Question Regarding Strategic Bombing

[Shep]

When an enemy ground unit occupies a city or resource, how do you initiate strategic bombing without attacking that ground unit? Does the ground unit have to be destroyed first, or is there some way to differentiate your attack so that there is only strategic bombing?

[Hubert Cater]

You have to knock out the defenders first. Bombing the unit does have an affect on entrenchment and strat bombers have the greatest affect as it lowers the entrenchment level by -2 each time.

[Shep]

hmmm. What does the necessity of destroying the unit represent? What abstraction is in play here? I know that destroying steps costs the host nation MPPs, but the inability of strat bombers to directly affect the industrial capacity of a city seems pretty blatantly ahistorical. The enemy can just keep rebuilding the unit or shuffling in new blood to prevent that. And since when do ground units stop strat bombers from hitting factories?

Willing to listen - hope you're listening too.

Respectfully,

Mark

[Sitzkrieg]

I really have to agree with Shep on this one. It is too easy for another player or the AI to simply build a bunch of relatively cheap Corps, have them occupy a town and effectively prevent any kind of strategic bombing or "blitz".

I tried a couple of times in the demo to attempt to "blitz" England. I was the one coming out on the loosing end. Sure I could knock off 5 steps on his Corp occupying London. But he could easily rebuild that while I was loosing 2-3 steps on each attacking air fleet and having to rebuild those losses.

I think strategic bombing is something that needs to be looked at and possibly changed. It is too easy to block against and too costly to execute as it stands now.

My 2 cents....

Otherwise, I have really been enjoying this demo. First game since CM:BO that has grabbed my attention and the attention of my friends as well.

Keith

[Mr. Clark]

I'm having the same problem with Strategic Bombing. It needs a little work, otherwise it seems pointless.

Everything else seems GREAT!

[ASHBERY76]

I agree with the above this part of the game needs work.

[Galatine]

Maybe you guys can help me out. Strat-bombing (with defenders or with out) seems rather useless to me.

I risk my 500 Mmp bomber to do around 1-3 Mmps of damage to a resource.

If my run is unescorted, the bomber takes 5-6 damage from enemy fighters that rise to the defence. If I escort, my bombers are hurt less but my fighers take 2-3 instead. Fighters that I then can't reinforce or use for that turn.

To repair costs (approximately) the percentage of original cost to build. With a bomber, that's several hundred Mmps, during which I can't use the unit. This, while the resourse site automatically regains one point a turn.

Am I totally missing the point here?

[rleete]

I feel the same way. Without tying up a HQ unit, the bombers are dogmeat. Unescorted is damn near suicide, and it doesn't pay off. Same for subs. I can see strategic bombing and subs being abandoned entirely, except for the use by the AI.

Has anyone ever had their sub from the north sea able to get out and cause any significant damage? The computer seems to target it with just about everything, as soon as it clears Jutland.

[Hubert Cater]

Good points guys, but sometimes it is a balance of tying up enemy resources that makes it pay off in the end. Yes you will have to restrengthen a bit after each bombing run, but if they have defending Air Fleets they too will have to rebuild and repair. I've often used this tactic to keep the UK weak as my Axis war machine remains active in the rest of Europe. So if you have the resources to spare by maintaining bombing runs etc, yet it will cost you, but it may cost your enemy more in the end. Many times they end up spending money on repairs that they desperatly need to build up new units or invest in research etc. While it may not seem a lot to only have the enemy lose a few MPP from Bombing here and there, it is a part of their overall total income that they will have less of next turn plus the costs they need to repair defending air fleets or hit units.

Also one of the reasons the blitz is tough is that the UK player starts with Anti-Aircraft Radar Research Level-1, so developing Heavy Bombers or Jet Fighters can help here. With all this in mind, good news is that there will also be a slight change made to Strategic Bombers that reflects some of the concern posted here

Hope that helps,

Hubert

[Galatine]

Thanks for the word Hubert! It's good to know right off the bat that you guys are open and active regarding input.

Still, the math doesn't add up. Cost benifit ratio is far too high.

If the most damage done to the German defenders is generally to their figher defense, then the best defense to bombers is to station the defenders fighters so far, they _don't_ rise to the defense.

To using a 500 MMP to to nickel and dime a self-repairing resource would seem a waste of effort.

By my guestimate at an average of 2-3 damage per run on a non-figher defender site, per turn, minus repair, it would take 31 plus runs to equal the cost of the unit. And that doesnt' even note that a pause or the need to strike multiple targets would make it even less efficent (as each target would continue self-repair as other targets are hit.)

Thats a pretty bad return for value.

[Shep]

Thanks for listening Hubert; I think we all found a good game that we're honestly trying to make better through our comments. You can count yourself blessed to have access to the greatest wargaming forum in existence.

[rleete]

Glad to hear that Hubert is taking our comments seriously, and making tweaks.

Anyone had any success in raising the tech level of fighters and/or bombers to see what differences it makes? I tried putting 3 points into research, but got no results. At 250 a pop, they seem like a kind of risky gamble with the USSR breating down your neck!

[Affentitten]

There must be some sort of strategic telepathy going on here. I turned up with exactly the intention of making a thread about the high cost of strategic bombing. It really isn't worth it. You'd have to be playing a seriously long game for the balance sheet to finally come good, and even then, imagine what you could have done with all the MPP you've invested by employing them elsewhere, sooner.

Subs are much the same. They can wreak havoc for a few turns in the Atlantic, but the max effect a sub unit will have is about 5-6 MPP per turn. Given their vulnerability and the suicidal nature of trying to squeeze them through the small gap at the top of Scotland, you can never hope for them to last very long or repair them. It just doesn't add up, except for possibly tying up a few Royal Navy units for the half a dozen turns it will take them to blunder into you, even if you do keep moving.

[Hubert Cater]

Still, the math doesn't add up. Cost benifit ratio is far too high.

I understand this, and I agree it may not be perfect, but there are other advantages that may not be immediatly apparent. Keep in mind that this is just a single year in the war and by 1944 things can be very different. In and around 1940-41 strat bombing was not all that effective historically as it is in the game, but later on with more bombers and advanced research you can really do some damages. At this point in the game bombers are weak as they should be, but over time experience can be gained, plus if you manage to bring down a resource close to zero the chances of taking losses on your bombers will decrease.

Also damaging ports and cities can have other benefits as it decreases supply to units that are dependant on them, thus in turn decreasing the readiness of the defenders in the area, great for preping for amphibious assaults for example. Another example is that if a city is under strength 5 then you will not be able to operationally move there.

I think the slight change I am considering will help out to make this a bit more apparent and I'll give the official word on it once we get a chance to test it out and make sure everything is up to par.

Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

Given their vulnerability and the suicidal nature of trying to squeeze them through the small gap at the top of Scotland, you can never hope for them to last very long or repair them.

One of the reasons the French ship yards were so coveted by the Germans

[Affentitten]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Given their vulnerability and the suicidal nature of trying to squeeze them through the small gap at the top of Scotland, you can never hope for them to last very long or repair them.

One of the reasons the French ship yards were so coveted by the Germans </font>

[Hubert Cater]

True

[DevilDog]

I recommend leaving the strat bombing the way it is. You can't evaluate it's effects at this early stage of the game. I played as Axis last night with the second hardest setting and a +1 experience bonus to the computer. I conquered the baltic states and the U.S.S.R. got upset with me...

Russia attacked me and all I had in the vicinity were one army, 3 corps, one HQ and one tank, all in the baltic states. I managed to get five more tanks, seven armies and three more HQ over to Russia and was kicking butt with hundeds of mile envelopements.

But to get to the point - I was doomed, even though I had almost 400 MPPs when Russia invaded, because England (and the French plane which the AI escaped to Britian) pounded my ports and cities in the west so bad that I sunk to 300 MPPs. Now this includes the loss of the Baltic capitol, but still.

What everyone fails to realise is that these attacks add up. Yeah one bomber is pretty pitiful, but a bunch of them can put some major economic hurt on a guy. And England is somewhat limited in the way they can respond after France falls anyway. Beef the bombers up too much and the play balance will be the same as Axis and Allies with one side owning super bombers - it's mildly fun to be on the giving end, but the game is as good as over.

My 2 cents.

[Hubert Cater]

DevilDog, for the most part I do agree This may really be the case of beware of what you wish for, and like I've said it's difficult to tell what effects strategic bombing and interdictions really have in a single year of the game.

Your example is a great one and really shows that sometimes things may not be as they immediatly appear. I think it's interesting to note that some of the concern about strategic bombing is almost identical to the same types of concern that the Allies actually had during the war. Very often when the Allies had some of their most intestive bombing runs (summer of 44 comes to mind) Germany was able to maintain production, and even sometimes maintain their highest productions of the war, so I'm sure the same things went through commanders minds, is it really worth it, what are we achieving etc. The thing to remember is that strategic bombing will not win the war on it's own, but as the war expands, as you've pointed out, these types of things all add up and if for example Germany's rear is being distracted, offensives like the Russian front may not go over all that well.

But again, this being said, the change I've considered is a very minor one, and will be tested, so if it is found that it does through the balance off, it very well won't be included. I guess the thing is that I'd like to say that comments don't always fall on deaf ears, but at the same time changes may not always be applicable and honestly most people will just have to accept that.

Thanks for your posts everyone,

Hubert

[Galatine]

My issue isn't with bombing not having any effect. Of course it will.

In Devildogs case above, it had a strong one, eventually reducing his economy by 100 MMps.

But his example begs the question: How much did the Brits spend (in fighters/bombers and repairs) to do that 100 damage ?

Likely it was several thousand MMPS.

The real issue is: Does investing in strat bombing have a good return for value?

My answer: Not even close.

Option a: Invest 500 plus MMPs in bombing a city so the enemy temperarily makes 2-3 less a turn.

OR

Option b: Form two Armies, take over the city permanently, deny the enemy 10 income, increase your income by 10, immediatetly free those armies for defensive/offensive action.

Maybe I'm way off base here but as PBEM games are played it will be interesting to see how many consitantly winning strategies will include significant use of bombers.

My money says few, if any.

[ May 23, 2002, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Galatine ]

[Cooper]

posted by Galatine

But his example begs the question: How much did the Brits spend (in

fighters/bombers and repairs) to do that 100 damage ?

Likely it was several thousand MMPS.

The real issue is: Does investing in strat bombing have a good return for

value?

My answer: Not even close.

Option a: Invest 500 plus MMPs in bombing a city so the enemy temperarily

makes 2-3 less a turn.

OR

Option b: Form two Armies, take over the city permanently, deny the enemy

10 income, increase your income by 10, immediatetly free those armies for

defensive/offensive action

Lets not forget that the UK and US will have a lot of MPPs to spend. From 40-1 on there is no western front and if the Axis player has already turned the Med. into an Axis lake, all those Mpps have to be spent on something. Before D-Day (which I think by 44 will be very hard to pull off) the US and UK should have alot of MPPs to spare. A MPP ratio of 3:2 or even 2:1 for the cost of stragtic bombing will hurt the axis player more than the allied one.

[Scott B]

I agree that it's too early to see what an effect large scale strategic bombing can have on the Germans, at least. They have a lot of area to defend; putting a corps on each potential target and having enough air fleets on hand to fight off bomber raids will probably be pretty expensive for a Germany trying to defeat the Soviets on the ground.

What effect would advanced research in heavy bombers, long range aircraft, and jet aircraft have on the bombing campaign? I'd think that emphasis on that research would increase its effectiveness directly, or force the Germans to counter-invest in research that would take MPPs from the war effort on the ground in the USSR.

I figure the potential advantages of a bomber campaign are as follows:

1. Direct impact on production (actual damage of factories, etc.).

2. Attrition - to defending corps and fighters.

3. Virtual attrition - units tied up defending areas that the bombers don't necessarily have to target.

The disadvantage is that it is costly, of course, but with Germany heavily engaged in the USSR, it can conceivably ease the strain on the Soviets. I'm not sure, of course, because outside of some fairly strange hotseat games in the demo, I haven't really been able to create conditions that let me see what a realistic Barbarossa would look like.

Scott

[Mr. Clark]

I've never had the points to really dig into testing bombing, but I have found it useful in denying enemy navies the opportunity to repair.

[Scott B]

Interestingly, upon rereading the FAQ I noticed another possible advantage with some historical basis-- if strategic bombing does knock a city down past 50%, the player that owns the city can't rail move units to that city (fits in with the air campaign against the railroads in France in 1944).

So that's another potential reason to employ bombers, on top of the effect they have on entrenchments. Is it worth it? I still can't say. But it does seem better than worthless right now.

Does the protective ability of a defending unit diminish as its strength diminishes? Is a 3 point corps less effective at shooing away bombers from its factories than a 10 point corps? Shouldn't it be?

Scott

[Compassion]

Originally posted by Scott B:

Interestingly, upon rereading the FAQ I noticed another possible advantage with some historical basis-- if strategic bombing does knock a city down past 50%, the player that owns the city can't rail move units to that city (fits in with the air campaign against the railroads in France in 1944).

Denying the enemy the ability to SR is nifty and when coupled with denying supply are great reasons to use start bombing... and to bleed an enemy furhter by making him defend against it. I can see it being used to make finising off an encircled enemy that much easier.