Want to make bombers useful/important?

[bloodstar]

Make the cost to repair any industry/port/resource above 5 cost money. if they don't auto repair, you can start taking a serious bite out of the opponants economy, and suddenly, bombers and strategic bombing runs will matter.

How difficult would this be to implement?

-Mark

[Retributar]

In this case i would suggest...that it should 'not' cost you money to repair...but, instead...just 'Manpower'...which would translate into lost production!.

Say an industry of 10 is damaged by 50% to an industry of 5,...then 100% of the manpower operating that industry should be used to repair that damaged industry hex/square...for that turn (2-weeks)...so for this turn there would be no-production-at-all!.

100% manpower to repair could stay in effect for an industrial damage of from 10/10 to 5/10. Once the damage has been repaired to 6/10...then some industrial output can begin again. So with a repair of 6/10, now only 40% of the industrial site is damaged...leaving enough manpower for 20% production during the next 2-week turn.

-Industry of 10 not Damaged = 100% Production

-Industry of 10 W/1 Dmg = 80% Production

-Industry of 10 W/2 Dmg = 60% Production

-Industry of 10 W/3 Dmg = 40% Production

-Industry of 10 W/4 Dmg = 20% Production

-Industry of 10 W/5-10 Dmg = 0% Production

...As it requires a lot of manpower to repair a damaged or destroyed industrial facility,...so if the site is heavily damaged...it cannot really function anymore as the manpower force-pool is needed for repair activities and cannot work effectively in a disrupted state.

NOW... another point!.

A certain % of Britain's & Germany's manufacturing industry was not concentrated on identifiable production facilities...so, therefore...the above industrial production figures based on Bomb-Damage could be adjusted appropriately.

These, of course were the many thousand's of sub-contractor's who would employ small numbers of worker's who would construct component's which would be included in the final assembly of aircraft and other item's else-where!.

These Sub-Contractor productionist's would be for all intent's & purpose's impossible to Bomb-Out-Of-Existence!.

AND NOW...Another Point!!!

...as the war progressed...the German's were forced to move more & more of their industry underground!,..provision in the Bomb-Damage %Calculation's can be adjusted to factor this element in as well...there-by helping to reduce the bomb-damage inflicted by the Bomber-Forces.

Investment MPP's could be used in conjunction with slave-labor to effect or implement UNDERGROUND-PRODUCTION-FACILITIES ...which could also increase in effectiveness with increased investment!...particularily with inmate or slave-labor investment...& not so much as far as 'MPP' investment!.

http://www.vex.com/~nizkor/hweb/camps/gusen/gudest1x.htm

Deutsche Erd- und Steinwerke GmbH (D. E. S. T.)

"In 1942 and 1943 DEST also begun manufacturing fuselages for the Messerschmitt "Me-109" fighter-planes. During this period, some 20 fuselages were produced by KZ Gusen inmates every week.

Then, in late 1943, when the U.S. strategic bombings devastated some key war-production facilities of the Third Reich, DEST provided huge tunnel-systems in the vicinity of the KZ Gusen for its commercial partners.

At first, they have begun to dig the "KELLERBAU" tunnels to shelter the machine-gun production of Steyr-Daimler-Puch AG directly north of the KZ Gusen "GEORGEN-MUEHLE" (Steyr) Barracks.

Later on, a second, much bigger underground system was built in neighboring St.Georgen/Gusen (site of the Central Administration) to shelter the production of "Me-262" Messerschmitt-Airplanes in the "BERGKRISTALL-ESCHE 2" underground plant.

To manage this project, DEST established a new, second concentration camp at Gusen - the KZ Gusen II. This camp was only established "to manage" the thousands of new inmates sent to KZ Gusen to build the giant underground system at nearby St.Georgen/Gusen.

With this latest KZ Gusen II (BERGKRISTALL) Project, DEST became one of the leading sub-contractors of Messerschmitt GmbH.

So, at the end of WW2, nearly 1/3 of all the Messerschmitt aircraft-production was provided by DEST with the concentration camps at Mauthausen-Gusen and Flossenbuerg. KZ Gusen II (the Hell of Hells), was the key-installation within this plan, because it was dedicated to the final-assembly of the first serially-produced jet-propelled plane in history."

-------

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#tgsp

THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY

Another czar was appointed, this time Edmund Geilenberg, and again an overriding priority on men and materials was issued. Geilenberg used as many as 350,000 men for the repair, rebuilding, and dispersal of the bombed plants and for new underground construction.

[ December 10, 2004, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[SeaMonkey]

Bloodstar the MPPs cost is in the game for strategic bombing, the output returns slowly 1 MPP per turn.

Retributar this is abstracted in IT tech investment.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Bloodstar as was mentioned, the strategic bombing effect you are asking for is already in SC. Its not that the numbers need tweeking, like you suggest. The problem has always been that to protect yourself from a strategic bomb run, all you have to do is put a land unit on the hex you want to protect. The strat bombers cannot get to the target until the land unit is eliminated. SC2 will fix that.

Retributar, SC gives exactly the effect you want, since the damaged hex isn't producing at full capacity, hence you have lost production.

The problem with Strategic Bombing, is that we can analyze it from a 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, the UK and the US (as well as some in Italy) both felt that strategic bombers had the ability to destroy production, but more importantly, had the ability to reduce a nations will to fight a war. In practice, they found out that it didn't have the ability to force a nation to quit fighting.

We know that going into the game, so we analyze what the Strat Bombers can do for us solely in terms of reducing production. In that role, they are not very cost effective machines, even without the inability to get past land units stationed in those hexes.

It will be "fixed" one way or another in SC2, because we can change the unit cost. But then another problem will arise, as depending on what those costs are, Strat Bombers will be used in tactical bombing roles, with people justifying it as "carpet bombing".

[ December 09, 2004, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Retributar]

Shaka Of Carthage:

Overall...your assessment of the allied bomber air arm is what i can agree with...but, the bomber forces could have been more effective than they were historically.

For example... i will take this excerpt from another posting...

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000542

German strategic assessment of the war -- (Dated...7 Nov 1943)

" at this particular time, when the superior range of the enemy air arm is inflicting grave injury to the center of the Reich"

"That things are getting warm on the East front, must be admitted; however no success gained by the enemy is directly fatal there, with the exception of the loss of the Roumanian oil region."

*So if the Allied Bomber Formations had concentrated more-effort on Oil-Production-Bombing for example...earlier on instead of later on and with more force...the war could have been forced to an earlier conclusion!.*

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

----Also besides Fighter-Aircraft assisting to protect Industrial Targets...should we not also include "Anti-Aircraft-Gun" investment/deployment to these locations?.

I don't know how effective Anti-Aircraft-Gun's were for Germany...but, they continued to employ them in large numbers throughout the war to the very end,...so they must have had some significant effect!.

http://www.freewebs.com/mahross/aerialwarfare.htm

Militarily the campaign was a constant battle to improve tactics and methods as seen with the development of more effective delivery systems. Also the campaign managed to tie up countless numbers of Germans in defending the Reich. The campaign helped to shape and distort German output. From 1943, 75% of all 88mm flak/anti-tank guns went to anti-aircraft duties inside the Reich. In terms of manpower, the campaign forced the Nazis to employ between 1 and 2 million personnel in anti bombing duties. These could have been better employed elsewhere, for example, in the Wehrmacht or in the factories. The bombing also decreased production in other important areas such as lorry production, where in 1944 42% of production was lost due to bombing raids. Also the campaign led to the virtual destruction of Luftwaffe which gave the Allies complete air supremacy and led to the success of the Operation Overlord and subsequent operations.

Cheaper than buying fighters...but more expensive in manpower...though most anti-aircraft-gun personnel were between 15 '+' or '-' to 17 years of age,...usually below conscription age for the armed forces. So in effect...manning these guns was not a real-true-drain on Germany's manpower pools.

[ December 10, 2004, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

To be able to concentrate your Strat Bombers on Oil, SC would need to represent Oil. It doesn't.

We already have Anti-Aircraft in the game. Read the effects of the "AA Radar" Technology. I assume this will make its way into SC2.

I don't want to get into a long discussion here about manpower, but AA Guns themselves were not the manpower drain, it was the personnel policies of the German Air Force and Army that had the Air Force taking alot of manpower that would have been more useful in the Army. But yes, they did use underage (as well as women) in the Luftwaffe AA units, but not until they needed that "prime" manpower in other places.

[Edwin P.]

Its true that Sc2 does not reflect the importance of oil resources and I wish that it did.

The question arises is how to do it in a way that maintains the simplicity of the game.

Perhaps, every oil hex a country controls increases its force pool limit by one unit. Thus if a country is limited to 20 units they they could build 22 if they controlled 2 oil tiles and 24 if they controled 4 oil tiles. This would make Iraq and the Caucaus mountain region of the southern USSR more important.

PS: I still think that the New York City Tile should feature the Empire State Building.

[ December 09, 2004, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Retributar]

Yes Edwin P. i think that all the 'Major Capitals' should reflect their main identity mark...that would add a nice flavour to the game and make it much easier to identify which city is which!.

If for example...as you say that:

"Thus if a country is limited to 20 units they they could build 22 if they controlled 2 oil tiles and 24 if they controled 4 oil tiles."

Then if the oil does then not exist to suppy them,... that country could elect to have the unit on standby with very restricted movement and wait for future supply to be available... or have the Motorized/Mechanized units put in reserve for replacement purposes...and convert the balance of the unit into a 'Leg-Infantry' Formation.

[Retributar]

I agree with you Edwin P. that i too wished that Oil was represented in the game as well as Electric Power Plants ...both, if which were systematically targeted could have brought the war to a speedier conclusion...which makes a very good case for the Allied Bombing Effort... If it had been conducted more effectively ...could have forced Germany to give up much sooner!.

'We have discussed these subject's before',...but it's worth bringing it up again...as these resources were even more critical than industrial targets or mining targets or other targets...yet, seems to have been passed over as being not so nearly important to take account of!.

Remember the..." " The United States Strategic Bombing Survey" that was mentioned earlier in a previous topic..." Will Allied Strategic Bombing Have Any Effect On The Game? "...

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000350

CONCLUSION : Allied air power was decisive in the war in Western Europe. Hindsight inevitably suggests that it might have been employed differently or better in some respects. Nevertheless, it was decisive. In the air, its victory was complete. At sea, its contribution, combined with naval power, brought an end to the enemy's greatest naval threat -- the U-boat; on land, it helped turn the tide overwhelmingly in favor of Allied ground forces. Its power and superiority made possible the success of the invasion. It brought the economy which sustained the enemy's armed forces to virtual collapse, although the full effects of this collapse had not reached the enemy's front lines when they were overrun by Allied forces.

Here's a quote from another web-site...

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=6169

orcrist

Member: Posted: 23 Aug 2002 13:24

The American publication produced after the war " The United States Strategic Bombing Survey" also make the point that the Much vaunted German power grid was in fact a very flimsy affair and probably would have fallen over with catastrophic consequences for the German war effort had the Allies attempted a systematic assault on it. Fortunatley for Germany such an attack was never made either by the British who were more intersted in pushing their area bombing campaign or the Americans . Why the Americans did not have a crack at it is very surprising indeed.

Orcrist

[ December 10, 2004, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[bloodstar]

Good point on placing a unit on top of a resource... give the player the option to attack the unit or the resource... would that be difficult to implement?

Also, I dislike intensely the auto rebuild function. up to a certain point there is a resilliency to infrastructure, but to operate at peek efficiency (which I picked as above a value of '5') there should be active expenditure on the part of the player.

Notice, because you can reach 5, you can simply ignore the situation if you know someone will bomb it into oblivion if you do repair it, but still have functional places to build units (ships in harbors, in particular) and there will always be some sort of base economy, but can you imagine how much you can blast germany if you could actually knock their base economy to 1/2 over time?

-Mark

[SeaMonkey]

"Good point on placing a unit on top of a resource... give the player the option to attack the unit or the resource... would that be difficult to implement?"

Again Mark, its in the game.

Questions. Can you imagine that an MPP investment into IT would be like what you are asking for? Is it possible that left alone for a period a time a resource could recover its full effectiveness and perhaps even exceed its prior output capacity, given the attentiveness of its inherent population?

If you concentrate on airpower you can achieve what you are proposing in SC1, although you will probably lose the game. As I remember a city hex(SC1) at or below level 5 cannot function for operation, transport, or unit builds.

[bloodstar]

Agreed, in SC1, the strategic bombing is not cost effective in any way shape or form, and if you have the resources to spend on burning mmp's to bomb resources, then you've probably won the game already.

Say a bomber bombs a resource and knocks it down by 2 points, but takes a point of damage in return. (which is often the case, and doesn't count any sort of interceptor combat) for a typical resource this means the bombing player has to pay 25 MMP's (or so) to repair that strength point, whereas the bombee target simply loses 2MMPS off the top and an additional 1 (as the repair function occurs at the beginning of the players turn...) the next turn, so a 25:3 cost:benefit... not very efficient.

I guess I really like the idea that if a resource is devoting itself to repairing itself and rebuilding, then it's not going to have much material to send back to the war effort.

-Mark

[SeaMonkey]

Mark...some would say that strategic bombing wasn't cost effective in WW2....are we that far from reality?