Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Why is bombardment so weak?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 7:58:54 AM   
Uncle_Joe


Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Here are the test results, save file, and scenario file:

A-10 Test Case


Awesome! Thanks.

I gave it a few goes in the current build. Very different results than what you see with the modified build. I tended to see A-10 loses in the 11-18% range and about half the casualties on the armor except for against the higher end tanks. Interestingly, those were similar to the results you had.

Looking at your results, one thing I would observe is that the armor of the target might not be reduced enough to account for airstrikes. I dont believe a T80/90 is THAT much more survivable from air attacks than a T72. Perhaps the modifier for defense vs air should favor the aircraft a bit more than the current model?

Could you try increasing the number of tanks in the target units to say 500 and trying it again? My other concern is that higher concentrations of defense tend to suffer less casualites proportionally than lower concentrations, something that seems completely backwards IMO. 500 might break the 5km/hex stacking limits and if soo, then try it at 10km/hex or whatever is necessary to get it not suffer the penalties.

Thanks again.


_____________________________


(in reply to Szilard)
Post #: 61
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 8:22:13 AM   
Chuck2


Posts: 830
Joined: 10/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

I gave it a few goes in the current build. Very different results than what you see with the modified build. I tended to see A-10 loses in the 11-18% range and about half the casualties on the armor except for against the higher end tanks. Interestingly, those were similar to the results you had.


Seems about right. A lot more A-10 losses would be expected with the higher-powered AA. This would also lead to less armor being destroyed as the A-10s stop attacking. The higher end tanks are just hard to destroy because of their high armor values - only 4.3% losses for the T-90s for example.

quote:

Looking at your results, one thing I would observe is that the armor of the target might not be reduced enough to account for airstrikes. I dont believe a T80/90 is THAT much more survivable from air attacks than a T72. Perhaps the modifier for defense vs air should favor the aircraft a bit more than the current model?


I'm not sure how this works. It looks like the T-90 is just a lot more heavily armored than the T-72, leading to it being difficult to destroy by the A-10. Basically, this is a Norm Koger decision way back in the day. This is something that could be changed by the designer using a database editor, when that comes about. You could also increase the precision guided weapon level above 200%.

quote:

Could you try increasing the number of tanks in the target units to say 500 and trying it again? My other concern is that higher concentrations of defense tend to suffer less casualites proportionally than lower concentrations, something that seems completely backwards IMO. 500 might break the 5km/hex stacking limits and if soo, then try it at 10km/hex or whatever is necessary to get it not suffer the penalties.


I don't see less proportional losses as a problem, as long as net losses are greater. The aircraft can only carry so many munitions. So if you have more tanks in the hex area, more are destroyed because it is easier to find good targets.

< Message edited by Chuck2 -- 6/30/2006 8:30:22 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 62
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 9:14:47 AM   
Bloodybucket28th


Posts: 130
Joined: 6/8/2006
Status: offline 		Depending on who you believe, and what you read into some accounts, WWII aircraft are sometimes portrayed as not very effective tank killers.  The stories of Germans being pounded by "Jabos" are probably real, nobody likes to be strafed, and troops in the open and soft skinned vehicles probably suffered badly.  Getting a direct hit on a tank in combat wasn't easy, and in the pre PGM era tank losses to hits from air attack were probably less than 10% of the total number of tanks lost to all causes , and some sources indicate that they were a lot less than that.  Being subject to air attack probably made life miserable for tankers, even if it didn't kill vast numbers of tanks.   

Abandoned and "scuttled" AFVs (at least German ones on the Western Front) accounted for a pretty healthy percentage, and some of those might be attributed to air attack either directly or inderectly, due to loss of supplies, panic, etc. 

It would be interesting to see what other effects the above mentioned attack by the 60 aircraft vs. the 12 Stugs had on the targeted unit besides the one dead AFV.  Was the unit supply state altered, was it disrupted, how many trucks were lost, etc?

As to AA, the same source for some of the above figures lists 897 aircraft from US 9th AF and 829 from 2 TAF lost during Normandy , but I'm guessing that is from all causes, so accidents and such are probably a big chunk. German tank losses are listed as probably 100 due to hits from air weapons.

Of course, how this is all simulated in a game like TOAW is subjective, despite the great level of detail.  If you surmise that more than a few tank crews simply said "to heck with this getting strafed and bombed constantly, we are low on fuel/ammo, let's get out of this target and go" then this might be a TOAW tank kill due to aircraft.  Perhaps the tanks don't take advantage of a prime location because of exposure to air attack, and instead choose a less desirable tactical spot to set up that has cover from air attack.  The morale effect of having air support or the lack of it on ground units, and the tactical intel from air spotting, are they factored in?  How does the fear of air attack effect the movement rate of units in TOAW, apart from the interdiction that occurs in the game?

One of the things that makes this hobby so interesting is that so few questions can be answered with 100% surety.  I'm guessing that other historians claim higher numbers of tank kills for aircraft of that era, and even if the every source were to agree on what actually happened, how to simulate it in a computer game would still be a good subject of debate and discussion.



 



< Message edited by TheBloodyBucket -- 6/30/2006 9:20:10 AM >

(in reply to Szilard)
Post #: 63
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 9:22:07 AM   
Uncle_Joe


Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline 		One thing I noticed as well is that with the current build, the A10s actually lose to T90s and somewhat to T80s. They suffer more casualties and more readiness loss than their targets and that is clearly wrong (a dedicated anti-armor strike aircraft trading and losing against armor with no AA?...not good). That appears to be reduced in your build, but the they still appear to be trading even at best. That would indicate that the air to ground combat is still somewhat off, but its harder to discern the problem when it will vary with each equipment matchup.

quote:

I don't see less proportional losses as a problem, as long as net losses are greater. The aircraft can only carry so many munitions. So if you have more tanks in the hex area, more are destroyed because it is easier to find good targets.


Maybe I'm not expressing the problem correctly. If you get the chance, please try it with the number of tanks in the target units increased to about 500 or so and observe the results. In the current build, actual lethality appears to decrease. Perhaps this is simply because of the AA bug (ie, more equipment = more AA = less effective air strikes), but even there I would submit that simply having more tanks in an area is not going to proportionally increase your actual counterfire (since only the tanks in the immediate area would be able to fire in defense).

So, if actual lethality goes down with increased target density, then something else is off in the calculations. So this is just a hunch that I'm going on here.

Thanks again!


_____________________________


(in reply to Chuck2)
Post #: 64
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 9:33:04 AM   
Uncle_Joe


Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline 		BloodyBucket:

You bring up some good points but some of that has to be taken in context as well. For one, dedicated strike aircraft (or ground support) were in their infancy at the time. There were still great debates as to how to most effectively use airpower (interdiction, bombing/strafing rail stock, carpet bombing, etc). I dont think they had a coherent strategy enough to really concentrate on one tactic.

The Germans were more or less in a static defense with a VERY low vehicle density, especially compared to many 'modern' war scenarios. When they tried to move in the daylight, they were shut down pretty quickly by most accounts. That is accounted for in the game by interdiction, but its starting to blur the line a bit.

Also, if it was just tank losses that were low I think it would be less of a problem. But squads, arty, support weapons and even trucks are not taking much in the way of losses from 100s of planes attacking them. And we arent talking about fortified spread out troops...these are mobile units in or moving to the attack. And the losses are paltry.

Current build tests result in the air units suffering more readiness loss than the targets, but that is likely attributed to the AA problem and might disappear.

At any rate, it appears that until we have the newer build with the reduced AA, most results are going to be skewed. I'm somewhat concerned about the results listed from tests with the new build, but without access to it to test myself, I cant really make any informed opinions.



_____________________________


(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 65
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 10:30:44 AM   
Bloodybucket28th


Posts: 130
Joined: 6/8/2006
Status: offline 		Interesting points, Uncle_Joe.

I would think that even in the WWII era, soft skinned vehicles, infantry, horse-drawn logistics and artillery, and all the other "pink squishy targets" probably suffered badly from air attacks, but because these items were not as "sexy" as tanks, I'm not aware of any statistical studies of air vs. soft targets that go into the detail that the air vs. tanks research has. The carpet bombings by heavy bombers are the only example that comes to my mind that has caused a lot of ink to spill, but I can't recall reading of any studies on the actual casualty percentages of soft targets due to tac air activity.

The anecdotal constant seems to be that pilot claims were very optimistic, and that being on the target end made a deep impression on the survivors.

I do recall reading that WWII GIs knew that the danger of being killed by German aircraft was relatively small, but they still listed aircraft as being one of the enemy weapons that caused the most fear.

Perhaps a WWII unit being targeted by strong air attack should suffer more soft skinned casualties, but the real toll would be in disruption. More learned minds than mine would have to provide the answer.

The modern era stuff is a lot harder to quantify, as to my knowledge, there hasn't been a battle between a mix of T80 and T90 tanks and a bunch of Warthogs, and I hope it stays that way!

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 66
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 12:36:30 PM   
PDiFolco

 

Posts: 1200
Joined: 10/11/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Maybe the WW2 planes weren't that effective, but the last example I had in play was laughable : I had some 60+ Mosquitos, Typhoons and Marauders bomb a panzer unit with 2 dozens (total) of StuGs and StuH in the "2 weeks in Normandy" scenario turn 1. There was absolutely no Luftwaffe planes nor AA units.
What were the results ? Guess what ... there was *1* panzer destroyed for ... 18 planes shot down !!!!
It's totally ludicrous, that kind of results had absolutely no chance of realistically happen, please fix it yesterday !!!



Lessee 4% * 60 = 2.4 hits. Of course, your Marauders and Mosquitoes probably don't have rockets so their to hit chance would be less. Then there's the fact they'd be under fire, unlike in the test...

Yeah, sounds about right. TOAW's great.


Nope, you're tweaking the numbers : 4% was a chance to hit for one shot (or rather "4 shots out of 100 hit"), has been cited for rockets that were awfully imprecise, maybe less than bombs, and each aircraft doesn't fire once as most of them could bomb in several runs and strafe the targets.
Additionnally the game engine don't have to take into account only direct hits/kills, but also partial damage to tracks, engine etc rendering the target unusable for more than a few hours.

Yet I wouldn't have been upset of getting only a couple kills (although if that were real the USAF and RAF should have been disbanded and incorporated in other arms ...), but the 18 aircraft killed is ridiculous. From what have they been "under fire" ? Mostly nothing, StuGs and StuHs didn't even have AA MGs ... Maybe the panzer crews used their Lugers and were lucky ?
Come on...



< Message edited by PDiFolco -- 6/30/2006 12:41:38 PM >

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 67
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 2:16:19 PM   
Chuck2


Posts: 830
Joined: 10/12/2005
Status: offline 		I uploaded some updated tests. These test I think will finally put to rest any questions on whether modern aircraft can destroy tanks in TOAW 3. For example, the T-90 test shows only 1.8% A-10 losses compared to 8% tank losses. For the T-80, the respective numbers were 1.6% to 27.2%. These results were achieved just by increasing the precision guided weapon level from 200% to 500% and increasing the night combat proficiency from 33% to 100%.

_____________________________


(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 68
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 4:22:39 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Maybe I'm not expressing the problem correctly. If you get the chance, please try it with the number of tanks in the target units increased to about 500 or so and observe the results. In the current build, actual lethality appears to decrease. Perhaps this is simply because of the AA bug (ie, more equipment = more AA = less effective air strikes), but even there I would submit that simply having more tanks in an area is not going to proportionally increase your actual counterfire (since only the tanks in the immediate area would be able to fire in defense).


Unless you actually get a density penalty, having more tanks in the hex shouldn't make it much easier to knock out said tanks. And presumably the A-10s can get shot at by tanks which are two or three kilometres away in the same hex even if they're not being attacked themselves.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 69
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 4:26:17 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Also, if it was just tank losses that were low I think it would be less of a problem. But squads, arty, support weapons and even trucks are not taking much in the way of losses from 100s of planes attacking them.


In COW, I find soft targets suffer quite seriously from interdiction, but it depends on the unit and the scenario. Artillery appears to really suffer; their low defence strength means they die really easily.

Armour's another story- but that might be because it was largely level bombers on interdiction in the scenario I'm thinking of particularly.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 70
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 4:29:28 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheBloodyBucket

Perhaps a WWII unit being targeted by strong air attack should suffer more soft skinned casualties, but the real toll would be in disruption.


This would be the readiness hit units tend to take.

One thing that is a bit odd is that armoured targets which get hit by interdiction and don't take any losses tend not to suffer any readiness loss either. Naturally in the real world armoured units have lots of soft stuff following them around which doesn't show up in TOAW because it doesn't fight, but if this is disrupted it causes problems for the tanks.

quote:

The modern era stuff is a lot harder to quantify, as to my knowledge, there hasn't been a battle between a mix of T80 and T90 tanks and a bunch of Warthogs, and I hope it stays that way!


You're no fun at all. Actually, I recall hearing something about the Taliban getting their hands on T-80s via Pakistan during the 90s.

< Message edited by golden delicious -- 6/30/2006 4:34:15 PM >

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Bloodybucket28th)
Post #: 71
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 4:31:11 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
Maybe the panzer crews used their Lugers and were lucky ?


Low cloud cover. Your fighter bombers didn't pull up until it was too late....

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to PDiFolco)
Post #: 72
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 7:51:57 PM   
Uncle_Joe


Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I uploaded some updated tests. These test I think will finally put to rest any questions on whether modern aircraft can destroy tanks in TOAW 3. For example, the T-90 test shows only 1.8% A-10 losses compared to 8% tank losses. For the T-80, the respective numbers were 1.6% to 27.2%. These results were achieved just by increasing the precision guided weapon level from 200% to 500% and increasing the night combat proficiency from 33% to 100%.


This should be HUGE red flag that something is seriously wrong IMO. If you have to increase the listed effectivess almost 6 times in order to achieve anything resembling 'realistic' results there is not only a problem but a big problem. We can add nuclear capability to the mix too, but we should have to make it work.

Part of the problem is that only a fraction of aircraft listed in the game even have Precision Guided Weapons meaning that the vast majority of aircraft will still be completely ineffective even vs soft-skinned targets.

I believe either the underlying formula or else the data for aircraft to be quite incorrect if this type of modifying is needed. Fixing that problem would go a long way to improving the game system as a whole as this has been a constant thorn since the earliest days of the engine going all the way to the Talonsoft message boards and the complaints voiced there.


_____________________________


(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 73
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 8:03:42 PM   
Chuck2


Posts: 830
Joined: 10/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

This should be HUGE red flag that something is seriously wrong IMO. If you have to increase the listed effectivess almost 6 times in order to achieve anything resembling 'realistic' results there is not only a problem but a big problem. We can add nuclear capability to the mix too, but we should have to make it work.


Not really. Most post-1950s Western strike aircraft have enhanced targeting. It's up to the scenario designer to decide what munitions the aircraft were using at the time. Your Hornet from 1978 isn't going to be as effective as your Hornet from 2008.

< Message edited by Chuck2 -- 6/30/2006 9:12:32 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 74
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 8:35:37 PM   
Industrial


Posts: 143
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

This should be HUGE red flag that something is seriously wrong IMO. If you have to increase the listed effectivess almost 6 times in order to achieve anything resembling 'realistic' results there is not only a problem but a big problem. We can add nuclear capability to the mix too, but we should have to make it work.



OK, what's really realistic? In the last 2 Iraq wars, the US flew tens of thousands of sorties against the Iraqi Army, yet in both wras there were plenty of tanks left when the ground forces finally invaded. If you really think that a 50% destruction of a traget is 'realistic', than the US airforce would have run out of targets after a week or so... yet, as we know, after several weeks (first Iraq War) there were quite a few tanks left.

I remember readin a british study about the Fallaise Pocket and the effectiveness of the air force in killing the trapped tanks, I wish I'd remeber the exact source, but the results were that most tanks were abandoned (yet still in fighting shape) or destroyed by other means (destroyed by own crew, allied ground forces) and only a small percentage was discovered to have been actually destroyed by allied JaBos. And that despite the constant allied strafing of the pocket.

I think many overrate the effectiveness of air power, we only remember these black/whithe rocket-cam videos of perfect hits, but has anybody some cold hard facts for a modern war and its true results? How about the first Iraq war for starters, flown US sorties vs destroyed equipment?

_____________________________

"The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

Henry Alfred Kissinger

<--- aka: Kraut

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 75
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 8:36:53 PM   
Uncle_Joe


Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline 		One problem is that it is an all or nothing affair. Either your aircraft completely sucks or it is 6x as effective. There is no middle ground.

And precision weapons or no, ANY dedicated strike plane should be able to inflict substantial losses on soft targets and they wont be able to do it UNLESS they have 'precision' weapons. That makes little to no sense.

All that PGM modifier is is a crutch for a formula that doesnt work properly. Until it does, air support will remain the singularly weakest element in the game system. At the Operational level (which is the game's forte), this is a critical element and not one to be relegated to the need for the individual scenario designers to jump through hoops and use only the 'best' aircraft in order to get any results.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chuck2)
Post #: 76
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 8:49:01 PM   
Uncle_Joe


Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline 		Ok, so the 'Highway of Death' didnt exist? That was smashed solely by airpower (albeit it with the help of attack helicopters). The 30 days of air bombardment accomplished nothing? How about potentially 10s of thousands killed (but we'll never know). And I suppose everyone forgets what the Israelis accomplished in 67 and 73 attacking exposed troops moving in the open? Once the Egyptians were outside of their SAM envelope near the Suez, they began to suffer heavily from Israeli air attacks (and there would be NO PGMs in 73....)

The Iraqis (and in Kosovo), the enemy was dispersed and generally static and trying to hide from airpower. This would NOT be the case in a general war. So again, I have little problem with Fortified/Entrenched units not suffering significant casualties. But MOBILE units and those in Reserve etc (ie, prepping to move and respond) SHOULD be taking hits.

Time scale is another bug-a-boo. In larger scenarios, an air attack is supposed to represent up to a WEEK'S worth of attacks. You are going to tell me that 100s of dedicated strike aircraft are only going to kill perhaps 20-30 vehicles in a WEEK'S time? That is utter nonsense and if it were to be true, the Western nations have been complete and total idiots to have wasted their time and effort in developing airpower. And the Sovs too since they tried to copy US strike aircraft (SU-24/SU-25). I guess they were so impressed by how worthless those planes would be that they had to go out and build some of their own.

Any which way you slice it, the game currently models airstrike very poorly. There may need to be more situational modifiers added, but the 'ideal' conditions being used in tests are obtaining pathetic results. 100s of tanks in the open with no AA units or friendly air in sight being attacked by 100s(!!!) of dedicated strike aircraft and the results are barely a trade. After the patch, the results are better, but still extremely low under IDEAL conditions. How much more in favor of the aircraft could it possibly be??

At any rate, I give up. If y'all are satisfied with it the way it is, then so be it.

< Message edited by Uncle_Joe -- 6/30/2006 8:50:36 PM >

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 77
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 8:53:54 PM   
Chuck2


Posts: 830
Joined: 10/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

One problem is that it is an all or nothing affair. Either your aircraft completely sucks or it is 6x as effective. There is no middle ground.


That's true. The assumption being that all the advanced strike aircraft are using the advanced munitions. This assumption may not always be correct. Of course, designers could take this into account when setting the PGM settings. Nonetheless, when the database editor is built, designers can add their own modifications.

quote:

And precision weapons or no, ANY dedicated strike plane should be able to inflict substantial losses on soft targets and they wont be able to do it UNLESS they have 'precision' weapons. That makes little to no sense.


Precision weapons are very important. WW2 aircraft just didn't destroy that much equipment behind the front lines.

quote:

All that PGM modifier is is a crutch for a formula that doesnt work properly. Until it does, air support will remain the singularly weakest element in the game system. At the Operational level (which is the game's forte), this is a critical element and not one to be relegated to the need for the individual scenario designers to jump through hoops and use only the 'best' aircraft in order to get any results.


The PGM modifier is a crucial part of modern warfare scenarios. Else why give most of these aircraft the same AT rating of 4? Designers need to use all the force settings to get the scenario they want.

_____________________________


(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 78
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 9:05:37 PM   
Chuck2


Posts: 830
Joined: 10/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Time scale is another bug-a-boo. In larger scenarios, an air attack is supposed to represent up to a WEEK'S worth of attacks. You are going to tell me that 100s of dedicated strike aircraft are only going to kill perhaps 20-30 vehicles in a WEEK'S time? That is utter nonsense and if it were to be true, the Western nations have been complete and total idiots to have wasted their time and effort in developing airpower.


There is another setting called the "attrition divider". Look it up.


quote:

Any which way you slice it, the game currently models airstrike very poorly. There may need to be more situational modifiers added, but the 'ideal' conditions being used in tests are obtaining pathetic results. 100s of tanks in the open with no AA units or friendly air in sight being attacked by 100s(!!!) of dedicated strike aircraft and the results are barely a trade. After the patch, the results are better, but still extremely low under IDEAL conditions. How much more in favor of the aircraft could it possibly be??


How can you call 27.2% losses for the T-80s in exchange for only 1.8% A-10s in a few hours "pathetic results"? I think the U.S. Army would be happy with those results over a couple of days.

_____________________________


(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 79
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 9:11:04 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
The Iraqis (and in Kosovo), the enemy was dispersed and generally static and trying to hide from airpower. This would NOT be the case in a general war. So again, I have little problem with Fortified/Entrenched units not suffering significant casualties. But MOBILE units and those in Reserve etc (ie, prepping to move and respond) SHOULD be taking hits.

And in cases like this, interdiction missions are best suited. If you've ever played a scenario where there is heavy interdiction, I'm guessing you would change your tune in a heartbeat, and be complaining about how air units are way overpowered.

Care to play a quick game of Two Weeks in Normandy 44? You can be the Germans, and then tell me whether you think it is still a problem. If you really want a taste of that medicine, then we can wait a couple more weeks until after the the next patch is out, and AAA is ratcheted down...

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 80
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 9:27:56 PM   
Uncle_Joe


Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

That's true. The assumption being that all the advanced strike aircraft are using the advanced munitions. This assumption may not always be correct. Of course, designers could take this into account when setting the PGM settings. Nonetheless, when the database editor is built, designers can add their own modifications.


To me, that is a cop-out. The game should work as designed, not be requiring the scenario designers to manipulate the data.

quote:

The PGM modifier is a crucial part of modern warfare scenarios. Else why give most of these aircraft the same AT rating of 4? Designers need to use all the force settings to get the scenario they want.


Thats a fantastic question why DO these aircraft have an AT rating of 4(!). And again, we are back to only aircraft with PGM getting the modifier and the rest being utterly worthless. I guess airpower did nothing in 67, 73, or 82 (before widespread PGMs).

quote:

There is another setting called the "attrition divider". Look it up.


Unfortunately I dont believe its possible to separate ground/air combat for this purpose. GROUND combat results are fine. Its the air that is lacking.

quote:

How can you call 27.2% losses for the T-80s in exchange for only 1.8% A-10s in a few hours "pathetic results"? I think the U.S. Army would be happy with those results over a couple of days.


Sure, with 500%(!!) increase in firepower and then only on select aircraft. Doesnt that tell you that perhaps something is wrong when what is arguable the world's premier tank busting aircraft needs a 6x increase in the standard effect to accomplish that, especially when the ratio of planes to tanks is 1 to 1?!?! I cant even believe this is being debated. If 100 planes (insane) attacking 100 tanks at 6x effectiveness in ideal conditions is inflicting 27% losses and you dont see that as a problem, then I cant see what you ever WOULD conceive of as a problem.

Like I said, we could use the nuclear modifier too. But we shouldnt NEED too.

I just cant believe anyone can not see this is a problem. Tell me, what do you think a 'realistic' scenario for airpower should result in:

For example, lets take a general battlefield situation where perhaps a realistic attack group of 24 A-10s and 24 F-15Es supported by a high cover of perhaps 15 F-15s are attacking a moving Soviet tank Division in the open (road only). The Soviets have moved so they are down a little bit of supply and readiness and some road attrition on the AA batteries. They have a squadron of MiG-23s nearby.

Now to my mind, the air attack should expect to inflict some losses. The Sov armor is moving, not dispersed and dug in. Now try this with the stock (no 6x modifier) data and see what the results are. If you need to have PGM at 6x then the data is wrong for those aircraft. Or more likely, the formula is off. Because even non-PGM aircraft should be able to inflict losses on at least the artillery and soft targets in that situation and in the game, they will not.

Other examples would be 100s of B52s attacking units in the open, moving...results...neglible....

Israeli F4s and F5s attacking moving Egyptian T55s, BTR50s, and TRUCKS in the esert...results neglible.

Soviet SU-20 attack aircraft bombing moving HALFTRACKS in the open...results neglible.

None of those results are going to change regardless of what you set the PGM level to because they dont have them. Its an engine flaw that you are covering with a super high modifier to certain aircraft...nothing more.


_____________________________


(in reply to Chuck2)
Post #: 81
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 9:31:35 PM   
Uncle_Joe


Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

And in cases like this, interdiction missions are best suited. If you've ever played a scenario where there is heavy interdiction, I'm guessing you would change your tune in a heartbeat, and be complaining about how air units are way overpowered.


I've seen INTERDICTION to be quite effective. That is not the problem. The problem is strikes...ie assigned, by the player attacks.

Why are the results so incredibly different? What magically makes the planes able to hit when they interdict, but they require 6x PGM to to accomplish the same thing when the player picks the target.

I would also submit that 6x PGM required to make strikes worthwhile is going to result is a horrid slaughter when used for interdiction.

That should be an even BIGGER indicator that the formula for strikes/bombardment is buggered...the same planes, with the same stats are inflicting losses on enemy units when used for Interdiction, but cannot repeat that feat if used for direct strike OR ground attack.

_____________________________


(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 82
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 10:02:56 PM   
Industrial


Posts: 143
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline 		As I see many 'should's floating around, I think its time to back this 'air-power is too weak' argument up with some facts, shall I?

OK, lets take Operation Desert Storm, which had a 44 Day long dedicated air campaign, with total air supremacy and theather recon values a WW2 commander could only dream of.

First, the starting figures: The american forces alone had about 2700 planes available, opposed by about about 4,500 tanks, 4,000 armored vehicles and 3,000 artillery pieces in the Iraqi Army.

Here is a nice little chart from the "Gulf War Air Power Survey" (downloadable from the USAF website or from FAS.org), showing how effective the 44-day air campaign really was. In my opinion it is quite clear now that Air Power is not as mighty as Uncle_Joe wants it to be, it is a factor to recon with, but the real killer is the ground force.

Additional Informations:

2765 aircraft
Total sorties flown = 111,500
40,900 air interdiction (AI)
5,150 close air support (CAS)
8,000 offensive counter air (OCA)
9,600 defensive counter air (DCA)
4,850 suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD)
43,000 support
824 million US gallons of jet fuel consumed (including 398 million during build-up)
140 million pounds of air-to-ground munitions




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

Henry Alfred Kissinger

<--- aka: Kraut

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 83
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 10:09:43 PM   
Chuck2


Posts: 830
Joined: 10/12/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks Industrial, some good facts for this discussion. Can you please clarify exactly how many of the 111,500 sorties were directed toward enemy ground units? Overall, though, it looks like the Coalition aircraft didn't do that complete of a job at destroying enemy ground units before the ground war began.

_____________________________


(in reply to Industrial)
Post #: 84
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 10:19:15 PM   
Industrial


Posts: 143
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline 		I'd recon that all air interdiction, close air support and probably the support missons were directed against ground targets, thats roughly 89.000 sorties.

I have the complete "Gulf War Air Power Survey" on my computer, but as all graphics are missing from it (probably to reduce filesize) I'd had to dig the exact numbers from the 1150 pages... uh, maybe later :D

If somebody has a link to the "Gulf War Air Power Survey" with all pictures included, please post it.

EDIT: This is the link to the power point presentation I took the screenshot from:

http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/Outlines/MidE/Kosovo-DesStmAirWarStatistics-7pp.ppt

< Message edited by Industrial -- 6/30/2006 10:39:05 PM >

_____________________________

"The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

Henry Alfred Kissinger

<--- aka: Kraut

(in reply to Chuck2)
Post #: 85
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 10:47:34 PM   
Uncle_Joe


Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline 		Read the posts please....Just read them....

THE GULF WAR IS NOT AN INDICATOR OF FORCE DENSITY IN A GENERAL WAR IN EUROPE CIRCA 1990!!

Good lord, its like looking at how many men the Americans lost digging the Japanese out of the islands in the Pacific and trying to make that the norm for all US WW2 combat casualties! You are looking at a specific case of one side trying desperately to hide from air and dispersing for the maximum defense and then declaring that the norm.

Plus, all of that aside, can you please tell me why Interdiction seems to work, but strikes dont. Dont tell me its because of moving units vs non moving units because its a turn based game. Units that are 'mobile' should be considered moving units the same as for interdiction strikes (or else you introduce ugly P1/P2 problems that shouldnt exist).

So again, random interdiction can hit and effect units, but a player ordered bombardment does not. This does not add up. It should indicate that the latter formula may not be up to snuff or that something else is not being factored in correctly.

_____________________________


(in reply to Industrial)
Post #: 86
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 10:56:35 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Plus, all of that aside, can you please tell me why Interdiction seems to work, but strikes dont. Dont tell me its because of moving units vs non moving units because its a turn based game. Units that are 'mobile' should be considered moving units the same as for interdiction strikes (or else you introduce ugly P1/P2 problems that shouldnt exist).

I believe that this here, is the crux of your problem in understanding how the game models air vs ground combat. It is an incorrect assumption on your part that "'mobile' should be considered moving units".

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 87
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 10:57:14 PM   
Uncle_Joe


Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline 		And under ideal conditions, do you seriously believe that 100 A-10s (or any other strike aircraft) could not destroy 100 T80s (or T72s or whatever) with no flak, no SAMs, no air cover, no terrain, and no defensive dispersal or digging in.

Because this is the EXACT test being run and they can barely dent said armor.

100 planes to 100 tanks is a ridiculously unrealistic attack too. NO ONE would commit 100 planes to hit 100 tanks in the open because it would be gross overkill. But the game does not reflect that.

_____________________________


(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 88
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 10:59:41 PM   
Uncle_Joe


Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

I believe that this here, is the crux of your problem in understanding how the game models air vs ground combat. It is an incorrect assumption on your part that "'mobile' should be considered moving units".


Well then in a turn-based game you are conceding that the system is hosed. How can a player order attacks on enemy units in a static turn sequence and ever catch them 'moving'? This is especially true for P1 because P2 units will ALWAYS have full movement points since they havent had their turn yet.

If this is the argument, then I'll concede that the system does a very poor job of modeling combat at this level and leave it at that.


_____________________________


(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 89
RE: Why is bombardment so weak? - 6/30/2006 11:12:53 PM   
Industrial


Posts: 143
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Read the posts please....Just read them....

THE GULF WAR IS NOT AN INDICATOR OF FORCE DENSITY IN A GENERAL WAR IN EUROPE CIRCA 1990!!


The Iraqi army was the 4th largest in the word at that time, I think it is a pretty GOOD indicator for a dense european theather. This army was to a large part concentrated in Kuwait and along the Saudi Arabia border, which again gives us a densly packed concentration of forces.

Also, the desert is a pretty BAD spot to hide your tank armies, unlike europe, where you'll find plenty of woods or urban to conceal your forces.

And the Iraquis had a very poor air defence and pretty poor tactics, i can hardly think of any more ideal scenario to kill ground forces with air power.

< Message edited by Industrial -- 6/30/2006 11:13:29 PM >

_____________________________

"The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

Henry Alfred Kissinger

<--- aka: Kraut

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> RE: Why is bombardment so weak? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.844