Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II?

 
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 >> RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 6:28:22 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1393
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
The repeated assertion that because Cobra carpet bombing was partially inaccurate, hence all carpet bombing must be is completely silly. In early war BC could not get bombs within 5 miles of the target most of the time. Doesn't this mean they never got any better? Fighter command largely flew fighting area tactics at the start of the Battle of Britain. Do they have to do this all war? Close air support in 1940 was a joke. By 1944 there were RAF ground controllers embedded in the army. You don't think that the air forces would have learnt from their mistakes?

The only thing wrong with KWG's tactics is that Pelton has not adapted his defence to them one iota. Oh, and the only way that Pelton is going to lose if if he abandons the game or he stays put and allows the army to be so damaged that KWG just walks in to Gwrmany before the winter.
Using an asset in a manner it was actually used but just more so is not ahistorical. Other than detailed questions of the effectiveness of carpet bombing (for which no one has produced conclusive data that it is wrong) there is absolutely nothing going on here of concern, and if you read my posting record you will see I am a very historically biased player.

But this is just my opinion. Anyone who disagrees can use a house rule.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to KWG)
Post #: 91
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 7:09:35 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DicedT

If it's okay for the Allies to carpet bomb every turn, then why isn't it okay to assume that Hitler never ordered the Me-262 to become a bomber, and the Germans deployed jet fighters six months earlier than they did? At some point, an historical game has to stick to history.

It's a complete myth that the delay to the 262 was caused by the decision to build it as a fast bomber. The Germans had immense problems with developing and building the engine. The chaos with the bomber decision contributed next to nothing to the delay.

(in reply to DicedT)
Post #: 92
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 12:05:27 PM   
Red Lancer


Posts: 4052
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

The data is correct but your use of the data in this argument is not. You cannot compare the game data and historic data unless the circumstances match. In this game they do not as neither side is playing historically.

If you want to use historical data we will need to build a scenario that replicates the bombing conducted for Cobra. I think T1 of Breakout and Pursuit could be modified to do this.


As your know RL I always look at snowballs and exploits during CG's.

We don't need to run a test, we already have a test case/backed up by other tested (in AAR thread) so whats the point of running a test to prove my test is right, because we alrdy have the data.

Unending carpet bombing simply is no different then unending HQBU's or any other exploit.

I know it was done at different times during the war for 1 or 2 weeks at most, but not 10 weeks in a row causing 10-20K lose and 60-70% of the loses done by bombing.

As el hefe pointed out why it was hardly ever done, friend fire.

WitW simply does not model friend fire, there is NO debate about this none. A player sending 10,000's of strategic bombers to bomb a hex with 20+ times and get zero friend deaths for 10 weeks is silliness as per el hefe



Pelton

Of course you say that because having run a test using comparable situations I have adequately shown that the air game replicates historical losses when it is used historically. The issue has nothing to do with the air attack code. I note that you have now shifted your argument to include friendly fire losses. I agree Cobra, Totalise and Tractable caused problems but not so with Goodwood, Bluecoat or Charnwood. That's 50/50 and who is to say that if it became the norm then losses would be reduced. I also note the game doesn't include any blue on blue which is a significant factor in all warfare. Then again your original issue was one about the losses being inflicted on you. The data you provided in your argument though undisputed did not support your claims as it could not be compared. As I said from the start it wouldn't and that I have now demonstrated doesn't.

This issue does however has everything to do with should the Allies be able to employ strategic bombers in support of ground troops on a more protracted basis. Personally I think that they should and that the consequence is factored in (and always has been) by Strategic Bombing Points. Whether that tension is sufficient I do not know and note (with a sense of smugness I am not proud of in the least) that the parallel thread on whether VPs are correct has failed to reach any consensus or suggest any improvemnent beyond the levels Gary built into his game. That debate remains open and may do well to consider this as a further factor.

Very many of the tactics you employ both in the game and on the forum are similar in style to those of your opponent. However the big difference is your default setting to meeting your match is shouting from the outset that I'm right and can prove it with data and 2by3 must be wrong because I know better. This is also not always the case and it is actually quite tiresome. If you are not happy to play people who choose to employ your tactic of maximising the possible against you then I suggest that you either house rule it out to ensure you win or go and find another game to play.


_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 93
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 2:02:15 PM   
DicedT

 

Posts: 735
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
I think a lot of the problem has to do with the scale of WITW.

Carpet bombing is a raid that happens maybe over an hour over a few square miles. WITW is week-long turns and 24-mile hexes. So I wonder if some of what we're calling carpet bombing is really Battlefield Air Interdiction (http://www.ausairpower.net/air-land-battle.html), which supports the ground forces, but does it by striking behind enemy lines. The medium bombers, for example, would be more likely to bomb supply dumps and railheads than the 11th Panzer Division's front-line hexes. I believe Allied heavy bombers were also bombing German railheads during the Battle of the Bulge.

In other words, carpet bombing was a rare event, but I wonder if WITW is already simulating what we're calling the tactical use of heavies, through the game's Interdiction missions? I'm not sure I'm phrasing this right, but I suspect we're mixing things up a bit.

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 94
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 2:14:57 PM   
KWG


Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DicedT

I think a lot of the problem has to do with the scale of WITW.

Carpet bombing is a raid that happens maybe over an hour over a few square miles. WITW is week-long turns and 24-mile hexes. So I wonder if some of what we're calling carpet bombing is really Battlefield Air Interdiction (http://www.ausairpower.net/air-land-battle.html), which supports the ground forces, but does it by striking behind enemy lines. The medium bombers, for example, would be more likely to bomb supply dumps and railheads than the 11th Panzer Division's front-line hexes. I believe Allied heavy bombers were also bombing German railheads during the Battle of the Bulge.

In other words, carpet bombing was a rare event, but I wonder if WITW is already simulating what we're calling the tactical use of heavies, through the game's Interdiction missions? I'm not sure I'm phrasing this right, but I suspect we're mixing things up a bit.



YES , good insight and explantion. This was what I was showing in my Mission Lab thread, in the war room and it was what certain Allied commanders were pushing for more of. And missions were getting better as they learned and perfected. There are many types of targets in a hex and the Allies did nonCobra bombing.
To call it all Cobra is misleading. And everything Ive tried to explain slides back to Cobra in the discussion. 10 mile hexs I think.

< Message edited by KWG -- 1/5/2016 4:01:36 PM >


_____________________________

"A word was said - a mare is standing by the fence."

(in reply to DicedT)
Post #: 95
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 5:06:17 PM   
IslandInland


Posts: 595
Joined: 12/8/2014
From: YORKSHIRE
Status: offline
Taking into consideration the Allies had the planes and the bombs, I don't see any problem with using these assets in the way KWG is. Either in game or historically.

As others have said, had the Germans been thirty miles deep all around the Allied lines then this is exactly what they would have done, regardless of whether Harris, Arnold, Portal et al agreed with it or not. Conferences at the highest level (i.e. Churchill and FDR) would have taken place and eventually the Allies would have bombed the hell out of the Germans. There may have been resignations among the Allied air forces high commands but the Allies would have done this either way.

They invaded the continent to destroy the German army in the west and this they would have achieved regardless of friendly fire, resignations, or anything else for that matter.

I want to play the game and explore possibilities. I only play against the AI but I don't want the scope of the game reduced or to be hamstrung simply because one player (who always plays as the Axis as far as I know) doesn't like it when his army incurs losses from concentrated Allied bombing of units.

They are many ahistorical aspects to any wargame and this one is no exception but I like the game as it is. Personally, I think the Germans are overpowered in this game but that's a debate for another thread.



_____________________________

I saw generals create imaginary "masses of manoeuvre" with a crayon and dispose of enemy concentrations, that were on the ground and on the map, with an eraser. Who was I to criticise them, hero as I was of a hundred "Chinagraph wars" of make-believe?

(in reply to KWG)
Post #: 96
RE: Cobra modelled - 1/5/2016 5:39:18 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

So as a test I setup Cobra using B&P. 8th USAAF flying on one day at 15,000ft and set to a minimum 500 aircraft per mission. As 1288 bombers were assigned two missions flew. FOW set to Off


Recon (detection value) and enemy unit density, and enemy fortification level?

Do I presume correctly that fort level does reduce air effectiveness?


This is also another important thing that's appears not to being modeled.

fort levels and terrain do not matter from my and liquadskys tests.

So these factors are not modeled.

1. Polotics- el hefe
2. friendly fire - el hefe Pelton
3. Fort levels/terrain has no effect- liquadsky-AAR
4. unhistorical ratios/unhistorical loses caused by bombing % /workaround the VP system-Pelton
5. Possible ammo explit/bug same as WitE - unproven still need to take the allot of time. Took several months for me to make the case, smarter people like morveal and helpless to find it and then code a fix.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Pelton -- 1/5/2016 6:41:50 PM >


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 97
RE: Cobra modelled - 1/5/2016 5:49:53 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
The ammo issue works like this.

by 10+ or 20+ or 30+ bombing runs + recon runs (size does not matter could be very small attacks)
all the ammo in hex is used up by AA. Because if 100 planes fly over all 500 guns fire, if ten planes fly over all 500 guns fire.

So if you have a hard hex to crack you fly over 30 small attacks and use up most of the ammo or all the ammo the ground units need.

So then you attack the hex and it falls easly because they have zero ammo.

WitE people would attack with 1 unit vs a large stack 5 to 10 times (using several units 1 at a time) then do the large attack, the hex falls every time.

A fix was used so that not many guns would fire vs soaking attacks (low odd), now its not possible to use this tactic.

Like I said I have not taken the time to figure out for sure if this is happing, but it sure looks like it on the surface.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 98
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 5:55:28 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps

Taking into consideration the Allies had the planes and the bombs, I don't see any problem with using these assets in the way KWG is. Either in game or historically.

As others have said, had the Germans been thirty miles deep all around the Allied lines then this is exactly what they would have done, regardless of whether Harris, Arnold, Portal et al agreed with it or not. Conferences at the highest level (i.e. Churchill and FDR) would have taken place and eventually the Allies would have bombed the hell out of the Germans. There may have been resignations among the Allied air forces high commands but the Allies would have done this either way.



I am not 3 deep 3 high. I am 3 high 1 deep with security and regiments in 2nd or 3rd line refitting or in reserve reaction mode.

For new people there is a reserve reaction mode that players can use, but only works when your not next to an enemy hex, which means by 2by3 design the lines HAVE to be 20 miles deep at a min. So front line, 2nd line reserve mode units and 3rd line units on refit or units under Army HQ's in reserve mode.

The hexes that are getting hit 10-30 times are the front line hexes with Allies on 2 or 3 sides some times.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to IslandInland)
Post #: 99
RE: Cobra modelled - 1/5/2016 5:55:50 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

1. Polotics- el hefe

Not modeled for the German side either. There's no Hitler making stupid decisions behind your back. You are opening a can of worms if you restrict Allied bombing based on this.

quote:

4. unhistorical ratios/unhistorical loses caused by bombing % /workaround the VP system-Pelton

What's so hard for you to understand Pelton? Your comparisons mean NOTHING since KWG isn't bombing according to history. You have proven absolutely nothing with your numbers. The only way to verify whether the engine does its job in this regard is to do what Red Lancer did. Set up the exact conditions and run tests - again and again. That's the scientific method. Your "methods" aren't empiric at all.

And where in the world is the workaround the VP? He is losing VP with this method since he is gaining no strategic bombing VP. If he is to benefit in terms of VPs from this massive bombing KWG needs to collapse your defenses on an enormours scale through this bombing.

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 100
RE: Cobra modelled - 1/5/2016 6:09:40 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 1579
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

3. Fort levels/terrain has no effect- liquadsky-AAR


I don't believe this is true with respect to terrain, and would like clarification with regard to fort levels.
I see differences when bombing a battalion in the mountains/rough/clear terrain when fiddling around in the Rommel Attacks scenario. The unhappiest are the guys the clear terrain...

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 101
RE: Cobra modelled - 1/5/2016 6:18:54 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

1. Polotics- el hefe

Not modeled for the German side either. There's no Hitler making stupid decisions behind your back.
You are opening a can of worms if you restrict Allied bombing based on this.

Sorry but you have to throw the hole game out as it models politics, aka beachhead requirements garrison requirements to name a few. Come on stop cherry picking.
el haha is simply pointing out the game (which models politics alrdy) does not model the politics inside the Allied army when it
came to frieldly fire. Almost every game models politics, soory to burst your bubble but WItW is no different.


quote:

4. unhistorical ratios/unhistorical loses caused by bombing % /workaround the VP system-Pelton

What's so hard for you to understand Pelton? Your comparisons mean NOTHING since KWG isn't bombing according to history.
You have proven absolutely nothing with your numbers. The only way to verify whether the engine does its job
in this regard is to do what Red Lancer did. Set up the exact conditions and run tests - again and again.
That's the scientific method. Your "methods" aren't empiric at all.

And where in the world is the workaround the VP? He is losing VP with this method since he is gaining no strategic bombing VP. If he is to benefit in terms of VPs from this massive bombing KWG needs to collapse your defenses on an enormours scale through this bombing.

Terrain and forts have zero effect on loses, no friendly fire in model, no politics in model.And possible ammo bug
Which is why loses and ratios are unhistorical. Red Lancers tests simply prove that the model is working as designed but the design is poor.




Work around, because the things the air system does not model, 150,000 men are not killed by ground combat but by bombing,
so he is saving 150 VP's not having to fight them and lose and equal number of units. aka the standard combat ratio in which the combat engine models output = historical.

So it is a wash or a very slight lose in VP's, which us just what KWG's strategy in his words.

Quickly grind down German Army then roll over the VP centers.

They can run all the tests they want, but they simply prove my points.

Game does not model

1. Polotics- el hefe
2. friendly fire - el hefe / Pelton post #17
3. Fort levels/terrain has no effect- liquadsky-AAR

Because of 1+2+3 = 4

4. unhistorical ratios/unhistorical loses caused by bombing % /workaround the VP system-Pelton

Unproven yet.

5. Possible ammo explit/bug same as WitE - unproven still need to take the allot of time. Took several months for me to make the case, smarter people like morveal and helpless to find it and then code a fix.




_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 102
RE: Cobra modelled - 1/5/2016 6:21:37 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

3. Fort levels/terrain has no effect- liquadsky-AAR


I don't believe this is true with respect to terrain, and would like clarification with regard to fort levels.
I see differences when bombing a battalion in the mountains/rough/clear terrain when fiddling around in the Rommel Attacks scenario. The unhappiest are the guys the clear terrain...


This is a great point, terrain and fort levels should have a huge effect and guys in the open a + to bombing.

The question has been asked more then once with no reply from anyone that I know of, from what I am seeing the effects of FL/terrain seems not to matter at all. Look at Paris it has allot of AA and in a urban hex but takes most damage.


Weather should also have a large effect, not sure it even does at this point other then planes not taking off. Once at target hex rain or no effects seem the same per battle results.



< Message edited by Pelton -- 1/5/2016 7:25:12 PM >


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 103
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 6:22:03 PM   
Ralzakark


Posts: 225
Joined: 4/24/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

The repeated assertion that because Cobra carpet bombing was partially inaccurate, hence all carpet bombing must be is completely silly. In early war BC could not get bombs within 5 miles of the target most of the time. Doesn't this mean they never got any better? Fighter command largely flew fighting area tactics at the start of the Battle of Britain. Do they have to do this all war? Close air support in 1940 was a joke. By 1944 there were RAF ground controllers embedded in the army. You don't think that the air forces would have learnt from their mistakes?



As usual Warspite makes good points.

For COBRA there was no direct communication between the bombers and the soldiers on the ground waiting to follow on from their attack. Afterwards the 8AF developed elaborate systems to minimize the risk of short bombing. For example, for operation QUEEN on 16 November 1944 1,204 bombers attacked two fortified German towns in the way of ground forces.

- Most of the bombers were equipped to receive signals from a vertical SCS-51 localiser transmitter beacon placed a short distance behind the front line and two other marker beacons, giving a precise location relative to the front line and the bomb release point.
- A ground crew was in direct communication with the aircraft.
- Aircrews were extensively briefed.
- Large panels on the ground indicated the front line.
- A line of barrage balloons flew at 2,000 ft at 600 ft intervals 4,000 yards behind the front line.
- Four batteries of 90mm AA guns fired red smoke shells on the same line as the balloons but above them. Shells burst every 15 seconds at 2,000 feet below the bombers. Timings were co-ordinated by direct link between the batteries and the air controller.

No bombs fell on American troops even though the bombers attacked from 18,600 – 24,000 feet through cloud. All targets received a high proportion of hits and the German units being attacked suffered heavy casualties, up to 30% for one company; the advancing American units initially met little opposition.


By 1945 15AF added even more measures. For BUCKLAND on 9 April 1945 these included:

- A pre-defined cancellation signal - a huge ‘X’ fired by AA guns into the air.
- Bombadiers and navigators of the leading planes flew over the target beforehand, guided by recce pilots familiar with the terrain who pointed out notable geographical features. Some 175 flight of over an hours duration were made.

In this case short bombing still occurred (my sources do not say why), though the main attack by 825 B-17 and B-24s was so well aimed that German resistance was minimal.






< Message edited by Ralzakark -- 1/5/2016 7:32:18 PM >

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 104
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 6:32:44 PM   
Red Lancer


Posts: 4052
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
Pelton

It appears that you have decided to ignore my post and instead raise every other element of the game you are unhappy with. Nobody has claimed that every element of history covered by the scope of this game is perfect. This is beginning to sound like trolling. Please stop.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to Ralzakark)
Post #: 105
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 6:33:44 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralzakark


quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

The repeated assertion that because Cobra carpet bombing was partially inaccurate, hence all carpet bombing must be is completely silly. In early war BC could not get bombs within 5 miles of the target most of the time. Doesn't this mean they never got any better? Fighter command largely flew fighting area tactics at the start of the Battle of Britain. Do they have to do this all war? Close air support in 1940 was a joke. By 1944 there were RAF ground controllers embedded in the army. You don't think that the air forces would have learnt from their mistakes?



As usual Warspite makes good points.

For COBRA there was no direct communication between the bombers and the soldiers on the ground waiting to follow on from their attack. Afterwards the 8AF developed elaborate systems to minimize the risk of short bombing. For example, for operation QUEEN on 16 November 1944 1,204 bombers attacked two fortified German towns in the way of ground forces.

- Most of the bombers were equipped to receive signals from a vertical SCS-51 localiser transmitter beacon placed a short distance behind the front line and two other marker beacons, giving a precise location relative to the front line and the bomb release point.
- A ground crew was in direct communication with the aircraft.
- Aircrews were extensively briefed.
- Large panels on the ground indicated the front line.
- A line of barrage balloons flew at 2,000 ft at 600 ft intervals 4,000 yards behind the front line.
- Four batteries of 90mm AA guns fired red smoke shells on the same line as the balloons but above them. Shells burst every 15 seconds at 2,000 feet below the bombers. Timings were co-ordinated by direct link between the batteries and the air controller.

No bombs fell on American troops even though the bombers attacked from 18,600 – 24,000 feet through cloud.
All targets received a high proportion of hits and the German units being attacked suffered heavy casualties,
up to 30% for one company; the advancing American units initially met little opposition.






Another great point, how many weeks did this require to prepare the operation?

Its being done in game every week for 10 weeks over different hexes.

Also as per your data German units suffered 30% loses not 60-70% for 10 weeks.

Great data thank you.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Ralzakark)
Post #: 106
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 6:35:31 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Pelton

It appears that you have decided to ignore my post and instead raise every other element of the game you are unhappy with. Nobody has claimed that every element of history covered by the scope of this game is perfect. This is beginning to sound like trolling. Please stop.


I believe I have responded to them all, did I miss one?

I am answering everyones question ect as best I can.

If I missed one of your posts I am sorry, I did not know responding to other peoples opinions/thoughts/disagreements ect ect was trolling.



< Message edited by Pelton -- 1/5/2016 7:40:50 PM >


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 107
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 6:39:40 PM   
Red Lancer


Posts: 4052
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
Post #93. Furthermore as your signature block proudly states that you are part of the WitW Beta Dev Team if you are not happy then you do have a modicum of responsibility.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 108
RE: Cobra modelled - 1/5/2016 6:42:21 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1059
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Sorry but you have to throw the hole game out as it models politics, aka beachhead requirements garrison requirements to name a few. Come on stop cherry picking.
el haha is simply pointing out the game (which models politics alrdy) does not model the politics inside the Allied army when it
came to frieldly fire. Almost every game models politics, soory to burst your bubble but WItW is no different.


Quote Joel Billings:

"German garrisons come to mind. They weren't just there to defeat local partisans. They were there because German high command only had a limited appreciation of the amphibious capabilities of the Allies."

That's not politics, that's game balance. Preventing the German player from sending every unit to the beaches/Italy making life tough for the Allies to land. The only area the game uses politics is the bombing of V-weapon sites (and U-boat factories I would argue). The German side has none. There is no VP gain for the Allies if the German side doesn't do a Lüttich or a Wacht am Rhein. And almost every game models politics... so tell me, what's the politics part in WitE? Or WitP where nobody stops the Japanese from having perfect army/navy collaboration and streamlined production? Or TOAW?

quote:

Also as per your data German units suffered 30% loses not 60-70% for 10 weeks.

Pelton, are you saying that your units are losing 60-70% of their TOE because of bombing? If so, that's not what your "data" has shown.

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 109
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 6:43:46 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 9572
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Post #93. Furthermore as your signature block proudly states that you are part of the WitW Beta Dev Team if you are not happy then you do have a modicum of responsibility.


I have to run people over for dinner, but I will be sure to respond to your post next as time permits.

Have a nice day.


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 110
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 6:53:44 PM   
DicedT

 

Posts: 735
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralzakark

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

The repeated assertion that because Cobra carpet bombing was partially inaccurate, hence all carpet bombing must be is completely silly. In early war BC could not get bombs within 5 miles of the target most of the time. Doesn't this mean they never got any better? Fighter command largely flew fighting area tactics at the start of the Battle of Britain. Do they have to do this all war? Close air support in 1940 was a joke. By 1944 there were RAF ground controllers embedded in the army. You don't think that the air forces would have learnt from their mistakes?



As usual Warspite makes good points.

For COBRA there was no direct communication between the bombers and the soldiers on the ground waiting to follow on from their attack. Afterwards the 8AF developed elaborate systems to minimize the risk of short bombing. For example, for operation QUEEN on 16 November 1944 1,204 bombers attacked two fortified German towns in the way of ground forces.

- Most of the bombers were equipped to receive signals from a vertical SCS-51 localiser transmitter beacon placed a short distance behind the front line and two other marker beacons, giving a precise location relative to the front line and the bomb release point.
- A ground crew was in direct communication with the aircraft.
- Aircrews were extensively briefed.
- Large panels on the ground indicated the front line.
- A line of barrage balloons flew at 2,000 ft at 600 ft intervals 4,000 yards behind the front line.
- Four batteries of 90mm AA guns fired red smoke shells on the same line as the balloons but above them. Shells burst every 15 seconds at 2,000 feet below the bombers. Timings were co-ordinated by direct link between the batteries and the air controller.

No bombs fell on American troops even though the bombers attacked from 18,600 – 24,000 feet through cloud. All targets received a high proportion of hits and the German units being attacked suffered heavy casualties, up to 30% for one company; the advancing American units initially met little opposition.


By 1945 15AF added even more measures. For BUCKLAND on 9 April 1945 these included:

- A pre-defined cancellation signal - a huge ‘X’ fired by AA guns into the air.
- Bombadiers and navigators of the leading planes flew over the target beforehand, guided by recce pilots familiar with the terrain who pointed out notable geographical features. Some 175 flight of over an hours duration were made.

In this case short bombing still occurred (my sources do not say why), though the main attack by 825 B-17 and B-24s was so well aimed that German resistance was minimal.







Now we're making the same mistake as Pelton. We're taking a limited number of carpet bombing raids and extrapolating that they could have been safely and effectively on a routine basis.

So, for example, let's assume that carpet bombing had been perfected by November 1944. We know that in July 1944, the bombs struck friendly troops. Does this mean that the game should be coded so that carpet bombing causes friendly casualties in July 1944, and doesn't in November?

Confronting Liquid Sky's defenses in France, I used carpet bombing every turn, including bad weather turns. Whether this was the best move I don't know. But do we know enough to be able to say that carpet bombing could be safely used even in bad weather?

Remember that first and foremost, WITW is a game as well as history. If you give people an option that was only used sporadically in real life, they're probably going to do it all the time.

(in reply to Ralzakark)
Post #: 111
RE: Cobra modelled - 1/5/2016 7:26:05 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1393
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Pelton, you are the one who is cherry picking. You select one historical statistic (casualty rates/causes) and then apply it to the game irrespective of what is happening. As for your remark on politics, I just do not begin to understand what you are talking about. You want politics? I will role play Hitler for you and give you orders every turn.

Now that the consensus is turned against you, you are throwing in any random fact you can. We don't know if the ammo bug is even in WITW (not a bug BTW, but a revealed weakness of a design decision; an emergent behaviour if you like. A bug is an element of code that doesn't do what it is meant to - as in adding 2+2 and returning 5). If the ammo 'bug' is in game, is KWG bombing each hex often enough for it to be a factor?

The loss rates have not been shown to be unhistorical. Thus your analysis as to cause is not helpful.

As for claiming KWG is somehow benefiting because he isn't attacking your impenetrable defence... Presumably, him turtling in or invading elsewhere to do the same thing is also a work around?

Why don't you just accept that someone has come up with a counter to your tactic and get on with he AAR? Try a new tactic.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 112
RE: Cobra modelled - 1/5/2016 7:32:33 PM   
loki100


Posts: 5689
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


....

I have to run people over for dinner, ...


sounds a bit brutal ... hope you get paid soon so can shop for food more conventionally in the near future

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Pelton, you are the one who is cherry picking. You select one historical statistic (casualty rates/causes) and then apply it to the game irrespective of what is happening. As for your remark on politics, I just do not begin to understand what you are talking about. You want politics? I will role play Hitler for you and give you orders every turn.

...

Why don't you just accept that someone has come up with a counter to your tactic and get on with he AAR? Try a new tactic.


exactly, this argument is now over at least 3 threads and two AARs.

edit: just realised I am 199 posts short of the mystical 2,500 ...


< Message edited by loki100 -- 1/5/2016 8:33:45 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 113
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 7:33:16 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1393
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DicedT


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralzakark

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

The repeated assertion that because Cobra carpet bombing was partially inaccurate, hence all carpet bombing must be is completely silly. In early war BC could not get bombs within 5 miles of the target most of the time. Doesn't this mean they never got any better? Fighter command largely flew fighting area tactics at the start of the Battle of Britain. Do they have to do this all war? Close air support in 1940 was a joke. By 1944 there were RAF ground controllers embedded in the army. You don't think that the air forces would have learnt from their mistakes?



As usual Warspite makes good points.

For COBRA there was no direct communication between the bombers and the soldiers on the ground waiting to follow on from their attack. Afterwards the 8AF developed elaborate systems to minimize the risk of short bombing. For example, for operation QUEEN on 16 November 1944 1,204 bombers attacked two fortified German towns in the way of ground forces.

- Most of the bombers were equipped to receive signals from a vertical SCS-51 localiser transmitter beacon placed a short distance behind the front line and two other marker beacons, giving a precise location relative to the front line and the bomb release point.
- A ground crew was in direct communication with the aircraft.
- Aircrews were extensively briefed.
- Large panels on the ground indicated the front line.
- A line of barrage balloons flew at 2,000 ft at 600 ft intervals 4,000 yards behind the front line.
- Four batteries of 90mm AA guns fired red smoke shells on the same line as the balloons but above them. Shells burst every 15 seconds at 2,000 feet below the bombers. Timings were co-ordinated by direct link between the batteries and the air controller.

No bombs fell on American troops even though the bombers attacked from 18,600 – 24,000 feet through cloud. All targets received a high proportion of hits and the German units being attacked suffered heavy casualties, up to 30% for one company; the advancing American units initially met little opposition.


By 1945 15AF added even more measures. For BUCKLAND on 9 April 1945 these included:

- A pre-defined cancellation signal - a huge ‘X’ fired by AA guns into the air.
- Bombadiers and navigators of the leading planes flew over the target beforehand, guided by recce pilots familiar with the terrain who pointed out notable geographical features. Some 175 flight of over an hours duration were made.

In this case short bombing still occurred (my sources do not say why), though the main attack by 825 B-17 and B-24s was so well aimed that German resistance was minimal.







Now we're making the same mistake as Pelton. We're taking a limited number of carpet bombing raids and extrapolating that they could have been safely and effectively on a routine basis.

So, for example, let's assume that carpet bombing had been perfected by November 1944. We know that in July 1944, the bombs struck friendly troops. Does this mean that the game should be coded so that carpet bombing causes friendly casualties in July 1944, and doesn't in November?

Confronting Liquid Sky's defenses in France, I used carpet bombing every turn, including bad weather turns. Whether this was the best move I don't know. But do we know enough to be able to say that carpet bombing could be safely used even in bad weather?

Remember that first and foremost, WITW is a game as well as history. If you give people an option that was only used sporadically in real life, they're probably going to do it all the time.


No. The point I raised was to show that assuming carpet bombing would always cause blue on blue was not valid. At no stage has anyone said it could never happen, just that it would not always happen. The examples given were in support of that.

As there were no significant static lines between August and late into September, the effectiveness of bombing in that window is impossible to derive from history. However in war people learn quickly. But this is besides the point. The question here has not even got past the issue of whether WA could bomb every week for 10 weeks.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to DicedT)
Post #: 114
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 8:00:12 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 1579
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Look at Paris it has allot of AA and in a urban hex but takes most damage.


What was in that hex?
An HQ like OKL has 40k men...

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 115
RE: Cobra modelled - 1/5/2016 8:33:17 PM   
Ralzakark


Posts: 225
Joined: 4/24/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The ammo issue works like this.

by 10+ or 20+ or 30+ bombing runs + recon runs (size does not matter could be very small attacks)
all the ammo in hex is used up by AA. Because if 100 planes fly over all 500 guns fire, if ten planes fly over all 500 guns fire.

So if you have a hard hex to crack you fly over 30 small attacks and use up most of the ammo or all the ammo the ground units need.

So then you attack the hex and it falls easly because they have zero ammo.

WitE people would attack with 1 unit vs a large stack 5 to 10 times (using several units 1 at a time) then do the large attack, the hex falls every time.

A fix was used so that not many guns would fire vs soaking attacks (low odd), now its not possible to use this tactic.

Like I said I have not taken the time to figure out for sure if this is happing, but it sure looks like it on the surface.


Historically AA fire achieved little against strategic bombers used in the tactical role.

Bayerlein reported that during COBRA direct hits knocked out half of Panzer Lehr’s flak guns and silenced the rest.

In 14,826 tactical sorties the Allies lost only 53 heavy bombers, or 0.35%. Any flak in the bombing area itself was usually smothered by the rain of high explosives, and Allied artillery was ready and waiting for flak emplacements to reveal themselves by firing. The ability of artillery to rapidly take under fire any German flak near the front line is also why aircraft flying close air support suffered fewer losses than those on armed recce missions.

Multiple small missions might have incurred higher losses as the figures above are for large raids. I will leave it up to others to discuss if they would insist on historical loss rates being applied to such non-historical situations.



(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 116
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 8:43:43 PM   
Ralzakark


Posts: 225
Joined: 4/24/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Lots of stuff posted above

Another great point, how many weeks did this require to prepare the operation?




I think this is also an important point. Strategic bomber simply lacked the flexibility that fighter-bombers had. I have not seen any figures but preparing for a full-blown COBRA-style strike must have taken days. Tactical aircraft, especially those on ‘cab rank’ over the battlefield, could respond rapidly – I have seen figures of three minutes between a request for support and the first bombs arriving.

This is, I believe, one of the main reasons there were no ‘rolling COBRA’ style offensives. Once the Allies had broken out of the Normandy beachhead the battle became very fluid until the autumn. Strategic bombers were still used for attacks, but against fortresses rather than units in the field – their planning cycle was simply too long for their use in battles where the front line could change on an hourly basis.


(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 117
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 8:52:10 PM   
Ralzakark


Posts: 225
Joined: 4/24/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DicedT

Now we're making the same mistake as Pelton. We're taking a limited number of carpet bombing raids and extrapolating that they could have been safely and effectively on a routine basis.

So, for example, let's assume that carpet bombing had been perfected by November 1944. We know that in July 1944, the bombs struck friendly troops. Does this mean that the game should be coded so that carpet bombing causes friendly casualties in July 1944, and doesn't in November?



I did not mean to imply that DicedT.

Carpet bombing with 1940s technology was inherently dangerous for anyone near the target area. But the Allies did learn from experience (just as the Germans did when perfecting their own tactical air support in 1940-41) so the risks were reduced, but never eliminated, in later missions.

(in reply to DicedT)
Post #: 118
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 9:12:25 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 4045
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp


quote:

ORIGINAL: DicedT

If it's okay for the Allies to carpet bomb every turn, then why isn't it okay to assume that Hitler never ordered the Me-262 to become a bomber, and the Germans deployed jet fighters six months earlier than they did? At some point, an historical game has to stick to history.

It's a complete myth that the delay to the 262 was caused by the decision to build it as a fast bomber. The Germans had immense problems with developing and building the engine. The chaos with the bomber decision contributed next to nothing to the delay.


According to William Greens "Warplanes of the Third Reich" it was engine development that was the problem.


< Message edited by Aurelian -- 1/5/2016 10:19:20 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 119
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/5/2016 9:19:48 PM   
Steelers708

 

Posts: 111
Joined: 12/7/2010
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ralzakark


quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

The repeated assertion that because Cobra carpet bombing was partially inaccurate, hence all carpet bombing must be is completely silly. In early war BC could not get bombs within 5 miles of the target most of the time. Doesn't this mean they never got any better? Fighter command largely flew fighting area tactics at the start of the Battle of Britain. Do they have to do this all war? Close air support in 1940 was a joke. By 1944 there were RAF ground controllers embedded in the army. You don't think that the air forces would have learnt from their mistakes?



As usual Warspite makes good points.

For COBRA there was no direct communication between the bombers and the soldiers on the ground waiting to follow on from their attack. Afterwards the 8AF developed elaborate systems to minimize the risk of short bombing. For example, for operation QUEEN on 16 November 1944 1,204 bombers attacked two fortified German towns in the way of ground forces.

- Most of the bombers were equipped to receive signals from a vertical SCS-51 localiser transmitter beacon placed a short distance behind the front line and two other marker beacons, giving a precise location relative to the front line and the bomb release point.
- A ground crew was in direct communication with the aircraft.
- Aircrews were extensively briefed.
- Large panels on the ground indicated the front line.
- A line of barrage balloons flew at 2,000 ft at 600 ft intervals 4,000 yards behind the front line.
- Four batteries of 90mm AA guns fired red smoke shells on the same line as the balloons but above them. Shells burst every 15 seconds at 2,000 feet below the bombers. Timings were co-ordinated by direct link between the batteries and the air controller.

No bombs fell on American troops even though the bombers attacked from 18,600 – 24,000 feet through cloud.
All targets received a high proportion of hits and the German units being attacked suffered heavy casualties,
up to 30% for one company; the advancing American units initially met little opposition.






Another great point, how many weeks did this require to prepare the operation?

Its being done in game every week for 10 weeks over different hexes.

Also as per your data German units suffered 30% loses not 60-70% for 10 weeks.

Great data thank you.


For all of it's elaborate planning and ground/air communication etc Ralzakark forgot to mention the one, probably most important, paragraph in his post about Operation Queen and that was -

The result of the bombing was mixed. The German towns being hit suffered from severe destruction. German communications after the bombing were heavily impaired, and there was a considerable effect on the morale, especially on units consisting of more younger and inexperienced troops. However, the direct damage dealt to the German frontline troops was low, and casualties were few. Allied air commanders admitted that the bombing did not measure up to expectations.

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.164