FBs as bombers in ground support role

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

FBs as bombers in ground support role

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 >> FBs as bombers in ground support role

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

FBs as bombers in ground support role - 1/14/2016 6:45:21 PM

szmike

Posts: 345
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline

Do they actually bomb?
Battle report is either misleading or they don't.

What do I miss?

Attachment (1)

Post #: 1

RE: FBs as bombers in ground support role - 1/14/2016 6:50:30 PM

loki100

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: szmike

Do they actually bomb?
Battle report is either misleading or they don't.

What do I miss?

look at the general info and ground losses tabs - you'll see destroyed/disrupted due to airpower information there

_____________________________

(in reply to szmike)

Post #: 2

RE: FBs as bombers in ground support role - 1/14/2016 6:59:15 PM

szmike

Posts: 345
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline

There're some squads disrupted by air (no more than 20), 1 destroyed, 2 damaged. I would think with the number of planes used effects would be better. Might be bad terrain effect.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 3

RE: FBs as bombers in ground support role - 1/14/2016 7:05:55 PM

Helpless

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

FB can switch from bombing to sweep mission in some cases. It is impossible to say much out of the provided screenshot, but amount of interception is not too high, so it shouldn't switch many flights.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to szmike)

Post #: 4

RE: FBs as bombers in ground support role - 1/15/2016 6:13:15 AM

szmike

Posts: 345
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline

In this case all bomber intended FBs switched to sweep.

< Message edited by szmike -- 1/15/2016 7:13:27 AM >

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 5

RE: FBs as bombers in ground support role - 1/15/2016 8:03:48 AM

Helpless

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

Some could start with sweep as well.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to szmike)

Post #: 6

RE: FBs as bombers in ground support role - 1/15/2016 10:41:22 AM

Peltonx

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

I would think this tactical bombing in the ground support role should be doing most of the bombing damage as they generally have LW/USA air officiers on the ground tiing the ground units to air units.

Unit bombing aka carpey bombing should not be doing most of the loses as that's really is not how things worked historically.

Carpet bombing was 600 bombs for a single hit. Tactical ground support was much more effective for all countries with Germany clearly the best at the start of the war as they were the only one with a true combined arms C&C system

Some of the other countries quickly copied this system and had more success with varying degrees.

The US system was a close second and Russia 3rd. Which system was the best is hard to judge because of who controlled the air cover.

Ground support should be tied more to ground combat and allot less to unit bombing as per historical, most loses were from tactical bombing which was in close support of ground units - not dropping a million bombs inside a 10x10 mile box.

my 2 cents

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 7

RE: FBs as bombers in ground support role - 1/15/2016 4:57:24 PM

HMSWarspite

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Ground support should be tied more to ground combat and allot less to unit bombing as per historical, most loses were from tactical bombing which was in close support of ground units - not dropping a million bombs inside a 10x10 mile box.

my 2 cents

I am not disagreeing with your point, but your terms/analysis may be open to question. The difference between (RL) CAS and interdiction/strike is nowhere near as pronounced as in game (the delayed action effect of interdiction isn't there for one). However most people (obviously not the grogs here) think CAS is the 'attack purple smoke' school of film action, where the FAC points his fist and retribution cascades from the sky. Most CAS is actually a few hundred meters+ back - hitting the unit moving up, the battalion mortars, the supply truck. In other words rather similar to interdiction, but just in direct support of a fight somewhere rather than roaming a bit further back. Thus I would argue that bombing a unit in a front line hex and doing a GA AD and hitting the artillery, or doing interdiction on a hex further back and then getting an effect on the reserve unit attempting to support the combat just declared are all 'tactical bombing in close support of ground units'. In fact, add bombing that same reserve unit to this list!

The game isn't very good at differentiating the difference between CAS and 'dropping a million bombs in a 10x10 box' (quite rightly, due to scale and abstractions and why would it need to?). Do a really big CAS (GA - or GS for that matter) and you have both at once in game.

Your difference seems to pivot on the number or bombs (hence aircraft) and whether the hex is then attacked... Lets see what the HQ air attack change brings. In fact I suggest using a save that has lots of air attacks defined and running the air phase it several times under today's verison and the new one when out. Then we can resume...

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 8