|
Raverdave -> (7/13/2002 10:04:57 PM)
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]In my mind its about pros and cons. Hindsight does help to muddle things up when it comes to wargaming but even so it still comes down to the pros and cons.
Alot of flak (pardon the pun) has been thrown around regarding the woulda-shoulda in terms of what the air corps did historically. One should also look at the "why" as well. It wasn't all a matter of men slapping their forheads and saying "we are so dumb....we should have been attacking low from the getgo, or "we should have sent all our subs to Empire waters instead of putzing around the Solomons"
Air attacks should, in the end, be a matter of pros and cons. If you attack low......then you reap some benefits (better accuracy, "straffing", "skip bombing" etc etc)
On the con side...you face more flak in general and in many cases it may also be more accurate as well, especially in the case of light AA. Disruption, fatique and potential losses will tend to be greater (unless one is attacking weak surface forces and/or merchant assets)
If you attack high then the pros are less negative effects from flak (especially disruption) but at a cost in accuracy.
To me its not so much about what the men did historically because in the end, those who've read up on things will tend to avoid those tactics that proved unprofitable and go straight to those that did. Such "gaming" is all but unavoidable unless the wargame in question puts in rules and restrictions that prevent it.
Its a thorny path however, and one that UV appears to skirt when it comes to airpower when, only a short couple of months after its release you have everyone and their kid sister putting every or most every air asset on low or ultra low level attacks in the hopes of maximizing their efficiency.
From the majority of the AAR's i've read there appears to be little negative impact from doing so hence no "con" component to balance player's decisions in this regard.
Due to the poll's "general" theme question i had to choose the option that said leave the flak alone because i believe the problem resides not in the flak, but in other areas, though at the same time, i do also believe that perhaps flak should be included into potential changes to force players to think more about what they are doing. The simple fact of the matter is that this "solution" (low level bombing) is far too far-encompasing a tactic with little in the way of trade offs for it to be left the way it is.
In order of difficulty (to the coders) i would suggest that the following be looked at.
1) routines for determining disruption/fatique for air groups engaging at low levels. If you want to hug your enemy close, thats fine, but be prepared to pay a price at times if you hug the wrong enemy......hugging a hornets nest is a far different experience from hugging an oak tree.
2) Altitude should be a major component of bomber accuracy. I'm not sure if it plays a factor the way things are right now. The manual says altitude generally doesn't which would explain why B-17's are able to consistantly smash airfields at 33,000 feet. Flak in Europe drove the bombers up because of losses and damage/disruption to planes and crew. Going up eased the problem but at a cost in accuracy. There appears to be little indication of this here. I find it hard to accept that even Nordon equipped heavy bombers can consistantly do such a large scale of damage comprable to that if the bombers were lower. I dont care how good the system, its the same for battleship fire controls, no matter how sophisticated......a steady slow target will always preportionally be a better fire solution than one weaving and traveling fast. Same for aircraft bombing.....lower altitude equates increased accuracy Higher....lower
3) 'specalty' attacks such as skip bombing/ultra low level bombing could warrent a skill or exp rating of its own, similar to the day/night exp for ships. A B-17 or a B-24 could be very effective and were against U-boats in the Atlantic diving in at low level and dropping depth charges. This was not a default or a given though. The crews required much training and experience to be good at this. Big difference between a smooth easy level bombing run at 10000 feet and one at 100 feet where the situation is far more hectic and fast paced.
4) in the absense of 3) perhaps the formation of special attack units that specialize in low level attacks such as skip bombing. If the airgroup in question has this rating they dont suffer any penalties for making such types of attacks. If not, one can still make the attacks (maintaining the player's detail control level in the game), but at penalty, perhaps in terms of fatique/disruption and accuracy. Operational losses might play here too though its more in connection with #1)
5) Flak densities and effectiveness should factor altitude as a major component. This is why torp bombers face two seperate phases of AA. Its not just because they have to come in slow and steady, its also because the altitude and AoA are more favorable vs trying to hit a dive bomber coming in at a 70 degree angle or a plane thousands of feet in the air (esp if you dont have radar assisted fire control)
6) CAP's
a couple suggestions here......the routines might take into account the altitudes in terms of probability to intercept.
Better if more of a headache for the players.....make altitude "matter" when setting your CAP's. Yes, this skirts the realm of 'tactical' vs 'operational' wargaming, but consider: being able to set the altitude settings of your land based units skirts this fine line as well. More importantly, the 'results' of this ability makes for a powerful tool in the hands of a competant player. Allowing the same to be done for carrier groups could make things interesting. Like to attack low do you? what if the enemy player knows this and sets his CAP's accordingly? Could get ugly. :)
7) If your hoping to pierce heavy armor, gravity bombs require a certain amount of alitutude to be able to build up the speed to force their way in. Not much of an issue here though as most level bombs are HE......thats a seperate issue that needs to be addressed but i thought i'd throw it out there as a brainstormin idea
Enough prattle from me. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Well for prattle, a lot of it makes sense, there is some good stuff writen in here. Well done!
|
|
|
|
