Norse Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 Hubert, your vision on how to simulate the second world war is outstanding!! I downloaded the demo and I can't stop playing it. Look, I would even pay for the beta version, just name the price Anyway, I just wanted to compliment your good work. Now my small comment: Strategic bombing! When you send off a bomber unit(worth 500 MPP's) to do some strategic bombing against a harbor or a major industrial area, then the one's getting hurt the most is yourself. I mean, the bomber takes a couple hits and it will cost about 50MPP's to repair it, while the harbour only takes 2 MPP's or so in damage! (It is even worse to bombard a harbour with a battleship) Well, maybe this is the way you want it to be. Then the idea with strategic bombing is not to knock out the enemy's military production capability (the enemy's ecenomy), but to reduce the level of supply for some units by taking out some harbours. Am I right on this? As far as I know, strategic bombing on the eastern-front were very minimal, with this in mind that would make sence in this game. Strat bombing on the western-front were very heavy, perhaps in this game this would mean that the allies (or the axis) are trying to soften up enemy units by reducing their level of supply, before the real invasion begins. Is this your idea with strategic bombing? Anyway, FANTASTIC game, it is extremely promising and we play your demo in awe and admiration -Norse- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 Originally posted by Norse: Strategic bombing! When you send off a bomber unit(worth 500 MPP's) to do some strategic bombing against a harbor or a major industrial area, then the one's getting hurt the most is yourself. I mean, the bomber takes a couple hits and it will cost about 50MPP's to repair it, while the harbour only takes 2 MPP's or so in damage! (It is even worse to bombard a harbour with a battleship) Strat bombing on the western-front were very heavy, You are forgetting the timeframe of the demo, West front strat bombing only became effective Late 43/44 (the tonnage of bombs dropped by US/Brit bombers only exceeded 50,000 tons a month in april 44 - in Aug 41 it was only 4,242 tons). Without looking up the exact quote it was said of the early Brit bombing effort (at the time) "that it was only known that we were exporting a certain amount of bombs in the general direction of Germany" and some of the bombing was so inaccurate that even the Germans could not determine which city had been the target! Do a search for the Butts report on bombing accuracy, it was when they realised that serious steps had to be taken to increase the accuracy of bombing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloid Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 I have to think that research in "heavy bombers" or what ever it's called, would underscore Husky's point. Early in the war, the brits are using what... Wellingtons? No Norden bombsight, or true heavy bomber. (Could be wrong on early Brit bombers though) Waiting, waiting, waiting... :confused: Aloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 Originally posted by Aloid: Early in the war, the brits are using what... Wellingtons? No Norden bombsight, or true heavy bomber. (Could be wrong on early Brit bombers though) The first Wellingtons were delivered to RAF Sqns in 1939, the Armstrong Whitley was the first 'heavy' bomber in RAF service (entering in 1937) - max loaded weight of the a/c (Whitley III) was 24,430lbs, not much higher than the max bombload of a Lancaster Special. Early war strategic bombing should be ineffectual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNac Posted June 28, 2002 Share Posted June 28, 2002 strategic bombing on the eastern-front were very minimal not true. the luftwaffe was a major part of the initial effort in the russian war. not only destroying the enemy air units in ground, and as CAS or atacking military units, but destroying a great part of the production capability of soviets, in a few weeks the luftwaffe had destroyed a lot of factories and damaged the supply and logitic system of the soviet a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kodiakwdj Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 Strategic bombing was pretty much a flop anyway. If you look at the stats, Germany was producing more of every class of war material in 1945 than in any other year right up until the point when the Allies overran the factories. At best Strategic bombing was a nuisance and may have slowed German production some but Germany's real problem was manpower not material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 With all due respect to kodiak, stategic bombing was NO FLOP!!!!! The whole reason the allies won in europe (at least a big reason) iwas the American 8tH AND 15th airforces and the british bomber command. Sure the production #'s were high in 1945, but all those tanks and aircraft the built....... COULDNT MOVE! The air campaign completly destroyed the axis oil industry. That my friend, is NO flop! :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloid Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim: With all due respect to kodiak, stategic bombing was NO FLOP!!!!! The whole reason the allies won in europe (at least a big reason) iwas the American 8tH AND 15th airforces and the british bomber command. Sure the production #'s were high in 1945, but all those tanks and aircraft the built....... COULDNT MOVE! The air campaign completly destroyed the axis oil industry. That my friend, is NO flop! :mad: And the transporation infrastructure, as well as causing the German war effort to expend a great deal of effort dispersing it's manufacturing infrastructure. Finally, by the end of the war, the Germany Air Arm had very Green pilots, because they had been warn down to the bone by Allied Air activity... There's more, but I have to leave work and go home... my margarita is waiting for me! Aloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USGrant Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 I think the fundamental question is "did WWII bombers, regardless of technology level, ever cost more than the damage they caused?" This seems to be the case in the demo years. I think that the answer is no, and suggest that Hubert look at tweaks. The same question can be asked about submarines - especially in demo time - but that has been beaten to death here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 Thank you very much aloid. Now you all are beginning to see airpower's potency in war :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 Originally posted by Kodiakwdj: Strategic bombing was pretty much a flop anyway. The bombing effort was effective in a number of areas, it forced the Germans to react, provided the allies for a way to hit back, forced the germans to build an entire day and night air defence system - deploying thousands of 88mm Flak guns as AA weapons rather than as AT weapons, it forced the Germans to disperse factories, and the day effort drew the luftwaffe up to be destroyed by escorts allowing the D-Day invasion to proceed, the oil offensive and transport offensives meant that the German military was starved of fuel at its most critical time. The question isn't how much did the Germans produce given the bombing?, its how much could they have produced without it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 Ahhhhhh my work here is done...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudel Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 Having played a few games, I can't imagine why anyone would spend the mpps on Strategic bombers, and then the mpps required to reinforce them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 Airpower is a must in any war. Just ask Saddam or Bin Laden. I still cant believe that a 14 year old can understand this concept but not you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudel Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 I was talking about this game. Not about Iraq. In this game, the strategic airpower does nothing worthwile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 You are missing the piont Hans ulrich Rudel all air power is decisive, it has been since ww2. I agree that in the demo it is not but thats just because the brits havent bulked up bomber command yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 Even with a name like rudel yuo dont see.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim: Airpower is a must in any war. Just ask Saddam or Bin Laden. I still cant believe that a 14 year old can understand this concept but not you.Ask the North Vietnamese... Airpower is not the be all and end all, combined arms is far more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloid Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 Originally posted by USGrant: I think the fundamental question is "did WWII bombers, regardless of technology level, ever cost more than the damage they caused?" This seems to be the case in the demo years. I think that the answer is no, and suggest that Hubert look at tweaks. The same question can be asked about submarines - especially in demo time - but that has been beaten to death here.I would tend to think the answer is yes in the early years, and no later. Early on, the Allies got their head handed to them on more than one occasion. It took better escorts to help fix that, and a waering down of German defenses. That said, USGrant has a good question. In game terms, will we see this kind of evolution in effectiveness? Time will tell... perhaps next week, after I have the damn game airdropped on my house!!! Aloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooper Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 Lets not forget the reason for the heavy air war over Germany during WWII. For a long time, the United States and Great Britan had no front with the Germans. They could afford to build massive bomber fleets during WWII because untill mid 44 there wasn't any land troops to support (no other way to spend there massive "MPP" in direct conflict with Germany). All their efforts to create a second front for Stalin was through the air. If the US and GB had a land border with Germany from 42 on there probably would not have been the massive bomber fleet build up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kodiakwdj Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 In the first place you are confusing tactical airpower with strategic. Bombing german factories, or North Vietnam's factories or Iraq's factories is Strategic bombing. Attacking tanks, planes, infantry and supplies are for the most part tactical. This has been far more succesful than strategic bombing has ever been in any war. As some one pointed out earlier strategic bombing is primarily symbolic and has never won a war yet. In fact the Italian General who invented the concept stated its intended purpose was to strike terror into the hearts of the civilian population and thus destroy a countries will to fight. It has never accomplished this once. Not against the British in WWII or the Russians or the Germans. If that isnt the intent then why did we bomb Berlin suburbs flat? Why did we firebomb Dresden flat? Why did we nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki? All of those cities had two things in common; militarily they where about valuless but physically they were mostly intact so they made good demonstration targets. Airpower has neve won a war and never will. If the Allies destroyed the German oil industry with strategic bombing how is it they managed to mount all those little offensives in 1944 - 45 like the Battle of the Bulge. The fact of the matter is ground troops denied them the oilfields and they were producing synthetic fuel in factories. How were they able to shift troops back and forth from the eastern front to the western front right up to the end of the war? How come we couldnt stop the Scud missles in Iraq? These are just a few thought that come to mind if airpower is so effective. Again I say airpower is mostly ineffective, largely symbolic and nobody (except an airdale) ever believed it won a war. WIth all due respect IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted June 29, 2002 Share Posted June 29, 2002 ORIGIANNLY POSTED BY COOPER:Lets not forget the reason for the heavy air war over Germany during WWII. For a long time, the United States and Great Britan had no front with the Germans. They could afford to build massive bomber fleets during WWII because untill mid 44 there wasn't any land troops to support whoa, what dod you mean no frony line, we were dighting for our lives in North Africa, and than in Sicily and italy. The reason we had bobmber fleets wasnt that, it was because the us auto industry converted to aircraft production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorski Posted July 1, 2002 Share Posted July 1, 2002 England can trade mpp's with Germany at about a 1:2 ratio by strat bombing ports with two air fleets and a strategic bomber if the Germans do not leave air fleets to intercept. This is a great exchange ratio when you have no other means to attack Germany. The mines will probably be garrisoned and the cities are too costly to strat bomb. Gorski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbellamy Posted July 1, 2002 Share Posted July 1, 2002 Has anyone ever researched Heavy Bombers to the max and then tried strat bombing? Probably a _lot_ more effective than the crappy tech at the begining of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorski Posted July 1, 2002 Share Posted July 1, 2002 I have. If I remember correctly, a strength 15 hvy bomber can do 8 damage to a mine and can fly unescorted without getting shot up too badly. Gorski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts