Air campaign issues and VP

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Air campaign issues and VP

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> Air campaign issues and VP

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Air campaign issues and VP - 2/15/2015 9:54:12 AM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

In order to stay out of the unpleasant 'middle earth' thread, I have stated this in response to Red Lancers' request for ideas on the air campaign VPs.

I wont make suggested changes yet, but here are my thoughts as to issues:
- trashing the WA heavy bomber fleets has no downside other than loss of future capability, but with pools/replacements and pilots this is only temporary generally
- The Uboat VP loss worries a lot of people, and provides a predictable set of targets for the LW to defend. Is this necessarily true in game, or a reflection of RL?
- Too much Allied flexibility (BC/8AF to Med, night to day, all freely)
- naval interdiction questions (GE able to blitz an area with bombers on NI)
- Concerns on NF combat (although this may be addressed in the upcoming patches)

I am sure there are more (which is the point of this thread). In addition, I am sure we will have great fun thinking up solutions... I will limit mine until some of you have commented.

However, I think we need to consider what makes a good game. This is hard. But I know a bad game when I see one. A bad game is (amongst other things) one where there is one way to win, to the extent that the first turn is so scripted you might as well do a scenario with it already put in, as everyone does it and anyone who doesnt loses immediately. A good example was AH Third Reich. The defence and invasion of Poland was so scripted and optimised that the first turn of the game was pretty pointless. The Poles filled Warsaw, and the 6 hexes around it, and the Axis moved the right units in the right way and won in short order.

A game might have very good options and less good options but must be scissors paper stone (or even Lizard Spock!). I mean that each option should have responses, which can be free choices by the player. The wrong guess or wrong counter should hurt, but not enough to predestine the entire game.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

Post #: 1

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/15/2015 11:15:58 AM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

Philosophical thoughts on the air war...

Air targets in the game come in 3 sorts I believe.
1. Things like AFV or operational aircraft production (and I think Manpower). These are produced to restock combat units in game. In principle, damage to factories and reduction of production is completely covered by the scope of the game. Flatten all the 190 factories, and the LW will run out of 190s, with all the effects that has. 190s dont go anywhere else (outside the scope of the game), nor do they have an indirect effect on the country or economy (people dont eat them, and hence the lack of food chain modelling doesnt need to be allowed for). Thus, no grounds for VPs (+ or -) for hitting them, the production effect is it in its entirety
2. Things like HI, fuel and resources. These are necessary for production of things in category 1, and so some of the effect of cutting production should be modelled (I presume that the production model works as per other GG games like WitP and BtR - AFV for example use HI and a factory to make so many AFV per turn). However, they are also necessary to produce other things - rolling stock (dont think they are included in factories), repair factories, railyards, bridges and roads, make reinforced concrete for forts, etc. GG could have modelled the whole process, and covered the process explicitly but the game would have been finished sometime next century. So we need to have an additional effect for bombing these items to cover the additional impact outside the game. Hence Bombing VPs for a subset of industry.
3. Uboats and V weapons. These have no effect in game, and knocking them out broadly doesnt affect the winning of the war. Presence of them hinders the Allies and lack of them does not. Particularly, lacking them does not help the WA win the war. Thus negative VPs for these is key. Knocking out the Uboats does not compensate for failing to finish the german army and so positve VP for hitting them is not right.

So in my view the concept as set up works. There are 2 issues: VP levels (which I will leave to another debate), and the problem that negative VPs produce 'forced targeting' removing a players perceived choices. To be effective in their purpose they need to be significant, which removes choice. The issue boils down to the fact that there is only 1 way to skin the cat.

If Uboat Fac produced an equipment 'U Boats' which could be affected by lack of HI or resources, or reduced by NI, and points were generated from the number of U Boats currently, this would restore choices - you could put BC on NI to hunt them down as an alternative to bombing their factories. I think this extra mini-game would be hard to set up, and raises more issues (attractive as it might be).

How's about a simplified version. Curently U boat (and VW) cause -VP solely on their damage state (or lack of it). If a hypothetical super bombing campaign knocked out all in game HI production, the notional subs still apparently get built (the much hidden type XXXXII 'cardboard' uboat!). So hows about the uboat negative VP score is reduced by a small % of the HI and Resurce damage as well (and maybe oil?). Thus you could hit the UBoat Fac directly, or indirectly via HI and so on... If we got the fractions right, the effort would not be reduced (I am thinking 10% of the HI for example), but the old 'I know where you have to bomb' effect would be reduced and I get other ways to skin my cat. Unless I am well off beam in how the game works, it wouldnt be that hard to implement.

What do people think?

< Message edited by HMSWarspite -- 2/15/2015 12:17:49 PM >

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 2

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/15/2015 11:21:12 AM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

And yes, I didn't wait... but just been walking the dog in a nice late winter's day (or early spring even) and the ideas tend to flow :)

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 3

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/15/2015 11:48:28 AM

RedLancer

Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

These were my initial thoughts:

Instead of scoring AFV / Manpower / Guns losses it should be variable scores for Fighter / Bomber & Utility / AA.

Then Cumulative Scores for the following target groups with adjustable modifiers:

Oil/Fuel/Synth Fuel
Manpower
Resource/Heavy Industry
Aircraft/AFV/Vehicle/Armaments
Port/Railyard
V Wpns
U Boats

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 4

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/15/2015 11:53:57 AM

marion61

Posts: 1688
Joined: 9/8/2011
Status: offline

I don't really have a problem with the air vp's. I have no problem getting positive vp's from it until around May'44 when I start using heavy bombers for railway. Even then it's not too bad except for how fast VWL targets repair. This seems fast, but I also know there really wasn't a lot to fix at the sites either. You can't fly your bombers into the ground either. You will lose a lot to op losses, so always check what type of losses you are getting. If you see a lot of op losses, stop flying with low morale. High flak losses, fly around it where you can. Lots of air combat losses, get more escorts. It doesn't take 7 days of bombing, except bomber command at night, to get sufficient damage to a target. You also don't need 100% damage on targets, just enough to reduce it's affect, but I do try for a 100% damage. When I bomb a vp target, I also choose (where possible) to attack the industry I've picked for my own strategic reasons. I believe I've found some vulnerable industries that I don't expect to see results for up to a year. If it works I'll share it, but for now I won't for obvious reasons.

I honestly think this part of the system needs more testing before trying to fix it. I don't see a problem here. Yes, it's tough to learn, and yes, until you get the huge influx of planes in Nov. '43 you take huge losses, but the air war I have no trouble managing and get positive vps a turn from it.

< Message edited by meklore61 -- 2/15/2015 12:58:30 PM >

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 5

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/15/2015 11:54:22 AM

carlkay58

Posts: 8650
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline

Warspite - rather than a complicated formula in your simplified version, the current VPs allow you to gain VPs by the bombing of HI which offsets the VP loss of the UBoat/VW targets. It is the resource targets that have no effect on VPs that probably should have in your argument.

Personally I have never had problems with losing too many VPs to either the UBoats or VW targets. Yes, Pelton defends them with the LW and puts them on priority repair, but you can get past that with proper use of the strategic AFs. Yes it costs planes, but it costs the LW planes too and eventually the LW loses effectiveness as their trained pilot pool goes away and the new pilots need a lot of training to survive.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 6

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/15/2015 11:54:28 AM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

Yes, I hadnt picked up on your 'air campaign' - I am on the full 43-45 above. So those elements in category 1 above need vp as well.

Are you planning on having programmed ground advances like EF or BtR? If so, railway/interdict needs thinking about. If not, you probably need to remove a lot of FB from the OoB. For both sides...

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 7

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/15/2015 12:03:10 PM

RedLancer

Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

I'll rephrase my question - how would you redo the VPs in the Air Tutorial (or a similar longer/larger scenario)?

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 8

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/15/2015 12:10:10 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

Yea, got that now

Depends on whether it is a serious attempt at a scenario or a training one still I think.

Could go ultra simple - flat points for any target, then fighter/bomber/utl points? Or points per engine, with extras for pilot loss. After all, in an air game, the aim is to encourage flying and give an objective to go for.

Downside is there is probably a few exploits... Like flattening Paris and never going near Germany.

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 9

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/15/2015 2:05:57 PM

whoofe

Posts: 211
Joined: 1/21/2011
Status: offline

I haven't had much problem keeping U-boat & V-weapon VPs down once I understood how it worked (thx to ppl on this forum for clarifying)

My biggest problem is Bomber Command. there is such a wide spread in the effectiveness gap between Bomber Command and 8th AF, I don't know whether Bomber Command isn't effective enough or 8th is too effective (I suspect it may be a combination of both)

typically my 8th AF directives hit their targets most of the time and they hit them hard. typically my bomber command directives end up with no result, and the 20% of the time they do hit, often its a minimal effect.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 10

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/15/2015 2:07:01 PM

Belphegor

Posts: 2209
Joined: 5/10/2004
Status: offline

I'd suggest a 'bombing campaign' selection by the WA. Done at the start of the game or at '43, and '44 starts or perhaps in doctrine at the start of the game and remain unchangeable. This allows the WA to select the targets for his political/strategic efforts. I would combine them (as warspite suggests) with the u-boat and v-weapons to at least disperse the effort required not to lose VPS. This would prevent the early protection of the VP resources. German player could at some point figure out the other part of the campaign target and shift (that would happen anyway).

Forces the Allies to focus a bombing campaign. Forces the Germans to figure out what it is.

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 11

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/15/2015 3:27:00 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

Thats a very good idea for a short (even a couple of months) air campaign scenario. I like it. You would need FOW for the VPs on the German views. If they saw the source of VPs the cat would be out..

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Belphegor)

Post #: 12

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/15/2015 6:26:31 PM

LiquidSky

Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

There is no such thing as hidden vp's. Not unless you hide the actual vp's gained on the victory screen from the players.

For example. Right now I know when I have to bomb the U-boat factories because the -score I get for them on the vp screen tells me.

If you got a hidden choice on the first turn of the game, by turn 2 I would know precisely what factories to protect and what I can ignore. Unless you decide to not bomb your vp targets.

_____________________________

�My logisticians are a humorless lot � they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.� � Alexander the Great

(in reply to HMSWarspite)

Post #: 13

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/15/2015 6:38:51 PM

Belphegor

Posts: 2209
Joined: 5/10/2004
Status: offline

You don't bomb the Ruhr factories? or anything else during your air war even when you have vp targets?

Yes, if someone hits only those targets it's certainly not a secret. Can't do much about a limited bombing campaign like that.

(in reply to LiquidSky)

Post #: 14

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/16/2015 10:11:17 AM

ParaB

Posts: 112
Joined: 5/3/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline

I have no problems with negative VPs for stuff like the U-Boat factories. It doesn't really take too much effort to wreck these factories and if the German player decides to defend them all the better, because it means I can trash the Luftwaffe even earlier. Pilot losses may not seem terribly important for a couple of months, but once the Germans run out of their pool of experienced pilots the Luftwaffe is finished.

For me the need to bomb the U-Boat factories is perfectly understandable based on historical strategic directives.

(in reply to Belphegor)

Post #: 15

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/16/2015 10:20:20 AM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ParaB
It doesn't really take too much effort to wreck these factories and if the German player decides to defend them all the better, because it means I can trash the Luftwaffe even earlier.

Really? Care to share your secrets?

(in reply to ParaB)

Post #: 16

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/16/2015 11:35:00 AM

ParaB

Posts: 112
Joined: 5/3/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline

I got the best results with 8th AF conducting large, concentrated raids with maximum fighter escort. Watch your squadron's morale and don't fly too many missions.

I think one of the problems is that as allied player it's easy to get fixated on your own losses without realizing how hard you actually hit the Luftwaffe because it takes quite some time until you'll actually feel the effects.

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 17

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/16/2015 12:23:36 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ParaB
I got the best results with 8th AF conducting large, concentrated raids with maximum fighter escort. Watch your squadron's morale and don't fly too many missions.

I think one of the problems is that as allied player it's easy to get fixated on your own losses without realizing how hard you actually hit the Luftwaffe because it takes quite some time until you'll actually feel the effects.

The LW won�t be broken by a couple of long range P38s/P51s escorting the 8th over Hamburg. At best you run into a couple of hundred fighters shooting down 10-30 per week. I fail to see that have much of an effect.

(in reply to ParaB)

Post #: 18

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/16/2015 12:46:38 PM

marion61

Posts: 1688
Joined: 9/8/2011
Status: offline

20-30 planes lost means at least as many pilots lost, and that is what kills the LW, not how many planes you shoot down. Just use the 8th to bomb those subs and you should have them at a manageable level within about 8-9 turns. I don't take high losses doing so and he has a lot of planes around them.

Axis pilots will start becoming critical in the spring or summer of 44 in a campaign game. Once that happens the LW falls out of the sky if you look at them. In my game with NOSB, he had lots of planes in spring '44, but his trained pilot pools were dry. He had to dump a bunch of untrained pilots in the pool and it showed. I quit worrying about the LW. If you hide the LW, they still hit a critical point in 44. They have to protect the Reich, so pilots are still lost.

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 19

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/16/2015 1:56:34 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meklore61

20-30 planes lost means at least as many pilots lost, and that is what kills the LW, not how many planes you shoot down. Just use the 8th to bomb those subs and you should have them at a manageable level within about 8-9 turns. I don't take high losses doing so and he has a lot of planes around them.

Axis pilots will start becoming critical in the spring or summer of 44 in a campaign game. Once that happens the LW falls out of the sky if you look at them. In my game with NOSB, he had lots of planes in spring '44, but his trained pilot pools were dry. He had to dump a bunch of untrained pilots in the pool and it showed. I quit worrying about the LW. If you hide the LW, they still hit a critical point in 44. They have to protect the Reich, so pilots are still lost.

Is the LW really that short on pilots? I mean thats just around 100 pilots per month?

What the replacement rate for the LW? And can�t on map training give a boost to number of pilots?

(in reply to marion61)

Post #: 20

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/16/2015 2:02:59 PM

ParaB

Posts: 112
Joined: 5/3/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline

The Luftwaffe doesn't only fly in the Hamburg region. ;)

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 21

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/16/2015 2:04:57 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ParaB
The Luftwaffe doesn't only fly in the Hamburg region. ;)

In my game they pretty much do exactly that.

(in reply to ParaB)

Post #: 22

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/16/2015 3:50:35 PM

marion61

Posts: 1688
Joined: 9/8/2011
Status: offline

Some turns they lose a whole lot more, usually when the 8th gets it huge influx of bombers and fighters around Dec. '43. Then you will be killing a lot more than 20 to 30 a turn. The LW is a use it or lose it deal. You just don't have enough trained pilots, which is accurate, to do the same job in mid to late '44. Pilot qualities have degraded and there are too few to stock the groups needing them. Hiding the LW doesn't work, but you do have to protect it by not letting it get within FB strike range.

(in reply to JocMeister)

Post #: 23

RE: Air campaign issues and VP - 2/16/2015 4:03:27 PM

JocMeister

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Yeah, the extra long range fighters in late 43 helps a lot of course. I was referring to early war.

Personally I have found the best way to deal with the LW is P47s.