RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West



Message

GrumpyMel -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 1:43:14 AM)

Here is just 1 of the ADS for 8th Air Forces of several....including ones that overlap. 1300 bombers but I'm getting mostly 0's here..

[image]local://upfiles/27684/2335A5048CFC4B308EDE1FEC74C7CE50.jpg[/image]



marion61 -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 1:45:19 AM)

This is my server game invasion. This is before my air phase even starts.

[image]local://upfiles/39603/EE287749F1984345A35F7DA3C53BEB45.jpg[/image]



GrumpyMel -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 1:47:52 AM)

Here's another for 8th, I split these up because of the inability to do a box that is rectangular rather then square... another 900 Bombers into the mix..


[image]local://upfiles/27684/17093D4E676D416DAD619111790FD2A1.jpg[/image]



Baelfiin -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 2:28:29 AM)

Whats your bombload?



GrumpyMel -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 2:29:15 AM)

Yeah.... I'm obviously not getting anywhere near what you are getting for interdiction values and I'm not sure why.



GrumpyMel -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 2:36:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

Whats your bombload?


I left it to the default of what the game has it set.....I was assuming that the game sets reasonably effective bombloads for it's defaults that only need tweaking if you truly wamnt to optimize results. Is that wrong?

The only thing I changed was switched a couple P47 groups that I've assigned to 9th air force from Fighter to Bomber roles since I've really degraded my opponents interceptor capability and I have plenty of escorts, so I figured they'd be more useful in the bomber role for the time being. I noticed with the default load the game gave them when I switched, their range wasn't all that great...so I switched them from using 1,000 lb to 500 lb bombs with a drop tank. That's the only load-out changes of any kind I remember making to my air groups.



Baelfiin -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 2:52:04 AM)

try using the 500 pounders and see if you get better results. I have never gotten stellar results with b17/b24, I like to use them in bomb city mode vs rail yard. Fighter bombers at low alt seems to work pretty well. Also try to get some recon with interdict priority and see if that helps.



marion61 -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 3:13:52 AM)

Rockets are the load outs I use if they are available, but you have a lot of fighter's, switch some of them over to bombers, and small bombs and gas tanks. The ai does a reasonable job of things, vs the ai. Learning the air war is vital to a successful game. You have so much stuff it looks easy, but it's not.



SigUp -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 5:18:43 AM)

The key to interdiction are fighter bombers and not the heavies. What the Germans feared weren't B-17 or B-24 bombing them while they were moving, but the so-called "Jabos". Like the P47 or the Typhoon.

[image]http://s9.postimg.org/ct5q8ox3z/test.jpg[/image]



Radagy -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 7:20:47 AM)

In your opinion what are the best planes to disrupt a single stack of enemy units before a groud attack on a crucial hex?



SigUp -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 10:46:16 AM)

Interdiction with fighter bombers. But if it's really critical, throw everything you have into that area, including the heavies.



paullus99 -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 11:51:56 AM)

I can't see Heavy Bombers being very effective at Interdiction...especially since they attack point targets & aren't fast enough to deal with convoys and such (and they aren't on station to deal with targets of opportunity).



Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 11:59:05 AM)

I followed the advice about recon and checked through all the settings in each target box taking ground support to low and interdiction to high converted 9 squadrons to Typhoon put most of USAF fighters as bombers condensed the size of my boxes and targeted an area of clear terrain in Italy , I am starting to get better numbers. The weather is not good so i can't quantify the results but I will play through and see what effects it has.

Now I must admit things would just be a hell of a lot easier if there was just an INTERDICTION box that automatically fixed your settings. That's one of the reasons why I like the idea of "wings" and "Group HQ's" because you can just have an "interdiction" Group and forget about it.



Joel Billings -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 3:38:13 PM)

As noted by others, the heavy bombers are not what generate high interdiction values. It's the fighter bombers that can really increase the numbers. Heavy bombers are best at bombing fixed targets like railyards and factories.



carlkay58 -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 3:48:19 PM)

And fighter bombers have shorter ranges than most other aircraft so they have to be based as close to the action as possible.



GrumpyMel -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 4:36:39 PM)

Alright, so now I'm getting a bit confused.... shouldn't you be using your FB's in a Ground Support role to support the actual attacks that are calling in close air support? That's what I'm mostly using them for...or are you talking about splitting them and using them for both?

What I did was put....

- The entire RAF 2nd Tac AirForce on Ground Support for direct support of the invading troops. Those have most of the Typhoons and British Tac Bombers in them.

- The US 9th Air Force which has alot of the Marauders, Havocs and US Tactical Bombers on Ground Strike Missions to interdict and hit units immediately behind the beaches, I also set a couple of small missions to bomb the nearby Luftwaffe airbases that still had planes in them, as I didn't want to risk these getting up in the air to mess with the transports carrying para's. I converted a couple of it's P47 groups from fighters flying escort to bombers with 500 lbs...but not all, clearly I could have done more of that.

- I set the entire 8th Air Force to fly deeper interdiction to get units moving up into the sector. I didn't touch their bomb loads or convert any of their escorts though.

- I set the entire RAF Bomber Command to day missions also flying deep interdiction behind the invasion area. They were set to do rail interdiction as well as regular. I didn't touch thier bombloads though.

- I set every recon plane in England to fly recon over the general area. I didn't touch any target priorties for them....I didn't actualy know recon missions had target priorties.

- I set all of RAF Coastal Command to fly Naval Patrol over the sea area where the invasion fleets would be moving through.

Intuitively this seemed like a reasonable plan to me, obviously the results were pretty anemic. What I didn't touch was bombloads (aside from the couple mentioned for range purposes)....I assumed that planes would default to a reasonable loadout for their type and frankly with my limited knowledge of bomb types, I figured I'd do more harm then good by messing with them. Same with altitudes, I assumed that AD's would default to a reasonable altitude for the mission and didn't really need too much micro-management to achieve decent results.

I realize that the heavies aren't as optimal for interdiction as the smaller craft... but I didn't figure they'd be that bad...and AFAIC the invasion is sort of a broken arrow situation for the air forces...if the game let me, I'd have ordered Cessna's up with boxes of hand grenades to toss out the window.

Clearly, I did a less then stellar job in ordering my air missions over the invasion... but I don't think it was that crazy off base to enjoy minimal results....and I certainly didn't expect I would need to do everything optimaly to do a reasonable job in slowing the A.I's response on difficulty settings of "Normal" and below.



loki100 -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 4:53:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

Clearly, I did a less then stellar job in ordering my air missions over the invasion... but I don't think it was that crazy off base to enjoy minimal results....and I certainly didn't expect I would need to do everything optimaly to do a reasonable job in slowing the A.I's response on difficulty settings of "Normal" and below.



here's my 2 euros worth. I've used the May 44 campaign to test out a number of options. For what its worth, the worst use of the allied airforce in WiTW is direct ground support, ground attacks based around interdiction and rail give you far better returns.

Second observation, I did one where I turned the air over to AI completely and another where I worked with the AD screen and set areas of operation but not much else. My first attempt at manual control was much worse than trusting the AI, my second attempt at manual control I had much better interdiction levels and axis combat units often just collapsed on contact.

So my advice would be if you aren't sure about what you are doing, trust the AI.



SigUp -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 4:54:41 PM)

I would flip your approach around. Use P-47s, Typhoons, Spitfires etc. on interdiction while sending a few Marauders and the A-20s to ground support. Generally the most powerful weapon in the Allied arsenal is interdiction. When you have some 8-9 interdiction, then you don't need much ground support to smash the Germans. Thinking about it, this is also a more logical approach. Fighter bombers don't carry enough payload to plow through fortified defensive positions. On the other hand level bomber can't get low enough to spot and pinpoint hit the traffic going around. Fighter bombers going low have a much higher visibilty in regard to ground movement and can hit much more accurately, either dropping bombs from a lower altitude, or simply strafing the entire area.



GrumpyMel -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 5:27:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel

Clearly, I did a less then stellar job in ordering my air missions over the invasion... but I don't think it was that crazy off base to enjoy minimal results....and I certainly didn't expect I would need to do everything optimaly to do a reasonable job in slowing the A.I's response on difficulty settings of "Normal" and below.



here's my 2 euros worth. I've used the May 44 campaign to test out a number of options. For what its worth, the worst use of the allied airforce in WiTW is direct ground support, ground attacks based around interdiction and rail give you far better returns.

Second observation, I did one where I turned the air over to AI completely and another where I worked with the AD screen and set areas of operation but not much else. My first attempt at manual control was much worse than trusting the AI, my second attempt at manual control I had much better interdiction levels and axis combat units often just collapsed on contact.

So my advice would be if you aren't sure about what you are doing, trust the AI.


That sounds like direct ground support is pretty much useless, if ground Attack Unit is better at it's core mission then it is. A little counter-intuitive to me, but ok if that's the way the game makes it. Thanks for the advice.

I had assumed that Ground Support would be better at effecting units that your ground forces were in actual contact with and engaging since you would have spotters on the ground calling in direct air support missions against targets where they were encountering heavy resistance rather then relying on luck, spotting from the air and photo recon to hit targets not in contact.

I had been using Ground Attack - Unit alot to see if I could soften up units (and fortifications but it seems not to work for that at all) prior to deciding whether I wanted to assault them since there doesn't seem to be a way to do a "If you are meeting heavy resistance call off the attack" setting for ground attacks.... so the computer can't differentiate between when a player wants to do a "take at all costs" meat-grinder frontal assault and a "probe for weakness and exploit if you can" attack.
I had also been using them to hit and weaken units behind the line or in parts of the line I didn't intend to attack that turn but might try in future. Didn't seem all that effective in Italy but the terrain is horrible there.

Thanks for the advice!








GrumpyMel -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 5:43:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I would flip your approach around. Use P-47s, Typhoons, Spitfires etc. on interdiction while sending a few Marauders and the A-20s to ground support. Generally the most powerful weapon in the Allied arsenal is interdiction. When you have some 8-9 interdiction, then you don't need much ground support to smash the Germans. Thinking about it, this is also a more logical approach. Fighter bombers don't carry enough payload to plow through fortified defensive positions. On the other hand level bomber can't get low enough to spot and pinpoint hit the traffic going around. Fighter bombers going low have a much higher visibilty in regard to ground movement and can hit much more accurately, either dropping bombs from a lower altitude, or simply strafing the entire area.


I was kind of thinking that the FB's and Strike Craft like the A-26's and A-20's would be better off in Ground Support role where they could be called in by spotters and ground troops to hit points of resistance that were in close contact with friendly ground troops where their greater agility and smaller payloads would help hitting the exact targets without also hitting friendly who might be in close engagement. Where the bigger bombers had better utility in knocking out bridges, cratering roadways and knocking out rail lines.

I'd always assumed interdiction meant not just hitting convoys of troops on the move to the front (though certainly that was a major function) but also destroying the infrastructure which facilitated easy and quick transport along those lines of supply and communication. The game engine doesn't seem to have a "bomb bridges" mission...so I had assumed that was included as part of "interdiction" in the game.

Probably I'm wrong, since you seem to have much better results then I, I'll try your suggestion.... thanks!

Edit: Also just learned about a custom difficulty setting where I can set the Build Fort speed down as low as 25 percent of normal, so doing that may help resolve some of my gripes about Fortifications.... I'll have to try that out at some point.






marion61 -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 5:51:47 PM)

The air war is hard to master. 1st thing to remember is that you can assign aircraft specifically to an air directive instead of leaving it on auto. My tac air I don't usually set to strike units, but they do interdiction which helps prevent reserve activations, so that directly affects combat. I do assign a Grnd Support directive to assist the troops, but assigning a strike just for units is not a useful way of using your tac air. Even when your invading France, the strategic air war shouldn't stop. Split those bombers into different packages. Most of your air commanders can make 5-7 air directives each. When you make those air directives, make sure you have their days set up so that two directives aren't trying to fly the same planes at the same time.



loki100 -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 6:21:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel


That sounds like direct ground support is pretty much useless, if ground Attack Unit is better at it's core mission then it is. A little counter-intuitive to me, but ok if that's the way the game makes it. Thanks for the advice.

I had assumed that Ground Support would be better at effecting units that your ground forces were in actual contact with and engaging since you would have spotters on the ground calling in direct air support missions against targets where they were encountering heavy resistance rather then relying on luck, spotting from the air and photo recon to hit targets not in contact.

I had been using Ground Attack - Unit alot to see if I could soften up units (and fortifications but it seems not to work for that at all) prior to deciding whether I wanted to assault them since there doesn't seem to be a way to do a "If you are meeting heavy resistance call off the attack" setting for ground attacks.... so the computer can't differentiate between when a player wants to do a "take at all costs" meat-grinder frontal assault and a "probe for weakness and exploit if you can" attack.
I had also been using them to hit and weaken units behind the line or in parts of the line I didn't intend to attack that turn but might try in future. Didn't seem all that effective in Italy but the terrain is horrible there.

Thanks for the advice!



I'm not sure if this reflects the different game engines or the different strengths and weaknesses of the various airforces but with the Soviets in WiTE direct ground attack is the way to go, but supplemented with what in WiTW would be 'interdiction' (ie pre-ground attack softening up). Interdiction in WiTE is purely trying to bomb stuff on the move.

With the Western Allies in WiTW you want to plaster the space around the battlefield rather than directly support combat operations. I suspect this reflects the simple reality that most anglo-allied divisions were not much more capable than the Germans (and unlike the Soviets couldn't then bring in a lot more units and a mass of artillery), so concentrating on combat seems like a poor use. If you use the indirect approach, then by the time you attack you can have inflicted a mass of disruptions (ie elements that will not fight) and hit their supply (ie they fight less well).

As I say, I'm not sure if this is doctrine (the allies seemed to have very different approach to the design and value of fighter bombers), game engine, or plane equipment, but I've had to do quite a lot of unlearning to come to terms with the difference.



Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 7:02:01 PM)

I'm sorry but even the Germans remarked that the Allied artillery in Normandy was fiercer and more intense than anything they experienced in the east.



GrumpyMel -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 7:12:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel


That sounds like direct ground support is pretty much useless, if ground Attack Unit is better at it's core mission then it is. A little counter-intuitive to me, but ok if that's the way the game makes it. Thanks for the advice.

I had assumed that Ground Support would be better at effecting units that your ground forces were in actual contact with and engaging since you would have spotters on the ground calling in direct air support missions against targets where they were encountering heavy resistance rather then relying on luck, spotting from the air and photo recon to hit targets not in contact.

I had been using Ground Attack - Unit alot to see if I could soften up units (and fortifications but it seems not to work for that at all) prior to deciding whether I wanted to assault them since there doesn't seem to be a way to do a "If you are meeting heavy resistance call off the attack" setting for ground attacks.... so the computer can't differentiate between when a player wants to do a "take at all costs" meat-grinder frontal assault and a "probe for weakness and exploit if you can" attack.
I had also been using them to hit and weaken units behind the line or in parts of the line I didn't intend to attack that turn but might try in future. Didn't seem all that effective in Italy but the terrain is horrible there.

Thanks for the advice!



I'm not sure if this reflects the different game engines or the different strengths and weaknesses of the various airforces but with the Soviets in WiTE direct ground attack is the way to go, but supplemented with what in WiTW would be 'interdiction' (ie pre-ground attack softening up). Interdiction in WiTE is purely trying to bomb stuff on the move.

With the Western Allies in WiTW you want to plaster the space around the battlefield rather than directly support combat operations. I suspect this reflects the simple reality that most anglo-allied divisions were not much more capable than the Germans (and unlike the Soviets couldn't then bring in a lot more units and a mass of artillery), so concentrating on combat seems like a poor use. If you use the indirect approach, then by the time you attack you can have inflicted a mass of disruptions (ie elements that will not fight) and hit their supply (ie they fight less well).

As I say, I'm not sure if this is doctrine (the allies seemed to have very different approach to the design and value of fighter bombers), game engine, or plane equipment, but I've had to do quite a lot of unlearning to come to terms with the difference.




Yeah I'm much more used to game engines (Advanced Tactics for example) in the U-Go/I-Go model where air and artillery attacks occur as separate actions in the turn. So you can do them and get some feedback as to their potential effect on fixed defenses and ground units before committing to an all out frontal assault with infantry and tanks.... and where (in some systems at least) you can set some level of intensity of the attack. The differences from that model in WitW are frankly driving me batty...and not in a good way.




loki100 -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 7:18:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I'm sorry but even the Germans remarked that the Allied artillery in Normandy was fiercer and more intense than anything they experienced in the east.


no need to be sorr.

But I didn't say that Soviet artillery was 'better' or more intense, I said that they were able to use a relative advantage in numbers plus substantial artillery to overcome much of the quality disparity. The Anglo-Allied armies indeed bring an impressive amount of artillery to bear, and that was important in their victories, but as you find out pretty quickly in WiTW you can often get blocked, especially in more constricted terrain and you can't really outnumber the Germans that easily.



loki100 -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 7:19:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I'm sorry but even the Germans remarked that the Allied artillery in Normandy was fiercer and more intense than anything they experienced in the east.


no need to be sorry.

But I didn't say that Soviet artillery was 'better' or more intense, I said that they were able to use a relative advantage in numbers plus substantial artillery to overcome much of the quality disparity. The Anglo-Allied armies indeed bring an impressive amount of artillery to bear, and that was important in their victories, but as you find out pretty quickly in WiTW you can often get blocked, especially in more constricted terrain and you can't really outnumber the Germans that easily.




marion61 -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 8:49:01 PM)

I know in modern US air warfare the goal is to destroy infrastructure to degrade all combat units in a given area, not so much killing troops. You use your air to deny them supplies/infrastructure, then you hit them with the Grnd Support directive, or you can send in a small strike against the troops to cause more fatigue and disruption. The beauty of the system is that your not stuck just having to do it one way.



Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 9:19:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I'm sorry but even the Germans remarked that the Allied artillery in Normandy was fiercer and more intense than anything they experienced in the east.


no need to be sorry.

But I didn't say that Soviet artillery was 'better' or more intense, I said that they were able to use a relative advantage in numbers plus substantial artillery to overcome much of the quality disparity. The Anglo-Allied armies indeed bring an impressive amount of artillery to bear, and that was important in their victories, but as you find out pretty quickly in WiTW you can often get blocked, especially in more constricted terrain and you can't really outnumber the Germans that easily.




As I have said before time and again its the actual shell that does the damage and no artillery in world war two had the quantity of shell to expend than that of the Allies. That coupled with the flexibilty displayed by allied artillery and the lack of ground the Germans could afford to give up in the west in anticipation of a barrage spelt disaster. Russian Artillery due to good German inteligence usually hit empty positions in the west niether the inteligence nor the free ground existed.



Numdydar -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 11:00:25 PM)

If the German intel was so bad, can you explain how they knew the bulge sector was so weak? Germany had good intel against the Allies too. The issue was they no longer had the ability to do much with it. A different situation than poor intel about the enemy. Especially as the Allies got closer to Germany the Germans intel got better.



LiquidSky -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 11:07:49 PM)


I worked for a guy several years ago who worked for British Counter-Intelligence. His job was to try and stop the flow of blackmarket gas to Germans from Americans (in the area of the Bulge offensive). They knew the germans were using American gas because of the octane content.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.015625