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 9:53:12 PM   
KWG


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

ORIGINAL: Steelers708


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.


I know the feeling many of my missions produce "less than" expectations. Some top Allied air commanders never saw any results good enough to take them away from their preferred targets. There was a strong belief that they could win the war by strategic bombing alone. They even tried to have Montgomery fired for going over peoples heads for air support.

It took six hours to do a heavy bomber mission for the Canadians. I would have many smaller map gridded missions.

The biggest problems were due to the people in command of Air resources, not the wanted support.


Many times all the bombers had to do was fly around with the bomb bay doors open in order to disrupt the Germans.


< Message edited by KWG -- 1/5/2016 11:11:42 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Steelers708)
Post #: 121
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/6/2016 2:41:05 AM   
KWG


Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline
The system was there it was the people in command that was the problem not the occasional bad mission.


Here is part of the system that could have been enhanced and adapted for all aircraft types as experience and battle conditions changed.

Please excuse the repeats, here is part of how the system was setup...





The Allies' Air Forces ground support system was based on the "Wann/Woodall" system of control for air support.


Wann/Woodall system had resulted in the development of an elaborate organization, all tied together with communications links provided by new beasts known as "Air Support Signals Units" or ASSUs



One ASSU was alocated to each Group/Army pairing.

"Composite Group" of aircraft.

Each Army headquarters was paired with a Composite Group headquarters.

The Army/Composite Group headquarters either fomed a "Joint Battle Room" or simply coordinated their separate staffs by constant telephone, meetings and mutual visits - both methods were tried

Each of the Composite Groups also had an organization known as a Group Control Centre or GCC.


With the forward troops there were various independent wireless detachments, commonly known as "tentacles"( with multiple radio sets).


One of these sets was to tie into the ASSU radio network and pass back air support requests, the other was to receive the latest air reconnaissance reports, which were simply broadcast out from the GCC for all stations to listen in on simultaneously.


Coming from the artillery, the tentacle officers were specialists in fire support and could advise the local ground commander on the employrnent of air support. However, the primary task of a normal tentacle was to pass air requests fiom the leading battalion and brigade headquarters directly back to the joint Army/Composite Group headquarters via the ASSU net.

Additionally, specialized tentacles were developed over time, including VCPs (Visual Control Posts), FCPs (Forward Control Posts) and contact cars.

VCP consisted of a tank or White Scout Car.
FCP generally consisting of 10 personnel all ranks. They were mounted in at least two primary vehicles, either heavy trucks or Ml4 half tracked vehicles, plus usually a trailer and a jeep.


1-Pre-arranged air support

Pre-arranged attacks were planned through the dedicated staff process, sometimes weeks ahead of time, but routinely for the next day.

Majority of Heavy/Medium operations here.

For major offensives, pre-arranged direct support would be even more elabrate, spelled out in a detailed "Air Programmes", and often including heavy bomber support.


Direct and indirect

1a-Direct

Most routine requests for the next day fell into this category, as did the elaborate "Air Programmes" laid on for major offensives.Most calls for air support through the ASSU tentacles, either from normal tentacles, VCPs, or FCPs

1b-Indirect

Most interdiction targets and much of the work of No. 2 Group fell into this category. (No. 2 Group = Bomber Group)



2-Impromptu Request Procedure

2a-Direct

Most impromptu requests by forward tentacles fell into this category

2b-Indirect



Overall System


However, pre-arranged and impromptu were not entirely distinct. As the doctrine manual of the time put it, "Every effort should be made to foresee future requirements ... impromptu operations can often be anticipated by the issue of provisional orders on a series of alternative targets.


The centre of the process for planning pre-arranged air support was the air conference at Army/Group headquarters, which was meant to be held every evening but which in practice usually met only approximately every other day. These were quite large affairs, often attended by some 20 staff officers and chaired by the Army hedquarters Chief of Staff.

This conference would discuss the situation and routine operations for the next day and after the conference executive orders for the flying wings would be issued by the Group headquarters, usually by teleprinter. Additionally , specific conferences would be called as necessary to produce "Air Programmes' for major operations.These plans specified targets and timings, with the intent of integrating air support into the Amy plan.



Since all of these elements were tied together on a single net by the radio communications of the ASSU, information could be passed about quickly. The intent was to allow the tentacles, often forward with brigade or even battalion headquarters, to pass air requests directly back to Group/Anny headquarters, without passing through the intermediate divisional and corps levels of command


The GCC, meanwhile, which was also listening in on the same net, would be concurrently ensuring that the necessary aircraft were ready.




Indirect Support was defined as
"attacks on objectives which do not have an immediate effect on the land battle, but nevertheless contribute to the broad plan."
" The main effect of indirect support, according to the doctrine of the time, was "the isolation of the battlefield by hindering the movement of enemy troops and supplies into the area of operations.""



Direct Support was defined as "attacks upon enemy forces actually engaged in the land battle." Typical targets included defensive positions, hostile batteries of artillery or concentrations of armor These were generally the province of the composite groups, but any aircraft, from heavy bombers to fighter bombers, could be and were employed for direct support.


IMPORTANT!!!
*Direct Support was thus a slightly broader term than either close support or the modern close air support. It included not just close support, but also that air power applied behind the lines, but still within the immediate battle area.
Direct support missions against targets deeper in German territory could be ordered, in more or less the same fashion as those against targets right along the front line. when panzers or artillery were discovered concentrating in the rear, or key choke points such as a bridge were identified, air attack on these targets could be requested.*


Direct support was further categorized on the basis of urgency, distinction being made between "pre-aranged" and "impromptu" requests for air support Pre-arranged attacks were planned through the dedicated staff process, sometimes weeks ahead of tirne, but routinely for the next day. Impromptu requests were originated in the heat of battle by leading Army elements and forwarded via the special air request radio network first envisioned in the Wann/Woodall report


One of the key duties of the Army level air support staffs was the designation of the "bomb line." (or AA Bomb Line as devolped by Doolittle.)This was a line drawn on the map forward of the actual front line, beyond which the air forces were free to engage targets It was intended as a safety measure to ensure that no fnendly troops were mistakenly attacked by Allied air craft. Targets on the near side of the line could be attacked, but only if specifically designated by coloured smoke.

< Message edited by KWG -- 1/7/2016 11:53:22 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to KWG)
Post #: 122
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/6/2016 8:36:03 AM   
riflebrigade

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 8/1/2005
Status: offline
I am new to the game having purchased the game a week ago.

Will the game be modified to make allowance for some allied losses when allied strategic bombers carry out attacks on axis units adjacent to allied units?

Are allied losses included in the game for allied ground attacks/interdiction where allied units are in close proximity of axis units?

Would the allies strategic bombers have had sufficient quantities of the types of munitions required for multi-day attacks on axis ground units?

The types of bomb loads generally used to bomb cities to start and fuel fires and damage buildings would be different to the type of bomb loads required for attacks on ground units?

(in reply to DicedT)
Post #: 123
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/6/2016 9:23:41 AM   
Red Lancer


Posts: 4042
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
Will the game be modified to make allowance for some allied losses when allied strategic bombers carry out attacks on axis units adjacent to allied units? Don't know .

Are allied losses included in the game for allied ground attacks/interdiction where allied units are in close proximity of axis units? No - friendly fire isn't modelled anywhere although unit attrition when adjacent to an enemy unit is.

Would the allies strategic bombers have had sufficient quantities of the types of munitions required for multi-day attacks on axis ground units? I don't know but the game doesn't model specific ammo shortages - arty ammo was historically an issue but isn't in game. Ammo is a generic resource and trying to split that into different types would be impossible to replicate in a game like this with today's computing power.

The types of bomb loads generally used to bomb cities to start and fuel fires and damage buildings would be different to the type of bomb loads required for attacks on ground units? Yes - you can choose loadouts. Incendaries are coded to be better against manpower. Mines give good naval interdiction.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to riflebrigade)
Post #: 124
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/6/2016 3:17:31 PM   
KWG


Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline
I would like to thank DicedT for putting me back on the correct flight plan. In responding to all the flak I was was knocked off target.


There may be misspelled words and weird words in the previous post and this. Its due to copying from a PDF to a notepad, it produces crazy results.

The system was in place to do what Iam doing and to the degree Iam doing it. DO you agree?!


More on the system of control for air support.


Pre-arranged attacks were staffed through the normal chain-of-command to the joint air staffs at Army/Composite Group and 2 1st Army Group/2nd TAF levels, either as planned parts of a major offensive, sometimes weeks ahead of time, or as part the next day's routine operations.
Direct Most routine requests for the next day fell into this category, as did the elaborate air programmes laid on for maior offensives. Altematively, impromptu requests could be made on the spot by frontline cornmanders, through the forward tentacles.



However, pre-arranged and impromptu were not entirely distinct. As the doctrine manual of the time put it, "Every effort should be made to foresee future requirements ... impromptu operations can often be anticipated by the issue of provisional orders on a series of alternative targets.


One means of bridging the gap between pre-arranged and impromptu air support was the system known as "TOBY" . Suspected targets would be identified via the normal air planning process and given code names. The supported army formation could then request those strikes by the code name, and the Air Force would be prepared to launch them with no further details required. No missions would be flown until the Army requested them.


The CABRANK system was another means of bridging the gap between pre-arranged and impromptu air support. CABRANK amounted to a planned allocation of aircraft to potential targets of opportunity. Similarly, a certain portion of 2nd TAF's assets were routinely left unallocated, so as to be available for immediate scrambling in response to impromptu requests.


(CABRANK was the system most used by the rocket typhoons and tempests.)




Finally, requests for indirect attacks, made through the normal staff machinery, could in exceptional circumstances become de facto "impromptu indirect" missions. There are several examples on record of urgent requests for attacks on targets in the German rear being actioned the same day the target become known. For instance on 30 June, during the course of the EPSOM offensive, the Army reported that German armor was concentrating in the Villers Bocage area, then about a dozen kilometres in the German rear, threatening the flank of the British advance." Headquarters Advanced AEAF hurriedly passed a request back to Bomber Command, and at 2000 hours of that same day, 232 heavy bombers struck the target area.



The lead time for air support thus varied from plans drawn up days or even weeks ahead of time, to routine requests for air support the next day. The timeliness of response to impromptu requests varied as well. A pre-invasion planning document suggested that staffs should expect the average wait to be from one hour. and 45 minutes to two hours and 45 minutes, but that was for UK based aircraft.


And the Americans made improvements to this system.

< Message edited by KWG -- 1/7/2016 2:52:31 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 125
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/6/2016 3:37:02 PM   
KWG


Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline
The problem was in the commanders of the Air Forces and their reluctance to work with the ground forces and the half hearted attempt when they did. A effort was made to get Monty fired over trying to get better cooperation.

I liken it to a "drunken, unshaved, shabby" Ground Forces knocking on the door of Air Forces Command and saying "Iam here to take your daughter to the dance."


There were those who thought strategic bombing was the way to win the war. And this game allows you to do either strategy in any degree.


I believe a key factor in my bombing is in the amount of recon I do. Plus I have a certain way I set the recon missions up. These combined give a clear picture of the battlefield.


< Message edited by KWG -- 1/7/2016 2:50:34 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to KWG)
Post #: 126
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/6/2016 5:11:23 PM   
Ralzakark


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steelers708


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.

etc..



Quite correct, I was not talking in detail about the effects of the bombing. Using heavy bombers tactically gave very variable results. For COBRA it was instrumental in enabling the American breakthrough, for other operations the effect was minimal - I am thinking especially of the bombing of German fortifications.

I have some figures from operational research conducted by the British on the likely impact of bombing which I will try and pull together to post here over the next day or so, but very quickly the main impact was, as with tactical air power, the huge disruption caused to the defenders. This was only useful if ground forces were ready to take advantage of it.

(in reply to Steelers708)
Post #: 127
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/6/2016 8:16:04 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 1549
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

The types of bomb loads generally used to bomb cities to start and fuel fires and damage buildings would be different to the type of bomb loads required for attacks on ground units? Yes - you can choose loadouts. Incendaries are coded to be better against manpower. Mines give good naval interdiction.


Off topic, but in tests with Luftwaffe level bombers mines are inferior at generating naval interdiction to loading up as many bombs as you can.

edited to add: Torpedoes are also inferior load out choice to lots of small bombs for the LW. Don't know if this applies to Allied aircraft too.

< Message edited by Seminole -- 1/6/2016 9:17:03 PM >

(in reply to Ralzakark)
Post #: 128
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/6/2016 8:32:25 PM   
KWG


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

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

The types of bomb loads generally used to bomb cities to start and fuel fires and damage buildings would be different to the type of bomb loads required for attacks on ground units? Yes - you can choose loadouts. Incendaries are coded to be better against manpower. Mines give good naval interdiction.


Off topic, but in tests with Luftwaffe level bombers mines are inferior at generating naval interdiction to loading up as many bombs as you can.

edited to add: Torpedoes are also inferior load out choice to lots of small bombs for the LW. Don't know if this applies to Allied aircraft too.



Do they damage, the cargo, troop ships that are stationary in a hex? I think thats a yes.
I think you only get 1 Fritz X in a load-out. yet it has a accuracy of 250!

Difficult to beat pure power of weight.

Mines were best used at ports. Do Mines cause high interdiction in hexs next to port?

What about weapon combinations?

< Message edited by KWG -- 1/7/2016 2:51:52 AM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 129
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/7/2016 11:24:52 AM   
Helpless


Posts: 15523
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Will the game be modified to make allowance for some allied losses when allied strategic bombers carry out attacks on axis units adjacent to allied units?


WITW (air) engine changes are quite probable. Biggest issue it that due to the limited testing resources such changes could stay in the beta stage for quite long.

Good news is that we still share the same code base for the WITW and WITE-2 games. So some of appropriate new features of WITE-2 can get to the WITW eventually.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to riflebrigade)
Post #: 130
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/7/2016 12:14:03 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 1549
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Do they damage, the cargo, troop ships that are stationary in a hex? I think thats a yes.


Interdiction will cause losses to be suffered by the ships attached to TFs, that much I've observed. It should also increase the losses during the logistics phase. I think that will only be felt by cargo ships, but I could be mistaken. I'm pretty sure the only other way to get troop ship losses is when people are manually moving units over the sea and have bad rolls (which interdiction levels impact).

quote:

I think you only get 1 Fritz X in a load-out. yet it has a accuracy of 250!
Difficult to beat pure power of weight.
Mines were best used at ports. Do Mines cause high interdiction in hexs next to port?
What about weapon combinations?


At one point I ran tests in the Bay of Biscay (to avoid any interference) with Luftwaffe air groups of equal size, morale, and exp. (maybe 1 or 2 point difference max) testing all the various load outs for all the German bombers targeting a single hex for naval interdiction. I also made sure the flights themselves traveled the same distance from the airbase.
Nothing came close to creating as much interdiction, and as far, as packing the max number of bombs onto the plane as possible.
I thought about grabbing screenshots and creating a thread on the subject, but lately I've scarcely had time to play (magnified because I took on too many games at once).

< Message edited by Seminole -- 1/7/2016 1:17:48 PM >

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 131
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/7/2016 12:52:50 PM   
KWG


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

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

Will the game be modified to make allowance for some allied losses when allied strategic bombers carry out attacks on axis units adjacent to allied units?


WITW (air) engine changes are quite probable. Biggest issue it that due to the limited testing resources such changes could stay in the beta stage for quite long.

Good news is that we still share the same code base for the WITW and WITE-2 games. So some of appropriate new features of WITE-2 can get to the WITW eventually.



Since the missions were quickly improved , the chance of friendly losses was low. Seems that all air missions have a chance of friendly fire.


unit bombing would seem to have less chance of friendly fire than Close Ground Support. Especially if bombers, or any aircraft, were hitting targets using the TOBY system.

< Message edited by KWG -- 1/7/2016 2:41:52 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 132
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/7/2016 3:28:46 PM   
soeren01

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 6/25/2004
From: Bayern
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

Do they damage, the cargo, troop ships that are stationary in a hex? I think thats a yes.


Interdiction will cause losses to be suffered by the ships attached to TFs, that much I've observed. It should also increase the losses during the logistics phase. I think that will only be felt by cargo ships, but I could be mistaken. I'm pretty sure the only other way to get troop ship losses is when people are manually moving units over the sea and have bad rolls (which interdiction levels impact).

quote:

I think you only get 1 Fritz X in a load-out. yet it has a accuracy of 250!
Difficult to beat pure power of weight.
Mines were best used at ports. Do Mines cause high interdiction in hexs next to port?
What about weapon combinations?


At one point I ran tests in the Bay of Biscay (to avoid any interference) with Luftwaffe air groups of equal size, morale, and exp. (maybe 1 or 2 point difference max) testing all the various load outs for all the German bombers targeting a single hex for naval interdiction. I also made sure the flights themselves traveled the same distance from the airbase.
Nothing came close to creating as much interdiction, and as far, as packing the max number of bombs onto the plane as possible.
I thought about grabbing screenshots and creating a thread on the subject, but lately I've scarcely had time to play (magnified because I took on too many games at once).


I made quite extensive test and reached the same conclusion. The more, the better.


_____________________________

soeren01, formerly known as Soeren
CoG FoF
PacWar WIR BoB BTR UV WITP WITE WITW

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 133
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/7/2016 3:42:32 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer




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.

And my game vs KWG and liquadskys/my tests show that when people choose to use the air system unhistorically – the air system replicates unhistorical losses when it is used unhistorically. I am not ignoring your data, its just as important as mine. This is my 18th game. 17 of the 18 games have shown the same results as your test, historical ratio’s and bombing loses %.
But now we have a game that is showing wildly differenent results. Not a single turn, but over 10 turns – plus tests that show you can do same thing over France before and invasion. Your data matters as it follows the same data I have collected over 17 games and almost every player sees in there games. Your data = my data from 17 games. But your test and my test di not = KWG vs Pelton data. I choose to be curious and want to know why is the data so wildly different. In the past this was always because of an exploit/bug or combinations of both.


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.

When I post a thread like this its because something is wildly different. I never have all the answers. Which is why I post it, I have the data and the big picture. I am looking for answers to my big picture question. Most times other players post very good answers as to why things are so wildly different. I am not going to ignore there answer or dismiss them if they are part of a possible answer as to why. 150,000 loses are done by bombing over 10 turns and can be done over the next 10 ect ect . That’s a possible 750,000 loses from bombing in 50 turns. My argument has not shifted. It’s the same I am curious as to why this one game has so wildly different ratio’s. My past tells me its caused by an exploit/bug or a poorly designed system that can output historical or unhistorical results depending on how the player chooses to use the system. And both your tests and mine should that the system can be used to achieve both results.


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.

I can compare it to 17 other games and test. The results are unhistorical ratio’s can be achieved by unending carpet bombing over 10 turns, and one can do the simpliar unhistorical results bombing even before invading.



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.

I think its clearly a work around. 150,000 men have been lost which will never have to be killed during ground combat or 300,000 over 20 turns. WitW combat engine is working correct for Western Front 1944 as the ratio’s are always close to historical over 10 turn time frames and longer. So these 150,000 men which using the combat ratio would have caused 200,000 men lost for allies will never get the chance. Or 200 VP’s or more depending on minor allies. So I agree that points are being lost, but also points are being saved. Plus as per KWG’s strategy he beable to get to the city VP center faster which he is. The work around is clear.


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.
As I have stated before in this thread I am not going to waste time responding to anything other than the data. What or how you feel about me has nothing to do with the data. Your above statement is 100%
As per your post #50
quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Please don't make things too personal. Everyone is entitled to their views.


Personally I love the game/games which is why I have posted 100+ AARs or threads showing exploits, bugs, weird games, ammo bugs, National morale bugs, balance issue, armaments bugs, HQBU exploits and general abuse of rule sets---- German, Russian and WA now. Even when I know I am going to be going 1 vs 20 an am insults over and over aka national moral not working for 18 months before I was proven right. Poeples personal feelings mine included simply have never and will never change the data.
If I did not care I would not post German exploits or post that a change to ruleset will open something up to possible german exploits. If I am exploiting I tell everyone so mybee it will get fixed and have done both for WitW and WitE.
1. Its clear that a player choose to achieve historical or unhistorical results
2. The unhistorical results can be done for at least 10 turns vs troops at the front or troops not near the front causing 10-20k loses depending on player skill at bombing. It also appears in the CG that these results can be done for far more then 10 turns.
3. Its clear it’s a work around the VP system or at worst a wash with the pay-off being rolling over cities for VP’s.




There has been allot of good input from allot of players and that is a good thing.

I am sorry if I can not get to all of your responces as it appears that if I respond to many times to your questions I get accused of trolling.

so

As I have been doing I am responding to some of you in PM's and others Emails.

I value everyone's opinions/data be they good or bad and will try and respond if possible.

remember its 1 vs 20 kinda like the national morale bug and it might take a long time to get to the bottom of why one game is so wildly
different then the others.

Have a nice day.


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 134
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/7/2016 4:08:22 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

And my game vs KWG and liquadskys/my tests show that when people choose to use the air system unhistorically – the air system replicates unhistorical losses when it is used unhistorically.

You do know that this actually makes sense, right? Unhistoric play has to result in unhistoric results.

< Message edited by SigUp -- 1/7/2016 5:08:44 PM >

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 135
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/8/2016 12:16:43 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2733
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


Now that I have more time, I decided to do more testing.

I started up a 1943 campaign. I moved all the strat bombers from the med to England, and bombed an 8 hex radius box around Kortijk. So this includes the Pas-d-Calais area and Belgium including the forced garrisons of Amiens and

I bombed with the RAF Bomber Command at night from 18k feet.
I bombed with the 8th air force from 20k feet.
I turned refit on for the German army.

I only bombed units, and used all the (considerable) recon aircraft to interdict and raise unit detection.

Every turn I seemed to destroy 30 guns. I kill between 1500-2000 men a turn. Seemed pretty consistant.
The garrison in Belgium drops about 1 or 2 CV points a turn. Although I suspect it will reach an equilibrium. I had to keep moving units into Belgium.

Now I suppose it could be a tactic to bomb units on garrison on the north coast, since a lot of them cant move very fast, or are stuck in the garrison cities. I imagine I could kill over 100,000 germans and around 2000 guns if I use the tactical bombers as well all by the time I launch D-Day. It would also be probably 5 times that in allied citizens, but hey..we don't track that.

After an invasion the detection levels will go up from 4 to 10, and the density of the Germans will increase as they stack on the front, so the damage will increase.

Oh...rainy weather didn't seem to cause much difference in damage. Storm/Snow would of course stop most of the bombing.

_____________________________

“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 SigUp)
Post #: 136
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/8/2016 12:28:57 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2733
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


I should add that individually...the bombing seems to do very little damage. For example in a single strike, the germans will lose a couple dozen men and maybe a gun. But the sheer number of strikes the allies can make is what allows the numbers to swell.

_____________________________

“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 LiquidSky)
Post #: 137
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/8/2016 5:36:44 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Now that I have more time, I decided to do more testing.

I started up a 1943 campaign. I moved all the strat bombers from the med to England, and bombed an 8 hex radius box around Kortijk. So this includes the Pas-d-Calais area and Belgium including the forced garrisons of Amiens and

I bombed with the RAF Bomber Command at night from 18k feet.
I bombed with the 8th air force from 20k feet.
I turned refit on for the German army.

I only bombed units, and used all the (considerable) recon aircraft to interdict and raise unit detection.

Every turn I seemed to destroy 30 guns. I kill between 1500-2000 men a turn. Seemed pretty consistant.
The garrison in Belgium drops about 1 or 2 CV points a turn. Although I suspect it will reach an equilibrium. I had to keep moving units into Belgium.

Now I suppose it could be a tactic to bomb units on garrison on the north coast, since a lot of them cant move very fast, or are stuck in the garrison cities. I imagine I could kill over 100,000 germans and around 2000 guns if I use the tactical bombers as well all by the time I launch D-Day. It would also be probably 5 times that in allied citizens, but hey..we don't track that.

After an invasion the detection levels will go up from 4 to 10, and the density of the Germans will increase as they stack on the front, so the damage will increase.

Oh...rainy weather didn't seem to cause much difference in damage. Storm/Snow would of course stop most of the bombing.


I finally had some time to do allot of testing.

May 1944 CG. I went a few turns to get clear weather, pulled back allies 1 hex other then Anzio so attrition is only 800ish +/- 50 per turn.

Its took me about 20 runs to nail down the best bombing set-up, but I have not touched load outs yet so I expect I can get much higher loses per turn.

I know once I invade I could get much higher #s once Allies invade and there are more units in the kill box.

Once I ran out of time to test I ran 3 at best settings






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 138
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/8/2016 5:37:17 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
2




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 139
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/8/2016 5:37:55 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
3




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 140
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/8/2016 6:04:05 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Now that I have more time, I decided to do more testing.

I started up a 1943 campaign. I moved all the strat bombers from the med to England, and bombed an 8 hex radius box around Kortijk. So this includes the Pas-d-Calais area and Belgium including the forced garrisons of Amiens and

I bombed with the RAF Bomber Command at night from 18k feet.
I bombed with the 8th air force from 20k feet.
I turned refit on for the German army.

I only bombed units, and used all the (considerable) recon aircraft to interdict and raise unit detection.

Every turn I seemed to destroy 30 guns. I kill between 1500-2000 men a turn. Seemed pretty consistant.
The garrison in Belgium drops about 1 or 2 CV points a turn. Although I suspect it will reach an equilibrium.
I had to keep moving units into Belgium.

Now I suppose it could be a tactic to bomb units on garrison on the north coast, since a lot of them cant move very fast,
or are stuck in the garrison cities. I imagine I could kill over 100,000 germans and around 2000 guns if I use the tactical bombers
as well all by the time I launch D-Day. It would also be probably 5 times that in allied citizens, but hey..we don't track that.

After an invasion the detection levels will go up from 4 to 10, and the density of the Germans will increase as they stack on the front, so
the damage will increase.

Oh...rainy weather didn't seem to cause much difference in damage. Storm/Snow would of course stop most of the bombing.


and I thought your were the best person at the air system.

Even my worst test I can do 10k per turn and 100+ guns bro come on you really tring?

As can be seen I can get 30,000 to 34,000 per turn and 600+ guns without even knowing what I am doing as this is the first time I have ever screwed with bombing.

I also did not move a single unit from the CG May 44 set-up.

As per your your thoughts on Quote (After an invasion the detection levels will go up from 4 to 10, and the density of the Germans will increase as they stack on the front, so
the damage will increase.)

Yes I am guessing I could easly get 50k per turn after the invasion.

In my AAR your were able to kill 1800+ men and 140+ gun on a single hex. How is it you are unable to get the same results now?

Just asking

You also posted a long list of battles ect doing more damage then your claiming here.

My old tests in that thread I was only doing 10-20k per turn, but after a few more hrs of testing I am doing better. Your forget how you got those results?

I will do more testing when I get the time next week as I believe Germans can do same thing if there is not 10,000 WA fighters.

Good tests for Russian Front if WitE 2.0 uses the same air system.

Have a Great Weekend Everyone.









Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Pelton -- 1/8/2016 7:07:40 PM >


_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 141
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/8/2016 7:18:05 PM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2733
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


AHh..I was only using strat bombers and I started in July '43. I already know how to damage the German units without even using the strat bombers in 1944. I was more curious if you could effect the cv values of the garrisons and how much damage would accumulate over the first 50 turns.

Also I wanted to test a theory on the best way to avoid the damage should some foolish allied player decided to try the bombing unit trick on me.

_____________________________

“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 Peltonx)
Post #: 142
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/8/2016 9:55:37 PM   
szmike

 

Posts: 315
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

The types of bomb loads generally used to bomb cities to start and fuel fires and damage buildings would be different to the type of bomb loads required for attacks on ground units? Yes - you can choose loadouts. Incendaries are coded to be better against manpower. Mines give good naval interdiction.


Off topic, but in tests with Luftwaffe level bombers mines are inferior at generating naval interdiction to loading up as many bombs as you can.

edited to add: Torpedoes are also inferior load out choice to lots of small bombs for the LW. Don't know if this applies to Allied aircraft too.

From my limited testing of Allied loads I can conclude bombs>torpedoes>mines

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 143
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/9/2016 3:23:19 AM   
riflebrigade

 

Posts: 75
Joined: 8/1/2005
Status: offline
Thank you for your prompt reply Red Lancer.

The reason I asked the question

“Would the allies strategic bombers have had sufficient quantities of the types of munitions required for multi-day attacks on axis ground units?”

Is if necessary types of munitions were not available in quantities required for multi-day strategic bombing attacks on ground units they could not be carried out on such a large scale.

Would not available quantities and types of munitions have had a major effect (limitation) in the way the allies and axis had to fight the war?

If available the main problem would have been transporting munitions to units, although it should have been easier to provide munitions for British bombers in the UK, if quantities and transport facilities were available.

Is there some abstract way quantities/general types of munitions could be recorded in the game to prevent possible unrealistic play and also possibly effect the strategies needed to be used by the allies and/or axis players?

(in reply to szmike)
Post #: 144
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/9/2016 6:54:59 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1038
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

In my AAR your were able to kill 1800+ men and 140+ gun on a single hex. How is it you are unable to get the same results now?

Because he was bombing an HQ. You should know from WitE how soft a target HQs are.

(in reply to Peltonx)
Post #: 145
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/10/2016 5:39:20 AM   
Seminole


Posts: 1549
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
I always feel AP starved as the Axis, EF box or not.
Do the Allies feel that way?
Would making a ground attack (unit) mission cost 1 AP the way a transport mission does if it uses a LB be a sufficient restraint on spamming this attack?

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 146
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/10/2016 5:39:21 AM   
Seminole


Posts: 1549
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
I always feel AP starved as the Axis, EF box or not.
Do the Allies feel that way?
Would making a ground attack (unit) mission cost 1 AP the way a transport mission does if it uses a LB be a sufficient restraint on spamming this attack?

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 147
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/10/2016 8:03:05 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1390
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
You don't feel that the evidence on VP isn't enough? This attack form loses VP. Yes you could do partial ground, partial city, but this is putting a limit on ground attack!

Let's not forget that Pelton is deliberately holding firm and letting this happen. He could withdraw to the Seine and mitigate some of this. Yes, KWG can still bomb on the Seine, but ground supply route is longer, air ranges are linger, German supply routes are shorter, and Pelton only needs to hold there 4-6 weeks and then he can withdraw again.

Really do not see this as an issue guys...

Oh, and allies are not short of AP.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 148
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/10/2016 1:30:40 PM   
Peltonx


Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Go here for data

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4004875&mpage=1&key=�




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 149
RE: modeling Desert Storm or WW II? - 1/10/2016 1:30:58 PM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2733
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline


I am always short of admin points. With the allies, I usually start to build up a bit of a nest egg just before D-Day, but then blow the wad on motorizing units.

_____________________________

“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 #: 150
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

0.211