RE: The early air war

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: The early air war

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 East Series >> The War Room >> RE: The early air war

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 10:55:46 AM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

What was Soviet air force doing at the time? I've always kept my bases close to the front (2-3 hexes), because fighter cover will not work from many hexes away. Then there are doctrine settings.

(in reply to Telemecus)

Post #: 61

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 10:57:04 AM

Kantti

Posts: 87
Joined: 6/10/2016
Status: offline

Although I admit that my opponent could have played airgame differenty, I want to point out that I am flying all my bombers, not only stukas. Stukas get the most impressive results, but Ju88 and Heinkels can also score thousands of disrupted Soviet troops. Even in these screenshots in Tula battles over half of the bombers are other than Stuka.

(in reply to Telemecus)

Post #: 62

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 10:58:52 AM

Kantti

Posts: 87
Joined: 6/10/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

What was Soviet air force doing at the time? I've always kept my bases close to the front (2-3 hexes), because fighter cover will not work from many hexes away. Then there are doctrine settings.

I did aggressive figther sweeps to bases in vicinity (although they were a perhaps 10 hexes away as they were afraid of Panzer Breakthrough just south of Tula) before bombing runs and got unopposed bombing runs afterwards.

I still want to point out that this was not an abnormal turn. I scored similar results through whole summer 1941 although Soviet airforce wasn't played as effectively as it could have been (and neither was my Axis AF). This is just to show that bombing has an immediate effect. It is an another question how to prevent such bombings (that might or might not be doable).

< Message edited by Kantti -- 11/7/2017 11:00:43 AM >

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 63

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 11:02:32 AM

Telemecus

Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

What was Soviet air force doing at the time? I've always kept my bases close to the front (2-3 hexes), because fighter cover will not work from many hexes away. Then there are doctrine settings.

If in reference to the EightMP game probably best referred to the Axis AAR here http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4250683&mpage=7&key=

post 191 has a picture with a map and description or where all the soviet airbases are and what aircraft are on them. The post also ends with a similar battle result for the stukas. That was from two turns ago but is similar to what is being discussed now.

Kantti may have to comment on their game - but I am assuming both are abnormal and should not be the basis for making conclusions about the air war in general.

EDIT: Just read Kantti's post above - should be clear when i speak of abnormal I am referring to the soviet airforce rather than ground bombing.

< Message edited by Telemecus -- 11/7/2017 11:05:13 AM >

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 64

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 11:05:59 AM

Telemecus

Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline

Posted the wrong link above - it has been corrected

(in reply to Telemecus)

Post #: 65

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 11:08:17 AM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

In my old PBEM one turn in November 1941 costed the Germans 189 aircraft to mine 238. We mostly flew ground support, and I had more numerous escorts

(in reply to Telemecus)

Post #: 66

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 11:12:22 AM

Stelteck

Posts: 1376
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kantti

Also wanting to add that all the bombarded hexes had fort level 2. In the summer results were even more impressive when I caught Soviet stacks on the run. Now they had whole mud season worth of time to put their shovels into a good use.

EDIT: also that fatigue added takes some pressure away from need to make soaking attacks to increase fatigue. In Tula odds were finally 2.8:1 after my CV almost tripled and even Soviet defensive CV increased so every bit of fatigue was needed.

Thanks for the information.

Soaking attack do increase fatigue but the most beneficial effect is on ammunition stock.
If an enemy unit is in raid in supply status, it will have a greatly decrease combat efficiency.

(in reply to Kantti)

Post #: 67

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 1:15:20 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

Results of my first test:
- only one unit is bombed in a hex during a single bombing run
- that unit is selected randomly
- in case of units with greatly varying strength/size this may result in poor bombing results (small unit has little impact on total stack strength)
- target experience does not change during bombing
- stack strength increase may be the result of FoWed CV recalculation after bombing (each bombing counts as recon as well)
- single bombing run on a guards rifle division in fort level 3 by ~130 bombers (incl. ~25 Stuka) resulted in reduction of defensive Alt CV from 20.5 to 18.9 (offensive from 7.8 to 7.2).
- that unit lost 12 elements out of 1173 (~1%), in case of ready elements it was 26 elements out of 1110 (~2%)
- during bombing 248 elements were disrupted, resulting in ~21% temporary (only during that bombing run) CV loss
- average fatigue after that bombing run increased from 0 to 16, resulting in ~5% temporary (until the end of turn) CV loss
- as can be seen CV loss of ~7% roughly corresponds to fatigue and ready element loss effect (5%+2%), with most of the loss being temporary (because of fatigue)
- in the logistics phase unit strength will increase because fatigue will be reduced, while elements will be repaired and replaced (experience and morale may drop for good units, but for beaten units replacements may be actually of higher value than elements in place)
- bombing units is good if you want to increase you chances in combat, though ground support is more effective (but if you have airframes to spare it's best to combine both effects)
edit:
- obviously effects will vary depending on aircraft used, group quality, target quality, terrain, fortifications, enemy AA and airforce, but GS should yield better results than pure bombing, with both being the best choice as long as airforce can support that
- one can also imagine harrowing tactics of bombing units before combat to increase chance of victory, doing GS, and finally strafing units that have withdrawn into new hex, possibily without forts, to maximize kills (and airforce usage)

< Message edited by morvael -- 11/7/2017 1:36:16 PM >

(in reply to Stelteck)

Post #: 68

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 2:10:11 PM

Stelteck

Posts: 1376
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

Very interesting !! That's real data !!

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 69

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 2:27:41 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

In my next test I will focus on air group morale/experience changes.

(in reply to Stelteck)

Post #: 70

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 2:32:29 PM

Telemecus

Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline

For what it is worth I have noticed the effect that Dinglir mentioned - sudden large jumps in displayed CV values. However I had always assumed it was just a display bug and so ignored it. While carrying out lots of tests it may be worth keeping an eye out for these display effects just in case they are not reflected in data being recorded.

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 71

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 2:40:22 PM

Telemecus

Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline

I thought it was worth contrasting with an current discussion here http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4260347&mpage=9&key=�

The issue there is should there be a house rule, or developers alter the game balance, because Axis strategic bombing is too over powered. One of my arguments is that the Soviet air force should not all be deployed on the front lines to attack the Axis armed forces but should be distributed around the Soviet Union to defend the motherland. This was the case historically. If a significant part of the soviet air forces had to be committed in the rear, the game would naturally be rebalanced from what was described earlier in this thread as a pro-Soviet stance. And if they did not you would be punished with the over powerful Axis strategic bombing described in the other thread. It seems to be that putting these two together would say the game data balance is fine, but players need to adapt their game plans accordingly and then the results will be more like they historically were.

(in reply to Telemecus)

Post #: 72

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 2:40:50 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

This is just the effect of fog of war and how the CV is calculated (adds or substracts some random value, the smaller the higher detection level is - after any event concerning unit, this value is recalculated without taking previous value into consideration). For real tests you should use no FoW setup, preferably with Alternate CV to boot.

< Message edited by morvael -- 11/7/2017 2:41:21 PM >

(in reply to Telemecus)

Post #: 73

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 2:45:02 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

I thought it was worth contrasting with an current discussion here http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4260347&mpage=9&key=�

The issue there is should there be a house rule, or developers alter the game balance, because Axis strategic bombing is too over powered. One of my arguments is that the Soviet air force should not all be deployed on the front lines to attack the Axis armed forces but should be distributed around the Soviet Union to defend the motherland. This was the case historically. If a significant part of the soviet air forces had to be committed in the rear, the game would naturally be rebalanced from what was described earlier in this thread as a pro-Soviet stance. And if they did not you would be punished with the over powerful Axis strategic bombing described in the other thread. It seems to be that putting these two together would say the game data balance is fine, but players need to adapt their game plans accordingly and then the results will be more like they historically were.

Interesting thing is Denniss had to add German home air defense forces because some Soviet players were engaging in strategic bombing (in 1941!), and those forces were missing from the game.
Perhaps city bombing is too good in the game, it should be nerfed to the level in which no one would use it. But then there would be dissenting voices why no alternate history choices (different strategies) are available, only the historical one.
But the Soviets can evacuate their factories, and it will take a lot of conquest before the German bombers can reach them. So where's the problem?

(in reply to Telemecus)

Post #: 74

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 2:54:46 PM

Telemecus

Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael
Interesting thing is Denniss had to add German home air defense forces because some Soviet players were engaging in strategic bombing (in 1941!), and those forces were missing from the game.
Perhaps city bombing is too good in the game, it should be nerfed to the level in which no one would use it. But then there would be dissenting voices why no alternate history choices (different strategies) are available, only the historical one.
But the Soviets can evacuate their factories, and it will take a lot of conquest before the German bombers can reach them. So where's the problem?

The parallel is almost exact, except that I would argue the Soviet air force for home defence is not missing. It is the Soviet players fault for not putting them there!

In the original Barbarossa directive city bombing was envisioned as being the end part of a successful campaign. Indeed it described bombing the Urals from bases around Moscow. So I think it is historically credible and so should be included. The same centralised co-located integrated Soviet factory organisations that made their evacuation possible also made them easy to track and much easier to bomb too. I think the issue in that game is specifically bombing the remaining Soviet interceptor factories (Yak-1 at Saratov and Lagg-3 at Gorky) - our bombing in the game is getting some of those factories to damage levels of over 30%. If their interceptors cannot defend their interceptor factories then they have a very big problem. Historically Saratov and Gorky factories themselves were never evacuated even though here it seems they need to be to protect them from the bombing. My own thoughts were that the bombing is fine, but maybe you cannot chose the factories of individual types of equipment but have to have more pot luck at which factories you do actually hit when you bomb a city.

< Message edited by Telemecus -- 11/7/2017 2:56:00 PM >

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 75

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 2:55:52 PM

Nix77

Posts: 561
Joined: 10/2/2016
From: Finland
Status: offline

I don't think city bombing is too effective. Soviet player can create airbases to defend key production cities as needed, and also build more AA to protect them. The effect of a well-placed airfield with reasonable fighter force on an unescorted German bomber sortie is dramatic.

It's another question how realistic are 500-mile night bombing runs to Siberia...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
My own thoughts were that the bombing is fine, but maybe you cannot chose the factories of individual types of equipment but have to have more pot luck at which factories you do actually hit when you bomb a city.

This is a good idea. Maybe you could choose a target, but hitting it would require succesful rolls. Night bombing could be even more random.

< Message edited by Nix77 -- 11/7/2017 2:58:02 PM >

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 76

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 2:57:59 PM

Stelteck

Posts: 1376
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

Relative to strategic bombing, i'am not s�re it is a problem for 2 arguments :

- First, did strategic bombing difficult to stop with fighter coverage ?

- Second, did stopping a factory have an impact on the war ?
Which soviet factory to bomb to have a significant impact of the war ? Certainly not Tanks factories as we have as soviet too much medium tanks anyway.
I would say recon plane factory and IL-2, but they are not difficult to transfer.

< Message edited by Stelteck -- 11/7/2017 3:03:16 PM >

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 77

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 2:58:28 PM

HardLuckYetAgain

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RforRush

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kantti
https://i.imgur.com/XGiQVfg.jpg

Wow, German planes are really OP.

They were upgraded in recent patches by the way.

_____________________________

(in reply to RforRush)

Post #: 78

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 3:10:50 PM

HardLuckYetAgain

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael
Interesting thing is Denniss had to add German home air defense forces because some Soviet players were engaging in strategic bombing (in 1941!), and those forces were missing from the game.
Perhaps city bombing is too good in the game, it should be nerfed to the level in which no one would use it. But then there would be dissenting voices why no alternate history choices (different strategies) are available, only the historical one.
But the Soviets can evacuate their factories, and it will take a lot of conquest before the German bombers can reach them. So where's the problem?

The parallel is almost exact, except that I would argue the Soviet air force for home defence is not missing. It is the Soviet players fault for not putting them there!

In the original Barbarossa directive city bombing was envisioned as being the end part of a successful campaign. Indeed it described bombing the Urals from bases around Moscow. So I think it is historically credible and so should be included. The same centralised co-located integrated Soviet factory organisations that made their evacuation possible also made them easy to track and much easier to bomb too. I think the issue in that game is specifically bombing the remaining Soviet interceptor factories (Yak-1 at Saratov and Lagg-3 at Gorky) - our bombing in the game is getting some of those factories to damage levels of over 30%. If their interceptors cannot defend their interceptor factories then they have a very big problem. Historically Saratov and Gorky factories themselves were never evacuated even though here it seems they need to be to protect them from the bombing. My own thoughts were that the bombing is fine, but maybe you cannot chose the factories of individual types of equipment but have to have more pot luck at which factories you do actually hit when you bomb a city.

From my experience bombing result of night bombing is too high. Also the interception results are too high too. I'm not a 100% full fledged history buff and maybe someone that is well versed in the night bombing results could chime in and give us some statistics on exactly how effective night bombing and interception was anywhere in WW2 during the 1st years of WW2. I believe we will find it wasnt very effective at all but I could be wrong in my assumption here. But in the game I'm seeing very high loses in both bombing and interception which I don't think models history.

Plus currently both sides have all aircraft available for night operations with minimal downside for using it as such besides fatigue. There has to be other delimiters for night operations imho.

_____________________________

(in reply to Telemecus)

Post #: 79

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 3:16:29 PM

HardLuckYetAgain

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

The parallel is almost exact, except that I would argue the Soviet air force for home defence is not missing. It is the Soviet players fault for not putting them there!

100% agree with Telemecus here. Both sides are guilty of consolidating their Air Forces in large strike hammers for offense & defense. Which in turns leaves vital sectors prone to attack. If you don't see the threat and react accordingly then shame on you. But yes, 100% agree with Telemecus here.

_____________________________

(in reply to Telemecus)

Post #: 80

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 3:55:29 PM

RforRush

Posts: 51
Joined: 7/29/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael
Soviet players were engaging in strategic bombing (in 1941!)

?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Soviet_strategic_bombing

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 81

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 4:00:14 PM

M60A3TTS

Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

The parallel is almost exact, except that I would argue the Soviet air force for home defence is not missing. It is the Soviet players fault for not putting them there!

100% agree with Telemecus here. Both sides are guilty of consolidating their Air Forces in large strike hammers for offense & defense. Which in turns leaves vital sectors prone to attack. If you don't see the threat and react accordingly then shame on you. But yes, 100% agree with Telemecus here.

Yeah, right.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 82

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 4:20:46 PM

HardLuckYetAgain

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

The parallel is almost exact, except that I would argue the Soviet air force for home defence is not missing. It is the Soviet players fault for not putting them there!

100% agree with Telemecus here. Both sides are guilty of consolidating their Air Forces in large strike hammers for offense & defense. Which in turns leaves vital sectors prone to attack. If you don't see the threat and react accordingly then shame on you. But yes, 100% agree with Telemecus here.

Yeah, right.

I stand by what I said. Plus you aren't flying night missions & you were destroyed on the ground it looks like. Again I don't agree with the night bombing results that is being given in the game. It is "way" too generous and I have posted that a few times already.

_____________________________

(in reply to M60A3TTS)

Post #: 83

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 4:22:24 PM

HardLuckYetAgain

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

The parallel is almost exact, except that I would argue the Soviet air force for home defence is not missing. It is the Soviet players fault for not putting them there!

100% agree with Telemecus here. Both sides are guilty of consolidating their Air Forces in large strike hammers for offense & defense. Which in turns leaves vital sectors prone to attack. If you don't see the threat and react accordingly then shame on you. But yes, 100% agree with Telemecus here.

Yeah, right.

I stand by what I said. Plus you aren't flying night missions & you were destroyed on the ground it looks like. Again I don't agree with the night bombing results that is being given in the game. It is "way" too generous and I have posted that a few times already.

I had a night bombing as a Soviet that destroyed 25 German fighters in one of my games. Again night bombing and interception is "way" too generous.

_____________________________

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)

Post #: 84

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 5:14:54 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RforRush

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael
Soviet players were engaging in strategic bombing (in 1941!)

?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#Soviet_strategic_bombing

Long range, yes, but not strategic. It had no such effect. As % of tactical sorties and compared to Allied strategic bombing this was pure propaganda. As can be seen directed at city, not industrial targets.

(in reply to RforRush)

Post #: 85

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 5:18:45 PM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

Night bombing was nerfed once, it can be evaluated again.

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 86

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 5:22:03 PM

M60A3TTS

Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline

I've always enjoyed this BBC series, the World at War.

This one in particular discusses strategic bombing and includes the practical difficulties of flying at night particularly by the RAF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P8Xu3nDAdw

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 87

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 5:54:15 PM

Kantti

Posts: 87
Joined: 6/10/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nix77

I don't think city bombing is too effective. Soviet player can create airbases to defend key production cities as needed, and also build more AA to protect them. The effect of a well-placed airfield with reasonable fighter force on an unescorted German bomber sortie is dramatic.

It's another question how realistic are 500-mile night bombing runs to Siberia...

I don't think that building more AA solves anything. Like said, AA-losses are nigh non-existant. Bombing run to Tula was met with 70(!) 85mm AA guns and 25 of other types. Result: 1 bomber shot down...

(in reply to Nix77)

Post #: 88

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 5:54:29 PM

RforRush

Posts: 51
Joined: 7/29/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael
Long range, yes, but not strategic. It had no such effect. As % of tactical sorties and compared to Allied strategic bombing this was pure propaganda. As can be seen directed at city, not industrial targets.

Then Germans didn't conduct any strategic bombing either. Bombing was focused on destroying civilian infrastructure. So having strategic bombing in the game (= choosing industry as target) is ahistorical.

< Message edited by RforRush -- 11/7/2017 5:58:07 PM >

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 89

RE: The early air war - 11/7/2017 6:03:51 PM

HardLuckYetAgain

Posts: 6987
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kantti

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nix77

I don't think city bombing is too effective. Soviet player can create airbases to defend key production cities as needed, and also build more AA to protect them. The effect of a well-placed airfield with reasonable fighter force on an unescorted German bomber sortie is dramatic.

It's another question how realistic are 500-mile night bombing runs to Siberia...

I don't think that building more AA solves anything. Like said, AA-losses are nigh non-existant. Bombing run to Tula was met with 70(!) 85mm AA guns and 25 of other types. Result: 1 bomber shot down...

Ya, there was another post stating how "ineffective" Soviet AA really is. Especially compared to German AA. I believe a post by M60 sparked this conversation then a thread made on it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Kantti)

Post #: 90