Strategic Bombing TOO POWERFUL

[DevilDog]

OK, I know a lot of people are going to dissagree, but hear me out. It seems every time I invade Russia as the Axis that I get hammered in the west by bombers and fighters. To the point where many of the coastal ports and cities are knocked down to zero. If I station too many fighters to defend then it becomes serious detriment to the war in Russia. Now it's not possible to determine what tech level the British bombers are at, but I assume they didn't have any tech advances.

Most of the complaints in this area are worded to request that the bomber power be INCREASED. This is completely backwords considering the time period. However, I think there is some legitimate concern in that the damage to the bombers is too prohibative. Anti-aircraft defenses at the begining of the war should be just as feeble as the bombers.

I feel there are several tweeks that could improve strategic bombing:

1. Decrease the amount of MPP damage an UNIMPROVED bomber can do to a city or port.

2. Decrease the amount of damage city defenses can do against bombers. This damage can be increased through tech advances. The damage fighters do to unimproved bombers should remain the same as this was a historical problem for the Allies for several years until the fighter range increased.

3. Fighters should be UNABLE to perform strategic bombing against cities or ports. While fighter attacks had a substantial effect against the Germans in the west (and by the Germans against the Russians in the east), these were tactical in nature. While they affected logistics and transportation within Germany, they had negligable affect on industry compared with strategic bombers. In reality fighters shouldn't be able to affect cities at the level the game is designed at.

What these tweeks would do is make someone truely invest full scale in strategic bombing if that is the strategy they want to pursue. While being expensive (due to the need for bomber research, and the purchase of several bomber groups) it would keep the cost from being prohibative. And lastly, the way the game is now, fighters are much more versatile and useful than bombers, as they can double for strategic bombers. Remove the bombing capability of fighters and it would actually increase the strategic options within the game.

[Mexicano]

i agree with the point that strategic bombing is very effective, too effective perhaps.

Mexicano

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

first of all devil dog i like your signature, but AA defences were not feeble when the war began, their sighting maybe, but that can be developed in the game. The aa is not too stong, but the british bleinhems are.

[husky65]

Originally posted by DevilDog:

However, I think there is some legitimate concern in that the damage to the bombers is too prohibative. Anti-aircraft defenses at the begining of the war should be just as feeble as the bombers.

A great many very Brave and very dead Brit aircew would disagree.

Remember in the demos timeframe the Brits were still doing daylight bombing - in Hampdens, Whitleys and Wellingtons, of those the Wellington was the only one that had adequate guns and then only for night ops (where the attacker had to come in close).

Frequently daylight raids in this period were utter disasters (Such as the 14 Dec 1939 shipping raid off wilhelmshaven), the air defences of the time were doing a great job - frankly unescorted bombers should get flogged.

[DevilDog]

The bombers SHOULD NOT take as much damage by the anti-aircraft defenses in the cities. If you read my original post closely, I agree that the damage done to the bombers by fighters is pretty historical.

[BloodyBucket]

The fact that some think that bombers are too powerful, and some not powerful enough, is an indication that Hubert is pretty close to right in his design.

[Tellu]

Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

The fact that some think that bombers are too powerful, and some not powerful enough, is an indication that Hubert is pretty close to right in his design.

That my friend is a false analogy if there ever was one.

[Stalin's Organ]

How many fighters are you guys leaving in France?? I usually leave 2 - 1 just below Antwerp to cover it and Western Germany and Paris, and one over by Cherbourg.

They get lots of combat, but after a while the Brits seem to stop attacking for some reason!

IMO the early war bombers should have negligible effect on ports - an occasional loss of 1 would suffice. The bombers main effectiveness was mainly mine-layers at this stage - acctual damage with iron bombs being rare and minor.

As someone pointout out above tho - casualties from fighters were appaling, and daylight raids were abandoned by the end of 1940 (possibly earlier??).

I wonder however how much of a land garrison ppl leave in France to?? I usualy have none - it's all fighting in Yugo and/or Russia. Against a human opponent I'd expect a counter-invasion of France or Western Germany by about the end of 1940 if the Brits are up to it!!

[Narayan Sengupta]

Hi All,

I have found that it is impossible to justify the cost of Strategic Bombing, especially when bomber losses are taken into consideration.

Narayan

[Fubarno]

If you want an effective bombing campaign, invest in strategic bombing and increased range technology and have advanced fighters escort the bombers.

If you want an effective bomber defence, try investing in the AA technology and use advanced fighters to guard your airspace and put corps in your cities and ships in the harbors to protect them.

It seems balanced in an elegant manner. there are both strategies and counter-strategies to bombers, but you rely on luck for the tech advances and a weakening of other strategies as a trade-off. IMO it works.

P.S. Narayan, weren't you involved with the Panzer General series? I still have a PG2 campaign going on my hard-drive. What a fun and timeless strategy game. Good AI too.

[ August 08, 2002, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Fubarno ]

[iolo]

I've done some crude calculations and as far as I can tell there is absolutely no chance that 'strategic bombing' as a campaign could come close to being cost effective.

It looks to me like you're destroying about 1 MPP for every 10 that you spend. Of course there are a lot of randoms (research, individual bombing runs, how much the AI defends, ... ) but on average you're throwing away your money.

The total costs for research (hvy bombers + jets + long range (optional)) and for units(500! for a bomber and expensive reinforcements) are just staggering.

On average you're only taking away a handful of MPPs from the AI per turn. Late in the game, with some research luck, you might be able to reduce the output of occupied France by 50/turn if you're lucky. You would have to spend _all_ of the UK budget, every turn, in order to do this. Not worth it

If anyone can show that it does actually make something close to economic sense, please show me, I really can't see it.

[Fubarno]

I think your calculations are accurate and it's almost better to just ignore the allied bombing and concentrate on USSR elimination against the AI. I usually garrison the allied targets to discourage the bombing campaign or reduce its effectiveness.

[Tarquelne]

I'm too lazy to double click on the demo installer, and certainly too lazy to do a search, but I'm hopeing one of you kind souls will answer this question - hopefully it's a simple one:

What targets are avialble when strategic bombing? Can you specifically target facilities for a specific industry? "Strategic resource" locations (like the Polesti oil fields/refineries)? Housing? Sub pens? Wolf's Lair?

[iolo]

Yeah, the crux of it is that to repair a bomber it costs 25MPP per point and it's not uncommon for a bomber to lost 3-4+ points in a run.

When you add in the costs to repair the fighter, it's easily goes over 150MPP per run. And you do about 4-15MPP of damage (initial damage + long term).

For those _too lazy_ to install the game (!), you don't know what you're missing. For all my whining about not being able to bomb the germans, the game is incredible. The battle for Russia is so epic you will not stop until it's over...

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

The fact that some think that bombers are too powerful, and some not powerful enough, is an indication that Hubert is pretty close to right in his design.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Tellu:

That my friend is a false analogy if there ever was one.

I know this is an old post but I fail to see how BB's statement is an analogy, let alone a false one. In fact I think it is probably spot on (unless the majority opinion has changed since the release of the full game).

[Guest Mike]

I can't be bothered reading the whole thread again but consider this:

Strategic Bombing is SUPPOSED TO BE POWERFUL

It SHOULD make you divert resources to the West, possibly including air fleets - that's precisely the purpose.

If Germany hadnt done so in 1944 thre would ahve been a massacre of its industry and a massivev civilian outcry - even Hitler had to show he was defending teht homeland!!

So complaining that it's too powerful is like complaining that the allies are opposed to the Axis and keep getting in the way!! lol

[ August 08, 2002, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]

[iolo]

lol, ok, but if you do actually read the thread I think you'll find that the consensus is that:

STRATEGIC BOMBING isn't NEARLY as EFFECTIVE as it should be.

Try it sometime. You will waste literally _thousands_ of MPPs and end up doing very very little damage.

[BloodyBucket]

A lot of it has to do with hindsight. The strategic bombing offensive against Germany could have been much more effective if the proper targets had been chosen.

Is the fact that the civil population is being made suffer in a totalitarian state shown in SC by loss of MPP? Or should the results be strictly lost production? Are the results worth it to placate the Russians when there is no real diplomacy in SC? Is there political pressure to "hit back with something" in the democratic states in SC?

These are complex factors that Hubert had to contend with. His answer is his answer, not the Gospel, and the scenario editor beckons those with differing opinions. Crank up the bomber tech level. Give the Brits more bombers. Crank up the German AA level. Give the Germans more fighters. Lead the Finns to world domination. I say, go for it, publish the results and I will sit back and enjoy the fruits of your labor.

[ August 08, 2002, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]

[blackbellamy]

strategic bombing was completely and utterly ineffective until the allies targeted the axis oil resources, specifically ploesti and the synthetic plants in austria and germany

this didnt happen until late 44

until then all the strategic bombing initiative did was to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, made some trains run late, and forced the germans to disperse their industries, which they did with their typical efficiency

german industrial production, specifically airplane output, continued to increase nearly up until the end of the war

all those ball bearing factories, rail marshalling yards, and other industrial complexes that got hit didn't affect the german capacity to wage war until their airplanes and tanks ran out of fuel

american training time for bomber crews in 44 was reduced by a third in order to meet the demands of the heavy attrition sustained during the offensive - and this in a country with the largest fresh manpower reserves at that stage of the war

i am amazed that it took the allies years to figure out that oil was the only resource that mattered

if oil mattered in this game, the allies should forego any strat bombing until they have bases from which they can reach rumania, but unfortunately you don't need oil specific MPP's to rebuild your air and armor units

[Guest Mike]

Blackie there's 2 sides to every story.

While Germany did increase it's production of almost everythign hugely in 1944, one is forced to wonder if there might have been an even HIGHER increase without the strategic bombing.

That is did the bombing offensive actually slow down hte increase?

Remember that it was only in 1943 that the German economy went to a war footing - stopping production of luxuries, regulating civilian manpower, prioritising military production and all that stuff that the Brits (for example) had been enjoying since 1940.

[gorski]

The allies were not capable of bombing oil production for a long time. When they finally got around to bombing Ploesti they took 30-50% losses.(can't quite remember.)

[BloodyBucket]

"...if oil mattered in this game, the allies should forego any strat bombing until they have bases from which they can reach rumania, but unfortunately you don't need oil specific MPP's to rebuild your air and armor units"

Good point. Oil would mean a helluva lot more if it were tied to air and armor production, and that would be a very nice touch indeed.

If the allied bombing had targeted the German Power grid, things might have gotten sticky very quickly. It is hard to farm out electrical production.

[Willard]

Guys, just some thoughts on SB that have/havent be brought up.

As for the cost analysis issues (I will discuss as if Allied player is bombing) involved in SB, there are several factors:

Allied:

$ Cost to build SB

$ Cost to build Fighters

$ Cost in R&D for SB

$ Cost in R&D for Fighters

$ Cost in replacements for SB

$ Cost in replacements for Fighters

The "cost" of not spending this money elsewhere (i.e. spend it on other research or units)

Axis:

$ Cost to build Fighters

$ Cost to build Corps/Naval units to protect cities/ports/industrial areas

$ Cost in R&D for Fighters

$ Cost in R&D for AA guns

$ Cost in replacements for Fighters

$ Cost in replacements for Corps/Naval units

The "cost" of not being able to spend this money on the Eastern Front!!!

From a strategic sense, even if the Allies spend more MPP than the Axis lose, it is worth it for the Allied player. Because the point isnt to defeat the Axis with SB alone. The point is to draw enough Axis resources away from the Eastern front. Essentially the air war in the West was kept up to provide positive propaganda for the Allies and force the Axis to deploy much need assets (i.e. on the Eastern Front) in the west.

Additionally, a good Allied player will save $$ to build up the invasion forces, but the air war is needed to create that "second front" in the west. Remember, over time (which the Axis player doesnt have the luxary of wasting) the culmulative effect of drawing resources away from the Axis' Eastern front can be devastating.

Also, for those who commented on the losses in the Western Europe airwar, that is what was really like. USAF and Bomber Command took staggering losses there, because they were going up daily against the strength of the Axis. If you want a relatively inexpensive airwar, the Allies should get Sicilly and start pounding north and east (oil fields!--Ploesti). That is how it happened in reality.

[winkelried]

Maybe one should read the "THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY". Some interesting statements about the effect of US strategic bombing. See here http://www.danshistory.com/ww2/docs/ussbs_euro.html

[Marc]

Originally posted by blackbellamy:

strategic bombing was completely and utterly ineffective until the allies targeted the axis oil resources, specifically ploesti and the synthetic plants in austria and germany

this didnt happen until late 44

until then all the strategic bombing initiative did was to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, made some trains run late, and forced the germans to disperse their industries, which they did with their typical efficiency

i am amazed that it took the allies years to figure out that oil was the only resource that mattered

While Oil turned out to be the "achilles heel" for the German war effort, it wasnt the only target that mattered. Nor were allied efforts prior to concentrating on oil targets wasted. Other key targets were the logistic/tranportation infrastructure in anticipation of the Invasion, and a target not pursued, but outlined by Speer in his book, the Electrical grid system. Many ineffective targets, such as submarine pens, were struck for a combination of Politcal and Morale reasons which really dispersed the effort.

Overy, in his book "Why the Allies Won" makes the following case for reasons other then just damage to economic infrastructure for the effectiveness of Allied bombing:

"The bombing offensive caused German military leaders to drain much need air strength away from main fighting fronts to protect the Reich...By the end of 1943 there were 55,000 anti-aircraft guns to combat the air offensive--including 75 percent of the famous 88-millimetre gun...By 1944 one-third of all German artillery production consisted of anti-aircraft guns; the anti-aircraft effort absorbed 20 percent of all ammuntion produced, one-third of the output of the optical industry, and between half and two-thirds of the production of radar and signals equipment. As a result of this diversion, the German army and navy were desperately short of essential radar and communications equipment for other tasks. The bombing also ate into Germany's scarce manpower: by 1944 an estimated two million Germans were engaged in anti-aircraft defense, in repairing shattered factories and in generally cleaning up the destruction...The combined effects of direct destruction and the diversion of resources denied the German forces approximately half their battle-front weapons and equipment in 1944."

In addition, the Bombing offensive resulted in air superiority over Germany by the allies. Over two-thirds of the fighter forces on the Eastern front were transferred to the West resulting in the gradual gain of air superiority in the East by the Soviets (Von Hardesty in "Red Phoenix" has some interesting insights into the rise of Soviet Air Power during the war).

Were there problems? Of course. Ineffective targetting and the horendous loss of Allied aircrew were but two. However, it was the only effective way the Western Allies had to take the war to the Germans until an Invasion of France could be mounted.

Marc