RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

castor troy -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/4/2011 7:28:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rainer79 My personal view is that much of the silliness could be removed by deleting the ground attack option of B-29s. I think that should be doable without messing too much with the code otherwise (hopefully). this should be done for all aircraft types, give them only the missions they really flew and make the aircraft as effective in those missions they flew. Means making fighter bombers really fighter bombers, medium bombers for tactical missions, etc. This would of course also mean robbing the Japanese most of their torpedo bombers, all of their Army bombers on ASW or long range mass night attacks and so on. But as long as we go with the "the aircraft could do that" argument, I think a B-29 could drop bombs from 1000ft at any target. Just as a Betty could drop a torp. Now I wonder why we have never come over the thinking that it is normal to drop more torps in the first couple of months than Japan produced during the whole war but say a heavy bomber couldn´t drop bombs. [:'(] Especially when I think about having only 500lb bombs for the US bombers because no squadron will ever reach the needed (WITP) experience in AE to be able to drop bigger bombs. Means ships in port are bombed by the Japanese either with 800kg bombs (that kill everything) or even better, they use torps but only by Allied 500lb bombs on the other hand.

herwin -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/5/2011 9:16:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: Rainer79 My personal view is that much of the silliness could be removed by deleting the ground attack option of B-29s. I think that should be doable without messing too much with the code otherwise (hopefully). this should be done for all aircraft types, give them only the missions they really flew and make the aircraft as effective in those missions they flew. Means making fighter bombers really fighter bombers, medium bombers for tactical missions, etc. This would of course also mean robbing the Japanese most of their torpedo bombers, all of their Army bombers on ASW or long range mass night attacks and so on. But as long as we go with the "the aircraft could do that" argument, I think a B-29 could drop bombs from 1000ft at any target. Just as a Betty could drop a torp. Now I wonder why we have never come over the thinking that it is normal to drop more torps in the first couple of months than Japan produced during the whole war but say a heavy bomber couldn´t drop bombs. [:'(] Especially when I think about having only 500lb bombs for the US bombers because no squadron will ever reach the needed (WITP) experience in AE to be able to drop bigger bombs. Means ships in port are bombed by the Japanese either with 800kg bombs (that kill everything) or even better, they use torps but only by Allied 500lb bombs on the other hand. It's hard to get everything right, when in many cases you don't know why they did what they did. And if you know why and decide to model it, you need (usually unavailable) calibration data at more than one point. If you go with a single point of data and extrapolate linearly, you get death stars. The real world is so damn complicated!

PaxMondo -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/5/2011 4:29:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: PzB This is from Jap point of view and there are of course balancing issues to consider as well, but anyway, my advice would be to: Re-examine sea bombardments and consider un-nerfing Nerf air bombardments both against base targets and troops (the latter were troops are in a non clear hex with forts / terrain cover and not moving) You faced over 400 shooters and had 2 squads KIA? I don't see the beef. The hardware isn't mobile, and these were late-war DBs. Consider yourself lucky. As PzB pointed out, it isn't the casualties, its the high numbers of the troops that are apparently being disabled subsequent to the air attacks. The result looks to be that the atoll will fall in a rather short period of time. Iwo should be the example. What were the IJ troop strengths Iwo? ~20,000, right? US troop strength? V Amphib Corp with follow on troops ... what about ~100,000 or more. ~25000 US casualties ... +30 days to secure. The fundamental item being the bombardments had little effect. The landing faced well entrenched and supplied troops. A very tough struggle. I don't support "nerfing" ground bombardment, but the fortification level factor in the alogrithm looks like it could use some tuning. Andy/PzB's recent turns with the landing on Christmas island are a perfect test bed. To avoid confusion, let me state the goal here isn't to replicate the Iwo damage assesments. The game is NOT a simulation and the model doesn't work by modeling every aspect of combat perfectly to get the desired outcome. The goal is arrive at a similar overall result: with the full hammer of the USN hitting Christmas Island (lvl 6 forts and well supplied), it should take at least 30 days (and since this atoll is a lot larger than Iwo, you could easily argue that it should take more like 60 days) and require followon forces to take. That the allies should prevail in this instance should not be seriously in doubt (assuming they do the job right, and Andy is doing it right I am sure). It's that even effectively bringing their big hammer to the party, it should take them TIME to secure their objective. Right now, it looks like the roadblock is going too easy with both players doing everything right. And the item that stands out in this are the high numbers of disabled troops. If I was going to tune this, I would take the fortification factor in the bombing effectiveness and tweak it ~25%. Then run Andy/PzB's turns a couple of times. Hopefully, we'll see those disabled drop enough to where the island will hold out for 30 - 60 days. Just my thoughts....

sandman455 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/5/2011 5:50:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo . . . The game is NOT a simulation and the model doesn't work by modeling every aspect of combat perfectly to get the desired outcome. The goal is arrive at a similar overall result: with the full hammer of the USN hitting Christmas Island (lvl 6 forts and well supplied), it should take at least 30 days (and since this atoll is a lot larger than Iwo, you could easily argue that it should take more like 60 days) and require followon forces to take. That the allies should prevail in this instance should not be seriously in doubt (assuming they do the job right, and Andy is doing it right I am sure). It's that even effectively bringing their big hammer to the party, it should take them TIME to secure their objective. Right now, it looks like the roadblock is going too easy with both players doing everything right. And the item that stands out in this are the high numbers of disabled troops. If I was going to tune this, I would take the fortification factor in the bombing effectiveness and tweak it ~25%. Then run Andy/PzB's turns a couple of times. Hopefully, we'll see those disabled drop enough to where the island will hold out for 30 - 60 days. Just my thoughts.... Yes sir, I do believe you have summed up my thoughts I have had about some of the results from these most appreciated AAR's. Just too much too fast. I could go on for pages but I'm too clueless about the game in general and the capabilities of the assets involved to be of much help. Yet here's just one instance of me scratching my head. . . [&:] From PzB's AAR - there' simply no way I can conceive of getting that many carrier aircraft (with many coming from CVE's no less - utterly hopeless) marshalled above the island, all with their own ToT's on pre-recon targets in a 16 hour period. Plus, he's got LCU's on the ground?? They are now in a CaS mission unless you just don't care about hitting friendlies. CaS has always been a loiter type mission which is exactly the opposite of the mass strikes that was implemented by Andy day after day. Who knows, maybe with months of planning with weeks of rehearsal. /shrug But given what I know about carrier ops, I still think you would be looking at a goat rope before 10am and by 4pm the allied casualties/disruption would EQUAL the enemies because targets wouldn't look at all like the recon (smoke, fires, craters, movement, etc). If you kept sending in aircraft, they would just be throwing bombs everywhere. Honestly, either they loiter and figure out the situation with help from units on the ground, or they pickle their loads, frag some USA/USMC squads, and get back for dinner while there still is some. You tell me what's going to happen? What about this idea: With friendlies in the target hex, your strikes convert to a "CaS" profile which would severely limit the number of aircraft that get to drop ordnance. You could send a strike of Y size, but only Y-X would attack with X being a random modified by the amount of friendlies engaged. More friendlies in hex - the more confusion - the bigger the X. Random thoughts from the peanut gallery.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/5/2011 6:30:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PaxMondo As PzB pointed out, it isn't the casualties, its the high numbers of the troops that are apparently being disabled subsequent to the air attacks. The result looks to be that the atoll will fall in a rather short period of time. Iwo should be the example. What were the IJ troop strengths Iwo? ~20,000, right? US troop strength? V Amphib Corp with follow on troops ... what about ~100,000 or more. ~25000 US casualties ... +30 days to secure. The fundamental item being the bombardments had little effect. The landing faced well entrenched and supplied troops. A very tough struggle. To avoid confusion, let me state the goal here isn't to replicate the Iwo damage assesments. The game is NOT a simulation and the model doesn't work by modeling every aspect of combat perfectly to get the desired outcome. The goal is arrive at a similar overall result: with the full hammer of the USN hitting Christmas Island (lvl 6 forts and well supplied), it should take at least 30 days (and since this atoll is a lot larger than Iwo, you could easily argue that it should take more like 60 days) and require followon forces to take. That the allies should prevail in this instance should not be seriously in doubt (assuming they do the job right, and Andy is doing it right I am sure). It's that even effectively bringing their big hammer to the party, it should take them TIME to secure their objective. Right now, it looks like the roadblock is going too easy with both players doing everything right. And the item that stands out in this are the high numbers of disabled troops. If I was going to tune this, I would take the fortification factor in the bombing effectiveness and tweak it ~25%. Then run Andy/PzB's turns a couple of times. Hopefully, we'll see those disabled drop enough to where the island will hold out for 30 - 60 days. Just my thoughts.... I disagree that Iwo RL results should be the calibration for anything. Iwo was Iwo. It was hollowed-out mountains. It may be Level 6 in the game, and so was this, but in RL it was mountians, not bunkers. Nothing man-made can come close. I also don't know of any RL atoll invasion where the full CAGs of eight fleet carriers struck a port in one strike. The math done in the thread shows the tonnage of aimed bombs which hit in this attack. Not multi-engine area bombing. There is no RL data for this. I don't have a problem with the numbers of disabled troops in these results. I actualy think the KIAs are way too small, from spalling and internal bunker frags at least, let alone concussion. Disabled troops recover. That there isn't time for that if the Allies press home their attack is an Oh Well--it's part of the model. If Andy accepts the disruption, supply usage, and his own KIAs to not let up, the defense can't automagically get better at the same time. Casualty care isn't overtly modeled in the game, but is secondarily through this mechanism. A fortified position ceaselessly fighting for survival isn't going to devote a lot of manpower to WIA care. The disabled have to wait. As for the time needed to take an atoll, it's part of the game balance. Yes, some islands took longer in RL than in the game. But sortie rates, tides and currents, beach obstructions, and a thousand other variables aren't overtly represented in the game. The whole game has an optempo too fast for RL, on both sides. The Japanese amphib bonus is an abstraction too, but I don't see any JFBs calling for it to be removed. Fort levels will always be a swag, with a lot of randoms in the mix. If I had a beef, it would be that fort levels can't be lowered exept by LCU action. Never by air attack. If you want to talk about something that needs to be changed we can go there. Also that Allies pilots never get napalm to use on forts. Also that CD emplacements pretty much never get destroyed by CAS either. Ahistorical, but hey, it's not a tactical engine.

Andy Mac -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/5/2011 8:29:12 PM)
Just remember after 7 or 8 Days I have not secured Christmas Island with total air and naval superity and 6 Divs atackign basically 2. Folks need to remember that all I have done is secure a badly damaged Air Field and Port the game is slightly all or nothing on combat as its a base based system but all I have done so far is secure the easiest part of the island (the flat bit witt the Air field How long did it take the allies to secure the AF on Iwo is a better comparison what 10 - 12 days max ?? less....certainly the AF was repaired and in opweration in under 20 days in my view 400 casualties is light with only 2 squads destroyed for what I brought

PaxMondo -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/5/2011 8:44:14 PM)
Well, if Andy and the Moose think its ok, then I'll relent. Ok, the ground bombing is what it is. Back to my game .... [;)]

obvert -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/5/2011 10:03:47 PM)
Ground bombing issues are not related simply to one or another situation. Multiple individual players have sited examples from many games where bombing ground units, airfields, ports, and industry have produced results that are linear rather than adjusted for numbers or previous damage. It seems most players who add to a forum like this seem to think it's not a well designed calibration. We all know only 'tweaks' will be made by MichaelM to help refine the game. So what could be considered a tweak? A tweak seems like any change that uses already existing systems to better model the real world limitations of the equipment used in the game. I have no idea about the coding and whether these things could be done, but I'm interested in finding some even minor improvements rather than no changes at all. Here are some things that seem to be consistently mentioned issues: Frequency of air bombardment - 2E and 4E bombers did not attack targets daily but can and do in game. - possible tweak - increase fatigue or decrease morale for pilots, or increase fatigue on planes (more for 4E than 2E) Night bombing - night bombers are relatively invulnerable to attack and hit far too often - possible tweak - have night bombing use low ground skill, (which most players don't seem to train) AND increase fatigue on plane or pilot or both Strength of bombing against ground units - units and bases can be destroyed by linear calibration of bombing effects, especially in clear hexes - possible tweak - add +1 fort for bombardment by air for any unit not in move mode in a clear hex. Or, if it's possible, add +2 (or more) forts for anything (unit or AF or port) with over 50% damage. Or both. Not sure if any of this is possible, but there is a problem, and since there are still changes being made, why not try to work through what might actually be possible.

Andy Mac -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/5/2011 10:54:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: obvert Strength of bombing against ground units - units and bases can be destroyed by linear calibration of bombing effects, especially in clear hexes - possible tweak - add +1 fort for bombardment by air for any unit not in move mode in a clear hex. Or, if it's possible, add +2 (or more) forts for anything (unit or AF or port) with over 50% damage. Or both. Not sure if any of this is possible, but there is a problem, and since there are still changes being made, why not try to work through what might actually be possible. I dont believe bombing against ground targets is out of kilter now v bases maybe I would agree but if anything CAS is nerfed as FB's die in droves if they try it.

Andy Mac -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/5/2011 10:57:41 PM)
I think we need to be cvarefull when discussing Ground Bombing CAS by DB'sFB'sMediums/Lights and Attack Bombers I dont believe is way off now if anything I think its light CAS by 4E probably too powerfull Airfield and Port Bombing seen results both ways too powerfull and too light - but probably a tendancy for too powerfull but then I would say the same about massed sweeps, unescorted bombers flying into massed CAP and any number of other issues witht he model.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/5/2011 11:23:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac I dont believe bombing against ground targets is out of kilter now v bases maybe I would agree but if anything CAS is nerfed as FB's die in droves if they try it. I agree. FBs were a key element in the late war, particularly USMC CAS. After Tinian napalm was used extensively and changed the whole equation, especially in hilly terrain. I've used P-47s extensively in strafe mode since late 1943 and get nothing like the results I know they were capable of from ETO tank buster data. And so on. In clear terrain level bombers ought to devastate ground forces. Even dug in to slit trenches massed area bombing should hurt LCUs quite a bit in good weather. Level bombing against ports and airfields? I think the airfield damage code works better than the ports. Ports were quite varied in construction, but they're pretty fragile infrastructure, and a lot of results take out supply more than repair facilities. And going back to WITP I tear my hair out that there's no good way to impact CD except to walk up and shoot the gunners in the head with infantry.

Andy Mac -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/6/2011 12:08:38 AM)
Arguably on Iwo Jima the base fell with the fall of hill 365 on D DAy6 art that point 2 of the 3 AF's were under US control......equivalent to taking the base. The mopping up took far longer but the key point is securing the base so dependfing on your interpretation of when an island falls actually Iwo can be used to argue the point either way quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac Just remember after 7 or 8 Days I have not secured Christmas Island with total air and naval superity and 6 Divs atackign basically 2. Folks need to remember that all I have done is secure a badly damaged Air Field and Port the game is slightly all or nothing on combat as its a base based system but all I have done so far is secure the easiest part of the island (the flat bit witt the Air field How long did it take the allies to secure the AF on Iwo is a better comparison what 10 - 12 days max ?? less....certainly the AF was repaired and in opweration in under 20 days in my view 400 casualties is light with only 2 squads destroyed for what I brought

frank1970 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/6/2011 9:24:24 AM)
Maybe it would help to simply damage each plane which was used in a low level attack (3000 feet?)? It should be quite easy to hit one of those large planes with a rifle. The damage should be added after the plane landed so the pilots won´t be lost. Planes which then reach the critical damage should be "permanently disabled". As there are too many planes in the game this would reduce the number of planes per raid and therefore help the model work better.

frank1970 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/6/2011 9:32:19 AM)
BTW, does artillery fire destroy supplies and planes as well as the runway in a base? Else it should not be possible to use a airfield on an atoll before the very last enemy artillery/mortar unit is destroyed or disabled.

rader -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/7/2011 6:14:42 PM)
Ok, here's some numbers from the past 3 turns (June 7-12, 1945). This table shows the number of squads, support units (+ engineers), and guns/vehicles disabled or destroyed by allied aircraft. Note that once devices are disabled, they are subsequently destroyed on the next hit, so we can combine these together provided we double the number of devices for the "div equivalent" row (assumed at 1500 squads per division). The first three columns show the number of devices disabled/destroyed by 4E bombers. The next 3 colums show the number of devices disabled/destroyed by all other a/c (including 2E bombers and light attack aircraft). The last colum "div equivalents" shows how many division equivalents this relates to being completely destroyed exlcusively from the air. Some observations: 1. Even though probably 3x or 4x the number of 2E and light bombers are involved here, they are doing less than half the combined damage of the 4E bombers. I.e., per plane, 4E bombers are at least 6 times (and more like 10 times) as effective as ground attack aircraft at killing ground units from the air. 2. The main 4E bomber attack (~200 B-29s in Manchuria) flew 5 out of the 6 turns represented here. This is a very high tempo of operations, and this strike alone was responsible for entirely eliminating over 2 entire full strngth divisions in 5 days. 3. The average rate of loss for these 3 turns is higher than 1 division equivalent eliminated entirely from the air (starting at full strength). Given the size of the Japanese army, if this rate of loss were to continue, Japan's entire army would be eliminated in around 100 days, without any ground combat. If this was possible, why did the allies bother with land units? 4. Damage was significantly modified by terrain, but even in clear terrain, the damage inflicted by real ground attack aircraft (like the IL-2) was moderate to small (~10 squads max per bombing run). By contrast, attacks of 3-6 B-29s (the stragglers), typically did at least double the damage that would be inflicted by 50+ IL-2s. In fact, in this ground bombing model, I suspect that B-29s inflict around 10 times the damage per plane, simply because they carry 10 times the bombload. [image]local://upfiles/14041/D4761045F4F441ECB72A875AFDE792C9.jpg[/image] Does anyone here actually think a loss rate of over half a division of troops a day due to air attack alone is reasonable (especially in the Pacific theater)?

Erkki -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/7/2011 6:31:24 PM)
Rader, can you put them in relation to sortie numbers, both 4E and 2E? It may be that there are just as many or nearly as many 4Es as 2E sorties which of course effects the results.

rader -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/7/2011 7:06:03 PM)
No, were talking at least 3x the number of 2E and 1E sorties compared with 4Es. However, it is true that most of the 4E sorties were vs. better terain on average (more clear, less jungle). But still, I don't know how to describe the results other than "borked". quote: ORIGINAL: Erkki Rader, can you put them in relation to sortie numbers, both 4E and 2E? It may be that there are just as many or nearly as many 4Es as 2E sorties which of course effects the results.

herwin -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/7/2011 7:14:08 PM)
Given the willing to fix things like bombing, what would it take to get ground combat fixed?

Andy Mac -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/7/2011 11:36:53 PM)
How much AA was present, what mode were they in, what height were the bombers, what level of forts did the defenders have ?

rader -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/7/2011 11:51:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac How much AA was present, what mode were they in, what height were the bombers, what level of forts did the defenders have ? Generally a couple of AA units are present, but in some cases, just what the divisions had instrinsically. I think the bombers were between 6K and 10K (maybe 8K)? Combat mode, no forts. But it makes very little difference. While it is true that it is generally better to defend rough terain, you absolutely have to defend clear terrain in some places. For example, it is unreasonable to suggest that you can't put LCS in Japanese home country clear base hexes. If you don't defend them, paratroopers will just come and take them. If you do defend them, you will lose all the LCUs doing so and the paras will still take them. Right now, I am faced with the prospect of abandoning all bases in clear terrain and giving them up to the paratroopers, or getting the defenders killed from the air. I would suggest that ground bombing troops that aren't in contact with the enemy should be dramatically reduced in potency. Without being able to spot the location of enemy troops for the aircraft, I'm not sure it makes sense that 4E bombers in formation can destroy entire divisons in rear areas each day...

herwin -> OCS Burma and WitP-AE Comparison (11/8/2011 9:50:23 AM)
Combat in OCS Burma Background: Allied divisions have typically 5 steps, while Japanese divisions have 10. Casualties per step are more comparable at 800 or so. Turns are 3-4 days and hexes are 5 miles. Terrain: this is open (rare in Burma), close (jungle or villages), very close (swamp, town, rough, mountain along roads), and extremely close (mountain away from roads). River crossings halve the attacker. Armour/tank/mech units are limited to attacking in the clear and along roads/tracks/railroads, and their attack/defense is halved or worse in non-clear terrain. A 2-level fortification is a hedgehog. Fighting unsupplied halves that force. Bombardment: artillery bombardment is expensive--1000 tons of ammunition for a Commonwealth division bombardment or for a Japanese corps bombardment. These bombardment levels have about a 50-50 chance of suppressing a target, which halves its firepower and reduces its effectiveness, and about an 8% chance of damaging it (a half step). Air bombardment has about a 30% chance of suppressing the target and a 3% chance of damaging it. The attacker takes its losses and chooses to convert options into hex retreats or step losses. Label an attacker retreat a 'probe', and a choice of step losses an assault. Then the defender makes the same decision. Step losses are a 'defence', and a retreat is a retrograde. Here are some typical battles: 3-1 in clear, probe. 0.313 expected attacker step losses. 10% chance of a forced defender retreat and attacker exploitation. 0.67 expected defender step losses. 3-1 in clear, assault, defender defends in place. 16.3% chance of a forced defender retreat and attacker exploitation. 0.987 expected attacker step losses. 1.7739 expected defender step losses. 3-1 in clear, assault, defender retrograde. 16.3% chance of a forced defender retreat and attacker exploitation. 0.987 expected attacker step losses. 0.67 expected defender step losses. 1.43 hexes retreated. 3-1 in jungle, probe. 0.427 expected attacker step losses. 10.67% chance of a forced defender retreat and attacker exploitation. 0.426 expected defender step losses. 3-1 in jungle, assault, defender defends in place. 16.3% chance of a forced defender retreat and attacker exploitation. 1.07 expected attacker step losses. 1.507 expected defender step losses. 3-1 in jungle, assault, defender retrograde. 16.3% chance of a forced defender retreat and attacker exploitation. 1.07 expected attacker step losses. 0.426 expected defender step losses. 1.08 hexes retreated. 3-1 in rough, probe. 0.572 expected attacker step losses. 6.7% chance of a forced defender retreat and attacker exploitation. 0.31 expected defender step losses. 3-1 in rough, assault, defender defends in place. 9.7% chance of a forced defender retreat and attacker exploitation. 1.32 expected attacker step losses. 1.287 expected defender step losses. 3-1 in rough, assault, defender retrograde. 9.7% chance of a forced defender retreat and attacker exploitation. 1.32 expected attacker step losses. 0.31 expected defender step losses. 0.97 hexes retreated. For comparison, I would expect a defender retreat (9 OCS hexes in a day) in WitP-AE for 3-1 in the clear with 2.5 attacker steps lost and 7.5 defender steps lost. For 3-1 in the jungle, I would expect a defender retreat (9 OCS hexes again) with 2.5 attacker steps lost and 5 defender steps lost. For 3-1 in the rough, I would expect a defender hold with 7.5 attacker steps lost and 2.5 defender steps lost.

rader -> RE: OCS Burma and WitP-AE Comparison (11/8/2011 2:05:20 PM)
I think it's a good idea to have partial hex control. Ground combat in WITP is way too all-or-nothing (unlike what it specifically says in the manual) and dosen't take enough time. If you just have a hex control counter for all hexes (bases/non-bases), and you can attack to increase your control level. Once you get to a certain threshold you capture the base (could have histeresus, so that you need to get to 70% or so, and the other side would then need to get back to 30% to retake it). This way you could have both sides attacking in a hex to try to regain (partial control). Once you get to 100%, the other side retreats. It would take several very successful assaults to capture a hex, and therefore several days of fighting - e.g., your control % would go up by double your assault value or something like that (e.g., a 3:1 would give +6% control). You could even have partisans decrese your partial hex control, and therefor your supply movement through hexes. E.g., hexes in China could slowly swindle in control from the Japanese, and the Japanese would have to "attack" rear hexes now and then to re-establish control.

Jzanes -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/8/2011 5:49:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rader Ok, here's some numbers from the past 3 turns (June 7-12, 1945). This table shows the number of squads, support units (+ engineers), and guns/vehicles disabled or destroyed by allied aircraft. Note that once devices are disabled, they are subsequently destroyed on the next hit, so we can combine these together provided we double the number of devices for the "div equivalent" row (assumed at 1500 squads per division). The first three columns show the number of devices disabled/destroyed by 4E bombers. The next 3 colums show the number of devices disabled/destroyed by all other a/c (including 2E bombers and light attack aircraft). The last colum "div equivalents" shows how many division equivalents this relates to being completely destroyed exlcusively from the air. Some observations: 1. Even though probably 3x or 4x the number of 2E and light bombers are involved here, they are doing less than half the combined damage of the 4E bombers. I.e., per plane, 4E bombers are at least 6 times (and more like 10 times) as effective as ground attack aircraft at killing ground units from the air. 2. The main 4E bomber attack (~200 B-29s in Manchuria) flew 5 out of the 6 turns represented here. This is a very high tempo of operations, and this strike alone was responsible for entirely eliminating over 2 entire full strngth divisions in 5 days. 3. The average rate of loss for these 3 turns is higher than 1 division equivalent eliminated entirely from the air (starting at full strength). Given the size of the Japanese army, if this rate of loss were to continue, Japan's entire army would be eliminated in around 100 days, without any ground combat. If this was possible, why did the allies bother with land units? 4. Damage was significantly modified by terrain, but even in clear terrain, the damage inflicted by real ground attack aircraft (like the IL-2) was moderate to small (~10 squads max per bombing run). By contrast, attacks of 3-6 B-29s (the stragglers), typically did at least double the damage that would be inflicted by 50+ IL-2s. In fact, in this ground bombing model, I suspect that B-29s inflict around 10 times the damage per plane, simply because they carry 10 times the bombload. [image]local://upfiles/14041/D4761045F4F441ECB72A875AFDE792C9.jpg[/image] Does anyone here actually think a loss rate of over half a division of troops a day due to air attack alone is reasonable (especially in the Pacific theater)? I am Rader's oppoent in this match and I have a few points to add. I agree ground bombing vs. units in clear terrain is about 2x too deadly and bombing vs. units in cover is about ½ as effective as it should be. However, I think the situation in Russia reflects a near optimal situation for ground bombing; 1. There has been absolutely 0 Japanese fighter opposition. 2. Japanese AAA is either non-existent or ineffective. Bombers are flying at 6000 feet. 3. Allied bombers are flying out of large (level 8 or 9) airbases with excellent supply, plentiful aviation support, and air HQs are present. 4. Japanese forces are moving and are either in MOVE mode or COMBAT mode with 0 forts when bombed. Having some forts dramatically reduces the effectiveness of ground bombing even vs. units in clear terrain. 5. Generally the weather in Russia has been “good” for the last few weeks. Good weather means anything but thunderstorms basically. 6. Even with optimal supply and support, all heavy bombers are not flying every turn. Most turns, 150-250 B29s fly sorties while another 100-200 bombers stay home for various reasons. 7. Some of the ground units being bombed have already been routed in previous land battles and have lots of disrupted components ripe for being destroyed.

herwin -> I did some calibration (11/8/2011 8:03:25 PM)
The largest number of defender casualties I would expect to see in a day for a corps versus division battle is about 400. I have calibration data for the Burma campaign, and they are consistent with the OCS combat model. They are not consistent with the WitP-AE ground combat model. There's been some interest in calibrating air attacks on troops. In OCS, a Sally or a Beaufighter unit (somewhere in the range of 20-45 aircraft) in Burma has an expectation of causing about 10 casualties per day. A fighter-bomber unit (same size range) can be expected to cause about 3 casualties a day. A Vengence unit, perhaps 15 per day. A B-25 was good for about 20/day, and a B-24 about 3 casualties a day (high-level bombing). The game engine produces about ten times that number.

rader -> RE: I did some calibration (11/8/2011 9:49:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin The game engine produces about ten times that number. And in completely opposite proportions [8\|]

rader -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/8/2011 10:53:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jzanes I am Rader's oppoent in this match and I have a few points to add. I agree ground bombing vs. units in clear terrain is about 2x too deadly and bombing vs. units in cover is about ½ as effective as it should be. However, I think the situation in Russia reflects a near optimal situation for ground bombing; 1. There has been absolutely 0 Japanese fighter opposition. 2. Japanese AAA is either non-existent or ineffective. Bombers are flying at 6000 feet. 3. Allied bombers are flying out of large (level 8 or 9) airbases with excellent supply, plentiful aviation support, and air HQs are present. 4. Japanese forces are moving and are either in MOVE mode or COMBAT mode with 0 forts when bombed. Having some forts dramatically reduces the effectiveness of ground bombing even vs. units in clear terrain. 5. Generally the weather in Russia has been “good” for the last few weeks. Good weather means anything but thunderstorms basically. 6. Even with optimal supply and support, all heavy bombers are not flying every turn. Most turns, 150-250 B29s fly sorties while another 100-200 bombers stay home for various reasons. 7. Some of the ground units being bombed have already been routed in previous land battles and have lots of disrupted components ripe for being destroyed. Yes, it does reflect a near-optimal situation. And just to clarify, I am by no means implying that you are "doing anything wrong". I would be doing exactly the same thing you are. But even given optimal conditions, these results are out of whack to the point that it is impossible to defend (or even occupy) any clear hex without a lot of fighters/AA (even with forts 4 or less, as observed in Thailand). I cannot hope to defend many of the base hexes in Southern Korea or Japan. In fact, I see no possible way to prevent allied airforces from destroying the Japanese army (apart from hunkering down only in rough hexes, which would abandon many critical hexes in the home islands.

rader -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/8/2011 10:55:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jzanes 6. Even with optimal supply and support, all heavy bombers are not flying every turn. Most turns, 150-250 B29s fly sorties while another 100-200 bombers stay home for various reasons. Haha, only 150-250 flying each day? [8\|] Being able to send any 4Es every day is kind of insane compared with historical operations. Of course, air op tempos are too high for both sides - but the way 4Es are modeled, the high tempo of ops is a bit one-sided.

rader -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/8/2011 11:20:53 PM)
Forts help, but don't allow you to hold clear terrain without a LOT of AA. I had level 6 forts in Hailar, and 3-4 units including a big fortress were trashed in a matter of days by B-29s. You could have destroyed all the units in Hailar (about a division equivalent) in about a week. It's really clear terrain that's borked (and the fact that 4E bombers are so much better at bombing ground units than ground attack planes are).

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/9/2011 3:50:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rader Forts help, but don't allow you to hold clear terrain without a LOT of AA. I had level 6 forts in Hailar, and 3-4 units including a big fortress were trashed in a matter of days by B-29s. You could have destroyed all the units in Hailar (about a division equivalent) in about a week. It's really clear terrain that's borked (and the fact that 4E bombers are so much better at bombing ground units than ground attack planes are). 500 lb iron bombs being dropped on clear terrain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sks6D2l8erA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGLgZ8htLI4&feature=related Yeah, A BUFF can carry more bombs that a B-29. But that was one B-52 in those vidoes. Why would you think a division in the open with no forts would survive a week?

JeffroK -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/9/2011 3:56:50 AM)
What about nerfing the effect and accuracy of the bombs?? PS I love the talk inferring the use of Caves on Christmas Island, apart from a few sand dunes the highest point is about 10ft, the island may dissapear with Climate Change. I think an important change would be to limit the number of troops you can base there as its clearly not capable of "Unlimited"

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.312988