Jump to content

Air power is much too strong....


Scorpion_sk

Recommended Posts

Thanks for your support, guys.

I feel a lot better now ;)

I didn´t even bother to read the troll´s last reply to me, I just skipped over it.

And I do think that just giving the A-A Radar research benefit to all units would be the simplest and most effective fix we could hope for.

The point would be to make the massive scale airfleet ground attacks costly indeed against a prepared opponent....the airfleets couldn´t get to high levels of experience by bombing weaker units so easily, either.

However, they would still retain a great tactical advantage.

Perhaps strategic bombers could be made more resistant against ground unit AA firepower....?That way there´d be a point to those units as well.

And....no matter how many times you´d bomb with the strat bombers, you couldn´t contest the skies any more effectively...

I think a stop-gap measure we could do try for now before Hubert implements any fixes would be to try using only the bombers for ground attacks as a house rule.

Yes...it sounds harsh....but it would open up another element to the gameplay. (Instead of the norm of buying zillions of airfleets right now).

Yes....I know that tactical bombing is a very real threat, but we could assume that in this case its effects are not too great, and/or their contribution is included in the damage the bomber unit does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks for your support, guys.

I feel a lot better now ;)

I didn´t even bother to read the troll´s last reply to me, I just skipped over it.

And I do think that just giving the A-A Radar research benefit to all units would be the simplest and most effective fix we could hope for.

The point would be to make the massive scale airfleet ground attacks costly indeed against a prepared opponent....the airfleets couldn´t get to high levels of experience by bombing weaker units so easily, either.

However, they would still retain a great tactical advantage.

Perhaps strategic bombers could be made more resistant against ground unit AA firepower....?That way there´d be a point to those units as well.

And....no matter how many times you´d bomb with the strat bombers, you couldn´t contest the skies any more effectively...

I think a stop-gap measure we could do try for now before Hubert implements any fixes would be to try using only the bombers for ground attacks as a house rule.

Yes...it sounds harsh....but it would open up another element to the gameplay. (Instead of the norm of buying zillions of airfleets right now).

Yes....I know that tactical bombing is a very real threat, but we could assume that in this case its effects are not too great, and/or their contribution is included in the damage the bomber unit does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to preface these comments by saying that I make them, not to start an argument or to be dissagreeable, but to make suggestions that I feel may improve the game play. I have not had this game for very long, just a few weeks. As have may others I have played computer strategy games for many years, and the variety and quality have fluctuated wildly. I initially was not impressed with the game, but after playing for a while I have learned to enjoy the game very much. However there are a few areas where I feel improvements can and should be made in any future releases. Some of which are:

Technology is too random and too unrealistic. There have been may comments on technology and many good points were made. My concern is that the tecnology is far to random, which may increase the variability of gameplay, which is a good thing, but it can also be unrealistic and quite frustrating. Being able to switch with no penalty from researching and developing sonar technology to advanced tanks and armor is, in my mind, not sensible. And the idea that you are investing in a percentage chance that remains constant is also problematic. As I see it, the more you invest, and the longer you continue that investement the greater your chances are of making advancement. For example lets say you invest 1250 in research and put all of it into industrial production - you now have a set % chance of improvement in that area for the rest of the game, or until you switch catagory of research. My suggestion would be to make the research significantly more expensive, BUT make it accumulitive. Say for every 10 MPP you purchase 1 research %. So one turn you invest 20MPP, 2% chance - the next trurn you invest 20MPP more, add another 2% to a total of 4% chance. I think this would more accurately depict the nature of research, the more you fund, the longer you fund it, the better your chances are for success. To ensure you cannot just "buy" technology, perhaps cap the total % chance available to say 33%, or 50%. Also make stiff penalties for moving research funds from one technology to another - say 50% reduction.

OK Comment number two. Airpower is simply too powerful in some senses and too weak in others. I know many others have commented on this, and there seems to be an unhealthy sense of animosity towards anyone who makes comments about the game. Dont dismiss someones ideas simply because you dont agree with them. Hear me out on this. Whether I am right or not, I cannot prove. But I dont think during WWII any corps or army was ever completely destroyed by nothing by air power. Yes they can be decimated, but not completely destroyed. Think about it. An ary, 60,000 trained, supplied, deplyed, armed troops with all of their equipment, supplies, everything based behind enemy lines - can be eliminated as a fighting force because of air power alone? In one week? No contact with ANY ground forces, several hexes from the front? I just cannot buy this. However I cannot overstate the importance of air power - I just think there should be a limit on the total degree of punishment they can inflict on ground troops - say in any one turn they cannot decrease a units strength by more than half. So an army with a strength of 10 cannot drop below a 5 by being attacked by air power alone - a 6 to a 3, etc... This would still significantly impact the unit without allowing it to be destroyed.

And here is my major grip against the game, you cannot attack with multiple units. How innacurate, and STRATEGICALLY unrealistic is this? One of the most basic of military strategies is to bring overwhelming force to bear on specific areas in order to break the enemy line. This is made virtually undoable unless more than one unit can attack at a time. Say a french corps is bounded by two german armies and one tank division. 30,000 french troops facing more than 100,000 german troops along with 25,000 mechanized units/tanks/etc... With those units having to attach one on one - I have found depending on circumstances you can end up with significant losses to the attacking units with little or no reduction of strength to the defender. In reality that sitation would have unfolded very differently - a combined attack would have been much more likely to succeed than the three units attacking individually, in turn. Please introduce this option in the future.

Another observation, strategic warefare is very inaccurate. Germans spend 300+ MPP to build a sub, ship it out to the atlantic, and it sinks only 20 MPP of britian before it is sunk! Or worse yet Britian flys a strategic bombing mission to hit a german port or industrial complex. It knocks a whopping 3 MPP from Germanys total - come on!!! Usually the damage to the bombers cost more than the damage to the attacked industry. During the middle of WWII germans subs were sinking thousands of tons of supplies sent to the UK each week. That is in no way reflected by one ot two subs having to be placed within striking distance of only TWO ports. Plus they invariably get sunk within a turn or two. As germany I never even bother - it is not a good investement to throw MPP away with little or no relative return. Also towards the end of the way when the allies were decimating german industry and supplies - germany at this point in the game is taking in 300-400 MPP a turn - the allies bomb two or three german supply or industrial complexes - with what result? What incredible damage did they do???? 5 MPP. Lets please look at this and see what other suggestions we can come up with. Perhaps making the strategic bombers and subs stronger, doing significantly more damage, make them cheaper , and perhaps make the subs harder to detect. Remember this aspect of the war was perhaps the key element in germany almost strangling britian into sumbission - and in the allies ability to choke off german production. That is simply not depicted in this game.

I have other comments which may be relevant, addiding additional space for activity in north africa - making it an actual relevant part of the game. Allowing production from or by Canada - yes the canadians actually contributed to the war effort - a rather significant effort I might add. Accurately reflecting the US industrial might. The US begins with 180 MPP. Come on, Germany begins the game in 1939 with 120!!! The US industrial might directed toward the european theater (not including that produced in support of pacific operations) was far far larger than britians, and approached that of the russians (with their overstated 500+ MPP). Let me conclude by saying that my ideas are not all right, if you disagree with me I respect that. But disagree with ideas of your own, discuss the ideas, dont just be a disgruntaled antagonist. Degrading and attacking someone elses ideas dont lead any more credence or legitimacy to your own. Let me know what you think!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

Operation Gomorrah isn't an example of a combat unit being wiped out by bombing. It's an example of a city being strategically bombed.

I'm not questioning whether the Allies could drop bombs - they did - I'm questioning whether they ever destroyed an entire army or corps.

So you admit that the allies can sustain delivering a large volume of bombs onto an area target for a period of a week or longer, you admit that airpower in smaller (Cobra sized) doses can destroy individual Divisions - but you feel that armies and corps are somehow not vulnerable to this sort of attack? Why?

And I'm simply amazed that having read the article you think that "the Panzer Lehr fought virtually to the last man among the shell holes and craters of their division" doesn't imply action against ground forces.

This is simply weaseling and a poor effort at it to boot.

Having taken 70% losses in the first hour of bombing (I see you no longer dispute that), PL was still in a position to 'fight to the last man' - the reality of course was that having taken massive casualties to the air attack, the last man was not very far off and the fight was, on a divisional scale, of little consequence.

Now Bayerlein's original quote may have been solely in reference to the bombing. I don't have the original quote so I don't know, but based on the quoted article it is not clear.

The article you quote is UTTERLY clear, the bombing lasted 3 hours, the quote is 'after the first hour - 70% casualties' (or words to that effect) - feel free to provide an interpretation that excludes the bombing in the above scenario.

Perhaps, but belief in decisiveness!= proof of destruction.

More weaselling, the German commanders were on the spot and seeing it with their own eyes - I will accept their accounts over your opinion.

Let me say it again, show me evidence of an army or corp being destroyed by airpower.

Falaise.

[ September 17, 2002, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: husky65 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Scorpion_sk:

Thanks for your support, guys.

I feel a lot better now ;)

I didn´t even bother to read the troll´s last reply to me, I just skipped over it.

yes, its better to remain ignorant and to continue to propose rubbish based on that lack of subject knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SirReal:

Bruce, it's so nice to see someone take up a fight against a troll! =)

Especially since the troll, while profusely declaring it's historical knowledge, never actually provides the nice references you do.

/SirReal

I believe you mean Brian. I didn't give any references and I don't label someone as a "Troll" simply because they have an arrogant way of stating their case (neither did Brian for that matter). A "Troll" is someone who 'posts with the sole purpose of attracting predictable responses or flames'.

[ September 17, 2002, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Husky65, I'm not quite sure why you need to get so heated up over this. It's just a discussion about a game.

Originally posted by husky65:

So you admit that the allies can sustain delivering a large volume of bombs onto an area target for a period of a week or longer

Never questioned.

...you admit that airpower in smaller (Cobra sized) doses can destroy individual Divisions
In conjunction with ground forces, yes. Indeed airpower, in conjunction with ground forces, can destroy corps and armies. Not the issue.

...but you feel that armies and corps are somehow not vulnerable to this sort of attack? Why?
Scale, circumstances and history.

Scale: I can destroy a platoon with one well-placed bomb. It doesn't follow that I can just as easily take out a company with three well-placed bombs, a battallion with ten well-placed bombs, and so on.

A larger formation not only means more targets, it means a much larger footprint. They are vulnerable, but not to the same degree.

Circumstances: All of the examples put forward have involved air in conjunction with ground forces:

[1]Cobra: air and ground forces

[2]Montelier: air and ground forces

[3]Falaise: air and ground forces

History: It never happened. I'm still waiting for an example of a corps or army destroyed by air power alone.

This is simply weaseling and a poor effort at it to boot.
OK. I promise to weasel better in future.

Having taken 70% losses in the first hour of bombing (I see you no longer dispute that)
Dude, I was conceded it was possible the first time you posted it. I'm still not sure it's correct.

Why?

1) We know there was ground fighting after the bombing.

2) Elsewhere Bayerlein puts losses due to air at 50%:

He (Bayerlein) also estimated that about 50 % of the soldiers killed and wounded during those two days (July 24 & 25) were the result of the carpet-bombing.

http://home.swipnet.se/normandy/gerob/pzdiv/lehr.html

Bayerlein: "We had the main losses by pattern bombing, less by artillery, still less by tanks and smaller arms."

The actual losses of dead and wounded were approximately: </font>[*]by bombing 50% </font>[*]by artillery 30% </font>[*]by other weapons 20%

http://www.aero-web.org/history/wwii/d-day/13.htm

PL was still in a position to 'fight to the last man' - the reality of course was that having taken massive casualties to the air attack, the last man was not very far off and the fight was, on a divisional scale, of little consequence.
It was sufficient to limit American advances until the following day.

The article you quote is UTTERLY clear, the bombing lasted 3 hours, the quote is 'after the first hour - 70% casualties' (or words to that effect) - feel free to provide an interpretation that excludes the bombing in the above scenario.
When did I exclude the effects of bombing? My very first post on this subject put it at 50% damage.

Perhaps, but belief in decisiveness!= proof of destruction.

More weaselling, the German commanders were on the spot and seeing it with their own eyes - I will accept their accounts over your opinion.

Husky65, the Panzer Lehr was not destroyed. It stayed in the line for almost two weeks before being reorganisation and refitting.

I am not, ever have, and probably never will argue airpower has no combat effect. The point I've been arguing since my first post is that airpower alone - note the "alone" bit - did not destroy corps or armies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is my major grip against the game, you cannot attack with multiple units. How innacurate, and STRATEGICALLY unrealistic is this? One of the most basic of military strategies is to bring overwhelming force to bear on specific areas in order to break the enemy line. This is made virtually undoable unless more than one unit can attack at a time. Say a french corps is bounded by two german armies and one tank division. 30,000 french troops facing more than 100,000 german troops along with 25,000 mechanized units/tanks/etc... With those units having to attach one on one - I have found depending on circumstances you can end up with significant losses to the attacking units with little or no reduction of strength to the defender. In reality that sitation would have unfolded very differently - a combined attack would have been much more likely to succeed than the three units attacking individually, in turn. Please introduce this option in the future.

I think that there should be a readiness and/

or supply hit in this case (as suggested earlier).

IOW each attack will improve the odds of the next

one. Simple yet does what we want multiple

attacks to do.

John DiFool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that there should be a readiness and/

or supply hit in this case (as suggested earlier).

IOW each attack will improve the odds of the next

one. Simple yet does what we want multiple

attacks to do.

John DiFool

This sounds reasonable to me - it would more accurately reflect the possibility of a single unit fending off attacks by multiple opponents by consuming greater amounts of ammunition and supplies. I think it is entirely inaccurate to have a unit attacked - and after that attack its readiness and supply levels remain unchanged. If those values are affected during each turn by an attack they would add value to subsequent attacks by other units. Which is more accurate and in my opinion fair.

One additional thought - why do existing units automatically upgrade (not in unit strength but in attack/defend/movement values) when technology upgrades are made? Would it not be more accurate to require reinforcement or "re-armament" of existing units before they were brought up to the level of advancement as brand new units?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not have any real knowledge concerning the ability of air power to destroy a corps/army IRL (but I am happy to listen to arguments on both sides). But in SC, if you destroy a unit that does *not* mean that literally every asset that belonged to that unit has been destroyed, only that the unit as a whole is *effectively* destroyed.

So if the attack following (or during if you insist - it makes no real difference to SC) operation Cobra (and others) suffered minimal casualties and minimal time delay (by comparison with the time scale in SC) then the unit *was* destroyed for the purpose of the SC abstraction.

In SC if a unit has *any* combat strength left at all then this represents a 2-4 week delay for the attacker that does the mopping up since there is no movement after combat. I do not think this would be realistic. Therefore IMO air power must be able to 'destroy' ground units in SC. Perhaps it should be more difficult and I certainly think ground units should get AA advances, but certainly it should be frequently possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SirReal:

Bruce, it's so nice to see someone take up a fight against a troll! =)

Especially since the troll, while profusely declaring it's historical knowledge, never actually provides the nice references you do.

/SirReal

I was only trying to expand the discussion... don't know where profusely is indicated. Whats the purpose of your comments Sir knob? To inflame....Article name and author should be sufficient even for a knob. My source was printed in the March 2002 World War II magazine, (by the way, nice ad for battlefront.com.) The author is a living member of the 79th. And you? Some knob no doubt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Doomsday1:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SirReal:

Bruce, it's so nice to see someone take up a fight against a troll! =)

Especially since the troll, while profusely declaring it's historical knowledge, never actually provides the nice references you do.

/SirReal

I was only trying to expand the discussion... don't know where profusely is indicated. Whats the purpose of your comments Sir knob? To inflame....Article name and author should be sufficient even for a knob. My source was printed in the March 2002 World War II magazine, (by the way, nice ad for battlefront.com.) The author is a living member of the 79th. And you? Some knob no doubt.</font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bruce70:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doomsday1:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SirReal:

[qb]Bruce, it's so nice to see someone take up a fight against a troll! =)

Especially since the troll, while profusely declaring it's historical knowledge, never actually provides the nice references you do.

/SirReal

qb]</font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bruce70 is right, Doomsday1 - I believe that SirReal was referring to husky65 (what is it with the names with numbers, BTW? I feel like I'm playing Bingo with grogs). tongue.gif

Like Bruce70, I don't think husky65 is trolling, although I do think his debating style is unnecessarily aggressive. I'm consciously avoiding engaging in a flame war. smile.gif

For the record I found your contribution interesting and useful, both in terms of adding another slant on the historical data, and for your thoughts on the game. So there. :D

[ September 18, 2002, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with husky65's argument that the kind of damage inflicted on Panzer Lehr on 25 July could have been repeated by the USAAF for another six days.

Having said that, I thought it would be interesting to follow his argument and see whether it stood up on it's own merits. My source for the quotes and figures is Steven J Zaloga's "Operation Cobra 1944" (ISBN 84176 296 2).

Talking of the USAAF combined FGA and bomber attacks on Panzer Lehr:

"The effect on the German defenses was devastating. Of the 3,600 troops under Panzer Lehr Division's immediate control, about 1,000 were killed in the bombing attack, and at least as many wounded or severely dazed. The German communications network, which depended heavily on field telephones, was completely disrupted. The only combat effective unit available to the division by late morning was Kampfgruppe Heintz, which was stationed to the south-east outside the bomb zone. But the bombing coverage was patchy. The damage was worse in the center of the bomb zone where the heavy bombers had struck, while some defensive positions closer to the American lines - including about half the tanks - had gone unscathed."

"The 25 July air attack repeated the problems of the previous day, with bombs again falling short into American lines, killing 111 and wounding 490 soldiers. among them was Lieutenant General Lesley McNair, head of Army Ground Forces, the highest ranking US officer to die in the war. The casualties were especially severe in the forward assault companies, causing significant problems in launching the initial attacks."

Panzer Lehr's casualties on day one were 2,000 men. If this could have been repeated for seven days it would have meant Seventh Army losing 14,000 men. Seventh Army's strength at the beginning of Cobra was 30,0000 men, which would have left them at 53% of their original strength. These are terrible losses for a unit to endure, but it is also very far from destruction.

It is ironic that husky65's intial criticisms hinged on a perceived misunderstanding of the game's scale. Panzer Lehr was severely mauled by the USAAF, but Panzer Lehr was only one of nine divisions in Seventh Army. No other divisions that day received the same kind of attention from the USAAF.

The friendly casualties inflicted by the bombing attacks were a prime reason for the US Army not adopting the same tactic again in the war. Perhaps Hubert could patch in the possibility of casualties to adjacent friendly units when strategic bombers are attacking enemy ground units. smile.gif

I agree with the inital post's assertion that the mega air campaign that many games end up as is ahistorical and detrimental to playability. I seem to remember that a similar problem occurred with the 1st edition of Third Reich where London kept falling to paratroop attacks supported by overwhelming air. The solution adopted in the next edition was to limit the amount of air that could be brought to bear on ground units. Unfortunately I can't find the 3rd edition rules as I'm decorating and my library looks like it's been carpet bombed! Perhaps someone could enlighten me?

Three pssible solutions to the problem of mega air fleets suggested themselves to me:

1. Requiring air fleets to have bases. Building new bases would take a turn and require the expenditure of MPPs.

2. Limiting the number of air fleets which could attack an individual ground unit per turn.

3. Limiting the total number of air fleets a country could deploy. This could be linked to the current MPP total. For example, Britain has an MPP total of 130 and is allowed to deploy an air fleet for every 30 MPP she brings in each turn. This would allow Britain to deploy four air units, with the ability to deploy more as conquests increase her MPPs. I don't know if this would work in practice though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Archibald:

The only combat effective unit available to the division by late morning was Kampfgruppe Heintz

In SC terms non-combat effective means destroyed, so the division was effectively destoyed on the first day.

Panzer Lehr's casualties on day one were 2,000 men. If this could have been repeated for seven days it would have meant Seventh Army losing 14,000 men. Seventh Army's strength at the beginning of Cobra was 30,000 men, which would have left them at 53% of their original strength.
From the previous paragraph I would assume that 53% strength translates to 'combat ineffective'. So again in terms of SC that means strength zero.

Also we are considering the effects of the units deployed for this operation. How many air-fleets/strat bombers is that in SC terms? What if more were used?

Three pssible solutions to the problem of mega air fleets suggested themselves to me:

1. Requiring air fleets to have bases. Building new bases would take a turn and require the expenditure of MPPs.

2. Limiting the number of air fleets which could attack an individual ground unit per turn.

3. Limiting the total number of air fleets a country could deploy...

1. would add a considerable amount of complexity to the game and surely couldn't be considered as a change for SC1

2. I am dead against. This is a "what-if" game. If a player wants to mass their air attacks why shouldn't they be allowed? If there is a problem with massed air attacks IRL make it a similar abstracted problem in SC, don't make it impossible.

3. I realise you are suggesting changes to improve the playability of the game but even so the rules should be justifiable in some way. I can't think of any justification for this. Surely Brittain (for example) could have built nothing but air-fleets if they had wished.

[ September 18, 2002, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would people feel about this:

Leave air-fleets as they are when attacking a full strength unit. But as the unit is depleted, the number of viable targets decreases and the level of dispersion increases (if only because the previous attacks left holes in the line). The fewer targets would mean that tac bombers should be less effective against depleted units and the increased dispersion would mean that strat bombing should be less effective against depleted units. You could certainly argue against the reduced effect for strat bombers so maybe its best to leave them as they are since no-one seems to have a problem with them anyway.

The net result would mean that ground units would be slightly harder to destroy, without actually changing the initial effectiveness of the air fleets. It would still be possible to destroy ground units but players would know that they can do more damage by spreading their air attacks.

Does anyone object to this *in principle*?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bruce70:

How would people feel about this:

Leave air-fleets as they are when attacking a full strength unit. But as the unit is depleted, the number of viable targets decreases and the level of dispersion increases (if only because the previous attacks left holes in the line). The fewer targets would mean that tac bombers should be less effective against depleted units and the increased dispersion would mean that strat bombing should be less effective against depleted units. You could certainly argue against the reduced effect for strat bombers so maybe its best to leave them as they are since no-one seems to have a problem with them anyway.

The net result would mean that ground units would be slightly harder to destroy, without actually changing the initial effectiveness of the air fleets. It would still be possible to destroy ground units but players would know that they can do more damage by spreading their air attacks.

Does anyone object to this *in principle*?

I think your suggestion is fair and more accurate than the current rules. I guess what bothers me most about the current system is not that air power can destroy individual units - it has been done before. But this happened only in extream cases where virtually every sortie available for that period of time was directed toward one particular area and where the individual unit was vunerable (not entrnched, corps sized not army size). Taking one extream case and assuming that can occur as a norm to all units in all circumstances is just not accurate. Especially considering the level of technical sophistication of early war air weapons. Perhaps we consider this, no unit can be destroyed by an air fleet attack until those fleets are at tech level 4 or 5? Sound reasonable to anyone else?

What about this suggestion: allow a greater degree of damage to corps and armor than to army units. Cap the degree of damage to a certain % per turn - perhaps no more than a 90% reduction per turn of strength due to air strikes not supported by ground troops on tanks, 70% to corps, and 50% to armies.

And here is a question perhaps someone can answer or suggest a solution to. It seems I can never retain units with significant experience. Once they get there they are so weak I am afraid not to reinforce them. The only way to gain experience is to fight, fighting brings casualties, casualties lower strength.

Usually the only units I have with more than one medal are of very low strengh (6 or below). Is there a practical way of reinforcing these units without losing all of the experience gained? Simply not reinforcing them leaves your best units vunerable to a collective attack, Thus the dilema, reinforce and strengthen but loose experience or retain veteran skill but decrease strength?

I am sure there is a middle ground here somwhere, any suggestions on what has worked for you? Break even point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To ignore the current grog poo flinging contest and get back to the matter of game balance...

I would agree that AA tech should give ground units SOME ability to withstand air attacks as the easiest solution. Don't know how much and whether it should be limited to just against the fighter units. That would have to be play-tested. Keep in mind that a tech advance applies to all units for the rest of the game, you don't have to keep paying for it, so it could be a major change.

Questions:

Has anybody bothered to max AA tech out in a game yet?

Does anybody bother to invest in it at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give the relevant quote again:

"The effect on the German defenses was devastating. Of the 3,600 troops under Panzer Lehr Division's immediate control, about 1,000 were killed in the bombing attack, and at least as many wounded or severely dazed. The German communications network, which depended heavily on field telephones, was completely disrupted. The only combat effective unit available to the division by late morning was Kampfgruppe Heintz, which was stationed to the south-east outside the bomb zone. But the bombing coverage was patchy. The damage was worse in the center of the bomb zone where the heavy bombers had struck, while some defensive positions closer to the American lines - including about half the tanks - had gone unscathed."

And your comment on this:

"In SC terms non-combat effective means destroyed, so the division was effectively destoyed on the first day."

Kampfgruppe Heintz was still combat effective, while some defensive positions and about half the tanks left to the division had gone unscathed. Panzer Lehr took a terrible kicking at the hands of the USAAF, but it still contained units able to offer some resistance to VII Corp's ground attack. Air power had destroyed much of Panzer Lehr's combat power, but not all of it.

In SC terms this would translate into a greatly reduced ground unit finished off by ground attacks rather than one destroyed by air alone. VII Corps were not able to take bloodless possession of the ground in the manner which follows most SC mega air assaults.

To answer your query about the number of air units involved, 1,800 heavy bombers carried out the attack on 25th July. This was a major effort. This translates into 16,200 bomber sorties to inflict similar treatment on all nine divisions of Seventh Army. This doesn't take into account the air units needed to inflict similar damage to Army assets. I'd be grateful if someone could tell me, but I doubt whether either the RAF or the USAAF ever managed that many heavy bomber sorties against a single target in one week.

It would not be possible to sustain 1,800 bomber attacks regularly for a whole week. Crew and equipment fatigue, plus the ever changeable British weather would have mitigated against it. In fact the heavy bomber strike inflicted on Panzer Lehr was originally scheduled for the 24th July, but had to be cancelled due to overcast conditions over the battlefield. Some air units never received the recall in time and inflicted casualties on Panzer Lehr of about 350 men and 10 vehicles.

Taking this into account the projected casualty figures for Seventh Army fall off dramatically. In two days, Panzer Lehr lost 2,350 men, which translates into 8,225 men if this was sustained for a week. 8,225 men from 30,000 would leave Seventh Army at 73% of their original manning. These are still heavy losses when coupled with the inevitable disruption of C3, but it would still leave a formation capable of offering resistance to a ground attack.

Another point to consider about Panzer Lehr's immolation is that it had already taken heavy losses prior to the bombing attack. To quote Zaloga again:

"Although Panzer Lehr had entered Normandy earlier in the summer fully equipped, it had taken heavy losses in men and materiel during the July fighting. By 23 July it had been reduced to 80 tanks of which only 16 Panthers and 15 PzKpfw IV tanks were operational. Under the division's command was a new battalion from the 5th Parachute Division, the battalion-strength Kampfgruppe Heintz from the reserve 275th Division, and the small Kampfgruppe Brosow from the 2nd SS Panzer Division. The combat value of Panzer Lehr Division was graded as Kampfwert III, that is suitable for defensive missions. The Panzer Lehr Division rotated its few remaining tanks in and out of front-line duty like a string of pearls between the dismounted panzer grenadier companies."

The USAAF did not attack a fresh rested division, but one so worn down and stretched that Bayerlein, counter to German Army doctrine, had to put the bulk of his armour well forward just to cover the front line. Consequently, the bulk of his combat power lay under the bomb carpet. If Panzer Lehr had still been at full strength his combat power would have been more dispersed and much of his reserves would probably have survived the initial air attack.

I don't doubt that by the end of July 25th Bayerlein's staff were reporting Panzer Lehr as Kampfwert V (unsuitable for combat). This doesn't mean however that it was unable to fight at all. Units at Kampfwert V would be kept in the line if it were a dire necessity, with the understanding that they would be relieved as soon as it was practicable. It was a commonplace in Russia by this time, and when Cobra began 243rd Infantry division were already at Kampfwert V and still in the line on Seventh Army's left wing.

To continue the SC analogy, a unit sharing Panzer Lehr's fate would begin the turn heavily depleted by four or five turns of ground combat and FGA. The heavy bomber attack would further reduce it, while a ground unit would finish the job before another unit moved in to take possession.

I appreciated your comments about my suggestions as to how to remedy the problem of too much air power.

1. Requiring air fleets to have bases. Building new bases would take a turn and require the expenditure of MPPs.

"would add a considerable amount of complexity to the game and surely couldn't be considered as a change for SC1"

Agreed. It would require a major rewrite of the game.

2. Limiting the number of air fleets which could attack an individual ground unit per turn.

"I am dead against. This is a "what-if" game. If a player wants to mass their air attacks why shouldn't they be allowed? If there is a problem with massed air attacks IRL make it a similar abstracted problem in SC, don't make it impossible."

I remember similar debates regarding this kind of rule amendment in Third Reich. I have to agree with you that it does seem a bit of an arbitary limit. I do think it would make for a more enjoyable end game however. It's really down to personal taste, so perhaps it could be introduced as a variable like partisans or scorched earth which players could mutually agree on before play.

3. Limiting the total number of air fleets a country could deploy. This could be linked to the current MPP total. For example, Britain has an MPP total of 130 and is allowed to deploy an air fleet for every 30 MPP she brings in each turn. This would allow Britain to deploy four air units, with the ability to deploy more as conquests increase her MPPs. I don't know if this would work in practice though!

"I realise you are suggesting changes to improve the playability of the game but even so the rules should be justifiable in some way. I can't think of any justification for this. Surely Brittain (for example) could have built nothing but air-fleets if they had wished."

Germany was still cranking out masses of aircraft until the final collapse, but from Operation Bodenplatte onwards the Luftwaffe played no major part in the war. The reason for this was that due to allied bombing and the loss of Ploesti they no longer had the aviation fuel to fly them. The availability of critical resources was definitely a limiting factor on the ability to operate aircraft.

To address your own suggestion:

"How would people feel about this: Leave air-fleets as they are when attacking a full strength unit. But as the unit is depleted, the number of viable targets decreases and the level of dispersion increases (if only because the previous attacks left holes in the line). The fewer targets would mean that tac bombers should be less effective against depleted units and the increased dispersion would mean that strat bombing should be less effective against depleted units. You could certainly argue against the reduced effect for strat bombers so maybe its best to leave them as they are since no-one seems to have a problem with them anyway."

"The net result would mean that ground units would be slightly harder to destroy, without actually changing the initial effectiveness of the air fleets. It would still be possible to destroy ground units but players would know that they can do more damage by spreading their air attacks."

"Does anyone object to this *in principle*?"

I agree with this in principle. It addresses the fact that massive bombardments begin to meet diminishing returns. I would be worried that players would begin to juggle unit strength levels so that they are just at the break point for air power being weakened and no more. Another approach to the problem would be to ensure that subsequent attacks become increasingly less effective.

For example, ten air fleets are attacking a ground unit. The first unit inflicts damage at 100% strength, the second at 90%, the third at 80% and so on. This would still allow mega air assaults, but players would have to weigh the merits of the diminishing utility of further attacks on the same unit. It would encourage players to spread their attacks about, but it wouldn't force them to.

Another suggestion that struck me for limiting air power is that of treating aircraft construction and reinforcement in the same way as naval units. As with naval units in ports, air units would only be constructed and reinforced in towns. This still allows massive attacks from units not based in towns, but, like naval units, they would find it difficult to sustain this for turn after turn in the same way as naval units do. The historical justification for this would be the difficulty in maintaining continual operations away from established repair and maintenance facilities.

Again, this could be an option available before start of play. I'd be interested to try it if you want a tester Hubert! smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that applying AA technology to ground units is a reasonable approach to this suggested problem. It might, however exacerbate another issue which is the difficulty that the Allies, and Soviets in particular, have in gaining any experience so that they can face the Luftwaffe.

Another out-of-the-box tweak might be to reduce the range of air fleets by one or two hexes. The only reason a half-dozen air fleets can hit one unit is because they can all reach it (especially on the Western front). Reducing air units' range will have two effects: first, fewer air units can reach any particular hex on the map; and second, more down time while they are "rebased" to forward positions. Both of these effects reduce the apparent overeffectiveness of air fleets.

I would suggest only reducing Air Fleets range and not Bombers. By giving a bigger range advantage to Bombers their relative value increases and they may be used more.

I also think this would be more historical, and I use that word loosely. As I understand it, tactical and fighter groups typically did not fly all the way across the front or to their maximum range to engage (the exception being Bomber escorts). They were assigned sectors and mostly stayed in them until they were rebased.

To go along with this, I agree with some other suggestions that air units movement allowance should be double their strike range.

[ September 18, 2002, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: USGrant ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...