RE: Pelton (GHC) vs KWG (WA) turn 50

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: Pelton (GHC) vs KWG (WA) turn 50

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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Pelton (GHC) vs KWG (WA) turn 50

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Pelton (GHC) vs KWG (WA) turn 50 - 12/7/2015 4:49:14 PM

KWG

Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline

Given orders to test the enemies' strength, 4th Armor Division sees a opportunity and keeping the momentum in their favor they defeat German forces east of Vire.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"A word was said - a mare is standing by the fence."

(in reply to KWG)

Post #: 151

clear exploit. - 12/7/2015 5:27:11 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Turn 49

WA Loses: 256,000
GHC Loses: 268,000

Turn 51

WA Loses 273,350
GHC Loses 326,564

WA loses over 3 turns; 17,000
GHC loses over 3 turns: 58,000

ratio: 1 to 3.4

Pelton,

What KWG is saying is that there is a good reason why your data for the last 3 turns shows the German losses at 3.4X that of the WA; namely because he is using his strategic air force (ie BC and 8th) solely for the purpose of bombing your troops rather than (as they were used historically) for bombing your cities. In one post here he shows that his air force bombing caused you approximately 12,000 losses in 1 turn. If he had the same results for the 3 turns you posted your data on than it means that (according to my 7 year old nephew) 36,000 of your 58,000 losses were caused by the air bombing and only 22,000 by other causes. Of course, this intensive carpet bombing would have also caused disruption of your units so that the ground attack loss ratio was slightly in his favour (17,000 to 22,000). Historically, as far as I am aware, the Allies only used this carpet bombing tactic once in, as KWG points out, Operation Cobra. Some of the credit for the success of this operation is due to the carpet bombing. It was an historic example of the proper use of "Shock and Awe." KWG is not making historic use of his strategic air forces and therefore I do not think you should be able to expect your loss ratio data to match the historical loss ratio data. Of course you are benefiting from this as KWG should not be gaining as many strategic bombing VPs. So to be fair you should also be showing us the data for the Strategic Bombing VPs for the last few turns.

FYI, in my game against QBall (the first one as we have now started a second game with me as the Germans) it seems to me that I was almost always suffering more casualties than him even when he retreated. This was until I started using Bomber Command to bomb his units like KWG is doing to you. I have found BC far more effective at killing and disrupting German units than any of my FB Commands. It seems that the quantity of bombs you drop is far more important than the height from which they are dropped or the training of the air groups. FBs are still more effective at interdiction of course. QBall is returning the favour, bombing my units almost every turn and killing my men, even in snowfall weather. Another advantage is that since BC air groups are more durable and fly above 15,000' my Flak losses and damage seem to be much less, so I don't need to "Rest" 1/2 my Air force every turn. The difference is that in our game I didn't start this tactic until late 44 and I am not using 8th AF like KWG is.

So the issue for me is: are the losses and damage caused by the big bombers historical? Personally I think they are over rated in the game. Shock and Awe will only work so often before the enemy adapts. At the same time I think the losses and damage caused by the tactical air groups (FBs and 2 engine bombers), especially Air Support missions and enemy units reserve reacting through interdicted hexes, is under rated. You may have read my posts on the nerfing of rockets and interdiction, if not I suggest you do so as they make fascinating reading. So I actually agree with you (Good Lord) that the loss ratio should not be as one sided as it is because he should not be causing as many bombing losses as he is. If the Allied player chooses to use his strategic AF to support the ground war then the loss ratio should be more in his favour than historical; just not as much as is happening here.

Its clear this is an exploit.

WitW combat system and system in general has not been pushed. Clearly KWG is exploiting what is a poor design.
Yes its WAD, but the design is poor and can and is being easly exploited.

I would do the same.

Hopefully exploits like this will be removed before WitE 2.0 is released.

This is why one has to simply look at the historical combat ratio's and simply track in game ratio's

Its more then clear that the current combat engine simply can not turn out historical ratio's, BECAUSE of exploits.

I think over all the system can work, but not until Middle Earth exploits are removed.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 12/7/2015 6:30:31 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Harrybanana)

Post #: 152

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/7/2015 6:34:11 PM

RedLancer

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

This is not an exploit. Strategic Bombers were used on more than one occasion against ground troops so there is no reason why they couldn't be used over a more protracted period. KWG is losing V-Wpn VPs.

Why, when a tactic is employed that is different to history or that provides a significant advantage against you do you call it an exploit? Why don't you criticise your ahistoric holding of reserves on trains as an exploit and ask for that to be corrected?

< Message edited by Red Lancer -- 12/7/2015 7:36:56 PM >

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 153

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/7/2015 7:01:24 PM

KWG

Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline

Not just because Iam playing as Allies, I will present supporting evidence:

WHAT CAN PUT A TIGER TANK ON IT'S BACK?

Exploit? Depends on what the context of the word means. Game vs Real Life.
This is not as clear cut as Airborne King Tiger Tanks or Shermans taking 15 hits from 88s resulting in ricochets

!!!And this may be far from a guaranteed winning strategy. I might be doing something to ensure my own defeat!!!

Iam doing what was physically possible and WAS DONE and SHOULD have been done more.

Is this not what the Luftwaffe did on a smaller scale at the beginning of the war???

Operation Cobra broke the stalemate at the front and if it had been done every week after, the war may have been over by Christmas. As I alluded to in a previous post - a decision was made to continue to bomb Germany's men, women and childern - to destroy their lifes in all aspects.

There is NO reason that what was done at Dresden, et al. could not have been done to the front line soldiers.
We bombed Dresden to SHOW the Russians what we could do

B52 strikes Gulf War.

Its like saying only so many AFVs can be in a battle? The code seems to be simulating the real world as what could and would happen, VERY WELL.
So a "governor" to set a max speed for game play - A reverse expolit - a "deploit" or "disploit"?

The MIGHTY 8th AIR FORCE........ Royal Air Force BOMBER Command
They were a POWERFUL force no doubt. LOOK WHAT THEY DID TO GERMANY - cities, infastructure, people.

The only way to adapt to it would be to "get out" of the Area of Operations, or dig so deep that any ground defense is hindered and would not matter. Or fight for control of the Air.

This strategy would be great to use in my Early Birds scenario, where the Germans get jets and other planes a year early.

Iam disrupting more than just killing, as the accounts of Corba and other such bombings state... everyone is in shock and command is in disorder.

Pelton's "badger in a foxhole" defense leaves only one saving response :
Sherman's "The Southern people want war, I will give them war."

Which leads to Seminole's quote:
"Pelton seems to be playing into KWG's strategy of facing him in the eye of a hurricane."

THE NEW GERMAN SALUTE
As German soldiers said of Allied air power:
As the war progessed, throwing your arm over your head and ducking became the new Sieg Heil salute.

< Message edited by KWG -- 12/7/2015 8:07:09 PM >

_____________________________

"A word was said - a mare is standing by the fence."

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 154

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/7/2015 7:12:29 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is not an exploit. Strategic Bombers were used on more than one occasion against ground troops so there is no reason why they couldn't be used over a more protracted period. KWG is losing V-Wpn VPs.

Why, when a tactic is employed that is different to history or that provides a significant advantage against you do you call it an exploit? Why don't you criticise your ahistoric holding of reserves on trains as an exploit and ask for that to be corrected?

Exactly. How is carpet bombing, which is what KWG is doing, an "exploit"?

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 155

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/7/2015 9:58:06 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

fully agree, you are trading off VPs in the strategic airwar to take advantage of Pelton's rigid defensive tactics. He is playing fully into your hands.

The longer term test is whether you get more VP by wrecking the German army now or hitting is industry/population and so on.

_____________________________

(in reply to KWG)

Post #: 156

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/8/2015 2:38:33 AM

Harrybanana

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

I don't think it is an exploit for 2 reasons:

1. An exploit is something you do to win a game and I think KWG knows that this is not a winning strategy. When you say that you would do it if you were him Pelton I don't think you have considered how many VPs he is losing each turn because of this. I was getting 6 Strategic bombing VPs per turn and losing only 1 to V-Weapons at the same point in time against QBall. So I was gaining a net of 5 VPs per turn from the Strategic air war. KWG is losing 2 VPs per turn. So smile and relax, your strategy will be the winning one.

2. An exploit, IMHO, is where you use a rule or gaming feature for something other than what it was intended, thus breaking the spirit of the rule. Here KWG is not using BC or 8th for a purpose other than what the game intended. The programmers never intended to prevent a player from using these Air Commands in this way, but it does provide for a specific penalty if you do so. By the same token you could, if you wish, ignore the Garrisoning requirements and move your entire army where ever you want. You would just have to pay the consequences for doing so.

However, while not an exploit, I repeat my opinion that Strategic Bombers are much more effective at bombing troops than they should be.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 157

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/8/2015 2:58:42 AM

Harrybanana

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

KWG, are you willing to provide any specifics of how you are doing this? As I said in my game against QBall I started adopting a similar strategy. I would generally use the 1600 or so bombers I have in BC to fly four 400 bombers each Ground Attack ("Unit") Air directives against 4 enemy hexes. They would generally fly 3 days per week at about 17,000 feet. For my load out I used whatever gave me the most bombs rather than just a few big bombs. But I don't know as I got as good a results as you are getting here. Though on one turn I did advance 2 to 3 hexes against tough opposition on a 3 hex wide front. I found using 400 FBs or 2 engine level bombers at 12000 feet was not nearly as effective. It is now January 1945 and I am considering using even 8th AF in a ground attack roll once the skies clear. The way I see it the Strategic bombing divisor is so high in 45 that it will probably only cost me 1 or 2 VPs per turn. But I really haven't decide if I "feel right" about this yet. It is not an exploit, but somehow it still feels a little wrong to me. probably not enough to keep me up at night with a bad conscience though.

(in reply to Harrybanana)

Post #: 158

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/8/2015 4:50:05 AM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

IMO, using strategic bombers is not an exploit, even though I have been a victim of it. It's a choice. The only part is that the Allies have more incentive to make that choice in the game than RL. Why? Because strategic bombing doesn't produce the results it did in real life. It racks up VPs, but Strategic bombing doesn't produce the level of economic impact that did IRL, particularly in fuel.

I have never run out of fuel as Germany, and never had to consider fuel as an operational limitation. That's not realistic either.

_____________________________

(in reply to Harrybanana)

Post #: 159

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/8/2015 7:48:44 AM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I have never run out of fuel as Germany, and never had to consider fuel as an operational limitation. That's not realistic either.

There were posts showing that it is possible.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 160

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/8/2015 2:44:09 PM

LiquidSky

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

In my last play as the Allies I used my Strategic Bombers exclusively on hitting industries.

I estimate that I destroyed and kept destroyed over half his air and afv factories. Most of his vehicle factories. Half of his heavy industry.

And most of his Fuel:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

�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 Helpless)

Post #: 161

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/8/2015 2:48:18 PM

LiquidSky

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

The Oct 21, 1944 bombing:

I think it would be silly for anybody to use the strat bombers for anything other then destroying industry.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by LiquidSky -- 12/8/2015 3:49:27 PM >

_____________________________

�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 LiquidSky)

Post #: 162

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/8/2015 5:06:45 PM

KWG

Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

In my last play as the Allies I used my Strategic Bombers exclusively on hitting industries.

I estimate that I destroyed and kept destroyed over half his air and afv factories. Most of his vehicle factories. Half of his heavy industry.

And most of his Fuel:

Has and when did Ploesti, and the other Rumanian oilfields, fall to the Russians?

< Message edited by KWG -- 12/8/2015 6:25:18 PM >

_____________________________

"A word was said - a mare is standing by the fence."

(in reply to LiquidSky)

Post #: 163

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/8/2015 5:08:17 PM

KWG

Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline

"I think it would be silly for anybody to use the strat bombers for anything other then destroying industry. "

Yes it is and it's silly to think that a airplane could destroy a battleship.

< Message edited by KWG -- 12/10/2015 12:36:54 AM >

_____________________________

"A word was said - a mare is standing by the fence."

(in reply to KWG)

Post #: 164

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/8/2015 7:02:50 PM

whoofe

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

I like seeing ppl trying new creative strategies. as long as there is a counter-strategy its all good.

(in reply to KWG)

Post #: 165

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/9/2015 2:34:53 AM

Harrybanana

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

In my last play as the Allies I used my Strategic Bombers exclusively on hitting industries.

I estimate that I destroyed and kept destroyed over half his air and afv factories. Most of his vehicle factories. Half of his heavy industry.

And most of his Fuel:

I am unsure how worthwhile destroying his air factories was as the Germans have far more planes then pilots. Perhaps your opponent can comment as to whether or not this had any effect on him.

Destroying AFV and Vehicle factories does have an effect on the Germans; but does not require anywhere near all of BC and 8th to achieve.

Your Opponent still looks to have approximately 250,000 Fuel Stores + Pool. Unless I misunderstand the Rules (which is possible) I don't think he will feel any effect until you get him down below 25,000. As far as I am aware whether the German has 1,000,000 or 30,000 fuel doesn't matter. I do think it is possible to get the Germans below 25,000, but it would require a very heavy concentration on fuel and probably more skill with the air game than I possess. I would love to be told I am wrong.

Destroying HI has no effect on the German war machine at all as he will always have more than enough HI to keep his industry and supply going.

If I am right than the only purpose of Fuel, Oil and HI bombing is to garner the VPs. Again, would love to be told I am wrong.

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 12/9/2015 3:36:37 AM >

(in reply to LiquidSky)

Post #: 166

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/9/2015 8:34:20 AM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

Iirc, Carl (carlkay58) did fuel bombing which caused real shortage on the ground.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Harrybanana)

Post #: 167

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/9/2015 3:00:50 PM

Harrybanana

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Iirc, Carl (carlkay58) did fuel bombing which caused real shortage on the ground.

I am glad to hear that. How low do you need to push the German Fuel Pool before these effects are felt?

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 168

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/9/2015 5:24:37 PM

KWG

Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

KWG, are you willing to provide any specifics of how you are doing this? As I said in my game against QBall I started adopting a similar strategy. I would generally use the 1600 or so bombers I have in BC to fly four 400 bombers each Ground Attack ("Unit") Air directives against 4 enemy hexes. They would generally fly 3 days per week at about 17,000 feet. For my load out I used whatever gave me the most bombs rather than just a few big bombs. But I don't know as I got as good a results as you are getting here. Though on one turn I did advance 2 to 3 hexes against tough opposition on a 3 hex wide front. I found using 400 FBs or 2 engine level bombers at 12000 feet was not nearly as effective. It is now January 1945 and I am considering using even 8th AF in a ground attack roll once the skies clear. The way I see it the Strategic bombing divisor is so high in 45 that it will probably only cost me 1 or 2 VPs per turn. But I really haven't decide if I "feel right" about this yet. It is not an exploit, but somehow it still feels a little wrong to me. probably not enough to keep me up at night with a bad conscience though.

I have given one the Dev Team a report of what I can remember, a outline. AS OVER MY TURNS I was making small changes that was having different outcomes and I cannot remember more than a outline of what I did.
When I get my turn I can give a more precise report.

That may take awhile as Pelton is in Norway looking for heavy water.

Field Marshall von Pelton gives weekly report to Hitler:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by KWG -- 12/11/2015 4:33:47 AM >

_____________________________

"A word was said - a mare is standing by the fence."

(in reply to Harrybanana)

Post #: 169

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/10/2015 11:45:16 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

Personal attacks do not change exploits.

Its funny how I point out exploits and 2by3 1st reaction is a personal attack

So KWG who told you about the work around to interdiction?

When I play I expect to play 1 person not 2by3 ect ect

Who informed you about this exploit?

Again lets stick to the data and not more Bozo the clown/2by3 personal attacks.

A Middle Earth explot is a Middle Earth exploit aka your silly pants Fellowship stuff

< Message edited by Pelton -- 12/11/2015 12:46:06 AM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to KWG)

Post #: 170

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/11/2015 12:00:00 AM

KWG

Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Personal attacks do not change exploits.

Its funny how I point out exploits and 2by3 1st reaction is a personal attack

So KWG who told you about the work around to interdiction?

When I play I expect to play 1 person not 2by3 ect ect

Who informed you about this exploit?

Again lets stick to the data and not more Bozo the clown/2by3 personal attacks.

A Middle Earth explot is a Middle Earth exploit aka your silly pants Fellowship stuff

How have I attacked you?

The heavy water comment is a COMPLIMENT

to you, as you are going to drop the bomb on me.

The Hitler report is just a touch of historical content. If you attacked my forces and caused me great concern I would post the "Hitler jig" gif of when he conquered France

I dont know what to make of the rest, as no one has told me anything.

< Message edited by KWG -- 12/11/2015 4:09:21 PM >

_____________________________

"A word was said - a mare is standing by the fence."

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 171

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/11/2015 2:38:56 AM

Seminole

Posts: 2105
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline

My advice is to try and tune out the histrionics some favor and focus on the facts.

Of particular interest to me are the differences between the raids that generate <10 losses and those that generate >500.
Are these similar aircraft, just wide variance in 'rolls' and thus results, or is it that certain airframes/loadouts rock and others are next to useless at unit bombing (assuming that's what is creating most of these losses)?

I'd hate to see aircraft in general nerfed when it's something particular to a certain airframe/loadout that might be getting unintended or outsized results.
I've noticed, and mentioned in more than one AAR, that the naval and ground interdiction engines love sheer number of bombs over seemingly any other player controlled consideration (e.g. 28 little bombs in a Ju-88 trump even torpedoe loadouts when it comes to naval interdiction).

I don't see anything in the manual about different terrain (and manmade forts) effects on air attacks. Can anyone chip in?

(in reply to KWG)

Post #: 172

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/11/2015 3:44:27 AM

KWG

Posts: 1249
Joined: 9/29/2012
Status: offline

"Of particular interest to me are the differences between the raids that generate <10 losses and those that generate >500. "

Fate?

I believe one of the secret ingredients is RECON and some more RECON then a little more RECON then a whole bunch of RECON.

We can tell if someone has walked through a field.

LOOK! There is a field and a line of trees, OH MY! where do they be?!!!

"I don't see anything in the manual about different terrain (and manmade forts) effects on air attacks. Can anyone chip in? "
HMMMMMM.

< Message edited by KWG -- 12/11/2015 5:11:38 AM >

_____________________________

"A word was said - a mare is standing by the fence."

(in reply to Seminole)

Post #: 173

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/11/2015 11:41:00 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Why, when a tactic is employed that is different to history or that provides a significant advantage against you do you call it an exploit? Why don't you criticise your ahistoric holding of reserves on trains as an exploit and ask for that to be corrected?

You personally told me not to make claims unless I have in game and historical data to back up my claims on the dev forums.

I have done what you asked.

1. In game data I have posted the data that shows turn after turn of 1 to 5 up to 1 to 8 loses ratio.
2. most of the loses are from planes and not ground combat.
3. I posted the historical loses for Normandy and we all know most combat loses were not from planes but by
artillery or general ground combat.

Historical link is here incase you missed it in this an other threads.

http://www.britannica.com/event/Normandy-Invasion/images-videos/The-exact-number-of-casualties-suffered-in-the-invasion-of/40555

I have clearly out lined the loss ratio starting turn 49 using total loses to get the true lose ratio per turn.

I have clearly given historical data to show that 1 to 5 and up to 1 to 8 odds is not historical.

I done everything u have asked.

Also why does the air system need a summer bonus?

Were targets easyer to see in the summer?

Does the higher temps make the pilots targeting better?

What is the historical reason for this bonus?

Is the summer bonus really needed and why?

I would think bombing in winter when there is far less natural cover would be better then summer bombing hedgerows.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 174

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/11/2015 11:47:31 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

My advice is to try and tune out the histrionics some favor and focus on the facts.

Of particular interest to me are the differences between the raids that generate <10 losses and those that generate >500.
Are these similar aircraft, just wide variance in 'rolls' and thus results, or is it that certain airframes/loadouts rock and others are next to useless at unit bombing (assuming that's what is creating most of these losses)?

I'd hate to see aircraft in general nerfed when it's something particular to a certain airframe/loadout that might be getting unintended or outsized results.
I've noticed, and mentioned in more than one AAR, that the naval and ground interdiction engines love sheer number of bombs over seemingly any other player controlled consideration (e.g. 28 little bombs in a Ju-88 trump even torpedoe loadouts when it comes to naval interdiction).

I don't see anything in the manual about different terrain (and manmade forts) effects on air attacks. Can anyone chip in?

Also what is wrong with air system so that it needs a summer bonus?

Hopefully we can get some positive feed back an not name calling ect ect.

just the data would be nice for once in a thread.

Just because someone questions something people don't need to come unglued.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Seminole)

Post #: 175

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/11/2015 11:55:40 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is not an exploit. Strategic Bombers were used on more than one occasion against ground troops so there is no reason why they couldn't
be used over a more protracted period. KWG is losing V-Wpn VPs.

That's true, but very few.

He is also causing unhistorical loses every turn from planes, which is clear.

He could simply not even invade and cause 20-30k loses.

That's the point I am tring to make here that gets over looked.

KWG could simply not even invade and cause almost as many loses per turn by bombing units along the coastline closest to England in clear hexes.

Is that historical? of course it is not we all know that.

Why is there no bonus for units in terrain vs bombing or in forts?

Is there a bonus or not?

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 176

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/11/2015 12:07:36 PM

LiquidSky

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

Actually it is a worry of mine as well that you can bomb units before you invade every turn as well but there is something I need to test.

Units that are not adjacent to an enemy unit cannot get over level 4 detection. A big difference from 10 and should reduce destroyed units.

Also the summer bonus (and winter malus) is only because of the extra (loss) of daylight hours to fly

_____________________________

�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 Peltonx)

Post #: 177

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/11/2015 12:58:16 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Also what is wrong with air system so that it needs a summer bonus?

...

Just because someone questions something people don't need to come unglued.

ahem: longer days, more sunshine, WW2 tactical bombers being pretty useless in the dark?

to your second point, less abusive posts and histrionics from your side would help.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is not an exploit. Strategic Bombers were used on more than one occasion against ground troops so there is no reason why they couldn't
be used over a more protracted period. KWG is losing V-Wpn VPs.

That's true, but very few.

He is also causing unhistorical loses every turn from planes, which is clear.

He could simply not even invade and cause 20-30k loses.

That's the point I am tring to make here that gets over looked.

... well he couldn't as he wouldn't have the help you are providing by giving him high detect levels on your units. Also, if I was playing the Germans and my opponent spent turn after turn (with no invasion) using his strategic bombers to hit my units - well fine and froody (to quote a long forgotten classic text). I'll take the win that would be the consequence. As we all know German losses are a means to an end, not a source of gained or lost VPs.

I'm sorry but all I read in your posts is special pleading. You have a mode of play that you cycle from game to game. KWG has found an answer. His answer is only effective because of the way you are defending. A more flexible approach on your side and he'd be chucking away strat bombing VPs for only minimal damage to your army

_____________________________

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 178

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/11/2015 1:05:59 PM

RedLancer

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

I am all in favour of a hard fought contest and a little trash talk. I am 100% against inaccurate allegations and name calling. This applies to all members of the forum.

@ Pelton - I do not believe this is an exploit. You can argue that some of your tactics are equally ahistoric - almost never attacking and three deep defensive lines are just as ahistoric. There is always a danger of over optimisation but where do you draw the line between those who can use the game to their advantage and where it is pushed too far. If neither of you are playing Normandy by history then quoting historical data is not a sufficient argument.

The air rules are pretty clear. 17.3.3.1 shows the interdiction bonus which is based on increased daylight hours. I do not believe that has any effect beyond air interdiction as the modifier is applied after the interdiction value is applied to a hex. Winter does have an effect through weather (17.1.5 refers) and a negative interdiction modifier.

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to LiquidSky)

Post #: 179

RE: Not an exploit. - 12/11/2015 2:54:36 PM

Seminole

Posts: 2105
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline

quote:

Also why does the air system need a summer bonus?

In Caen on June 21st the sun will rise before 5:56am and set after 10:10pm.
In the same city on Dec 21st the sun will rise at 8:53am and set at 5:05pm
~9 hours of daylight versus ~16 is why there is a difference
The manual states 'interdiction values', and by Red's description it should only come into play when Pelton is forced to retreat (suffering the elevated attrition) or moving through the interdiction zones.

quote:

He could simply not even invade and cause 20-30k loses.

That's speculation, we want to stick to facts.
It's also why I'm interested in the particulars.
It's been mentioned that recon will have an impact. I've harped on this in my AARs as both sides (emphasizing it as the Allies in showing my ADs and remarking how the lack of it is probably contributing to Allied results when playing Germany).

How significant is level 10 detection versus level 4 detection (the highest without a unit adjacent)?

To test your theories we need to see more than the gross aggregates you've provided. Show us the types of flights and loadouts that are getting high (300-500 men lost) results and those that are getting low (0-10).

KWG would probably rather share his detection level specifics at a later time, but this is also where another aspect of your strategy and play style is also a contributing factor.

(in reply to RedLancer)

Post #: 180