in the 253rd assault bottlewashers division and then design something completely ahistorical. Hitler could at the drop of a hat change the defences of northern France. No one could make BC a second 8th AF in less than months of effort, complete stand down and much cost/effort. So what? House rule I hear. If it works to use BC like this it will probably be a game wrecker: assuming the game is sort of balanced as is, a major increase in bombing effectiveness must help the allies. Then the 'no house rules' ultimate gamers will complain the game is unbalanced. There will be calls for BC to be nerfed. If it is NERFED by day, this solves all our problems and should be done as soon as we agree they are too effective by day. If the nerfing is bodged we get in to a spiral of fiddles. I just say that BC shouldn't be much more effective by day than by night. We need this nipped in the bud before we have WitE again...

I am waiting the next patch with interest to see what better NF do to BC. Used badly I want 10% losses to be possible. But I also want them in late 44 to be able to do Schweinfurt properly, as they did.

Oh, and no one says they can't bomb by day. It is just they only did it by exception, so presumably the benefit, or at least cost:benefit was marginal... Harris was difficult, and insubordinate he wasn't stupid. He wanted to flatten cities and would have done it by day if it was more effective whilst affordable! Separate day and night experience is the ideal solution, but night combat mechanics for BC even in day might help (model a stream not a box)

< Message edited by HMSWarspite -- 2/8/2015 8:51:17 AM >


_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Chuske)
Post #: 26
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/8/2015 5:28:10 PM   
decourcy2

 

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline
Shoot Warspite, I am planning a mod that includes the Sherman brothels, the Sherman laundries, etc in a unit and it gives a fatigue recovery bonus to nearby allied units.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 27
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/8/2015 7:22:24 PM   
Chuske


Posts: 387
Joined: 7/6/2010
From: Exeter, UK
Status: offline
HMSWarspite I highlighted a few days ago in the testers area the suggestions you, DavidChandler and smirfy made so the devs are aware of your opinions and this thread including the idea of having separate day/night training or experience. Obviously it's for the devs to decide if they can/want to change this and not for me to say.

The Hitler comment I made seems to have been misunderstood. My point is this if we quite reasonably allow the Axis to have the player be a Hitler that is at least sensible in his military decisions then why do we have to assume that the Allied player is limited by Bomber Harris? You can replace Bomber Harris in game at cost of admin points. I do agree though the BC bombing by day seems too effective currently, especially vs manpower.

The 8th AF bombing by night is less of an issue as they don't have any of the navigation aids (H2S/Oboe etc) that only BC aircraft have modelled in game. This means 8th AF are never going to be effective night bombers but maybe they are too effective vs axis NFs?

It's now down to the devs to decide if they change anything or not, hope it helps you to know they know your thoughts.

< Message edited by jonboym -- 2/8/2015 10:04:50 PM >


_____________________________

The user formally known as jonboym

WITP:AE - Useful Info for Beginners

WitW Tutorials

WitW Beta/Alpha Tester

(in reply to decourcy2)
Post #: 28
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/15/2015 7:51:27 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
My point wasn't that Harris was the issue. My only point about Harris is he was't stupid and would have bombed by day if it worked. My Point is BC couldn't have converted to 8th AF tactics in less than months of effort so it shouldn't be possible in game in less than months. I think someone else mentioned Harris's legendary insubordination and stubbornness.

Hitler could change his mind to use any of the Wehrmacht capabilities in 24 hours (like retreat for hopeless positions!). Harris could fly by day by just ordering it, but what you then get is a night bomber force flying by day...

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Chuske)
Post #: 29
RE: Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) - 2/15/2015 9:32:14 AM   
Chuske


Posts: 387
Joined: 7/6/2010
From: Exeter, UK
Status: offline
What is your evidence that BC would need months to convert to day role?

For me the fact that BC did mount occasional day raids particularly in 44 and 45 (eg Operation Hurricane) does make me wonder why you think they would need months to convert to a role they already did do from time to time?

The game already models the bigger losses vs LW day fighters, so the player can try as above to bomb by day and take a huge losses, I agree that the BC day bombing results seem far too effective by day and that ideally it would be better if they were tweaked down.


Nico what has happened to your screenshots?

_____________________________

The user formally known as jonboym

WITP:AE - Useful Info for Beginners

WitW Tutorials

WitW Beta/Alpha Tester

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> The War Room >> Some testing with bomber command / NF (1.00.13) 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

0.352