RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (Full Version)

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



Message


Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/7/2015 11:37:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

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.

'
Did they know? All the German Generals pleaded for different operations but as usual it was Hitler's intuition. The Bulge was a suicide operation a political gamble nothing more. Nope the Germans had little air recon worth a damn and they could not rely on the same level of deserters. Wheras in the east both these conditions still existed. The local commanders tended to know when a bombardment was going to happen vacated the frontline and let the Russians hit nothing. In the West the first thing they knew was generally when the shells there landing amongst them, there were some exceptions but as I said the Germans never had the same land to trade.




LiquidSky -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/8/2015 2:07:38 AM)



The Germans did a good job vacating the front line during Bagration.




SigUp -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/8/2015 5:19:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



The Germans did a good job vacating the front line during Bagration.

That was by Hitler's orders. The Germans did a very good job using the "Großkampfverfahren" developed in the World War One to bloody the Soviet offensives in the area of AGC in late 1943 and early 1944, causing hideous Soviet losses. Especially Heinrici was good at it. The first line was lightly manned and got evacuated immediately after shelling began. Real resistance only happened at the (main) secondary line to the rear, which was largely untouched by Soviet bombardment. Thus, when the Soviets began assaulting that main line they ran into a stable line backed up by artillery, while they weren't being covered by theirs anymore. Prior to Bagration, however, Hitler forbade the evacuation of the first line and even hindered construction of secondary lines to its rear. The results weren't pretty during Bagration.




Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/8/2015 12:39:40 PM)

"According to Marshal Zhukov, it was only in 1945 that the Russians, who consider themselves the most accomplished of artillerymen, even thought of attempting to coordinate movement with fire: their techniques were roughly equivalent to the British methods of 1915-6"




paullus99 -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/8/2015 2:52:25 PM)

One of the reasons the Red Army had so many SPGs is that they needed more direct artillery fire on the field, because their C&C for their rear-area artillery parks was so bad.....




carlkay58 -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/8/2015 5:59:01 PM)

The Soviets did not have enough radios or trained radio operators to utilize forward observers on the offense. On the defense they relied on land lines (which could be cut) for the communications. Because of this there was no ability or training for them to use the same artillery tactics as the Western Allies did. The SP artillery were designed and used in direct fire mode. This allowed them to give quick response fire for the front line units they were attached to. It also caused a lot more artillery losses than the Axis or Western Allies suffered.




HMSWarspite -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/8/2015 8:27:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GrumpyMel


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!







I think we have a common misunderstanding going on about how air was used in Ww2. People tend to think of what I nickname "Harry potter" air support. I guy with a magic radio on the ground gets eyes on some defender, mutters a pig Latin phrase and a big bolt of fire (or 60lb rockets/250 bomb) flashes out of the sky to destroy the target. Whilst this is what happens today (ish) it was very rare in Ww2 ( not there at all other than on certain occasions in the west in 44-45). What air support was much more like was a slow but heavy artillery mission. A unit (company, battalion whatever) tries to advance and finds a wood or feature that fires back too well to be shifted. Message goes back up to say Corps, that talks to air liasion. Half a day later a lot of aircraft turn up and make a mess of the wood (with luck). With more luck, the ground troops were't hit themselves and are ready to attack again. This is a simplification, but it gives the idea. What is actually far more useful and often used is planned support behind the front lines. In a tactical game, the correct depiction of air support is that the enemy unit's artillery support is not there because it was attacked by aircraft just before the attack. Or the 2nd wave attackers arrive late and reduced. This would be achieved by either preplanned or roaming ground attackers (in the second case, on the defenders side obviously!).

Interdiction tends to be a bit further back again and can be the classic 'patrol that road and attack MT'. Or it can be 'attack choke points on that road (bridges, junctions etc (without necessarily seeing anyone move)). These last tend to stop units moving behind the lines, cuts supply to the frontine etc.
thus the big set piece assault can benefit from ground support. But a few weeks effective interdiction can remove the need for the big set piece assault (or make it much easier) in the first place.

Obviously. Poor terrain lessens interdiction. So other rules apply. Normandy was a interdiction success (despite the famous set piece heavy bomber support etc). Italy rather less so... Hard to interdict mountain roads in the same way alas Norman ones

Hope this (somewhat simple) description, which isn't necessarily strictly accurate in terminology, helps understanding,

Put your Fbs (in bomber role) on interdiction, and your medium bombers on GA on railcards, then watch the defence soften. I rarely have more than 1 grd support Ad active at once per theatre,




Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/8/2015 9:17:34 PM)


All I want is my aircraft in a Unit or HQ, lets call them *Wings* or *Groups* so when I allocate a box for say interdiction I can then add what units I want to attack that box, If I pick Essen, Hamburg and Berlin for strategic bombing I can allocate whatever *groups* to the target box, If I want to allocate Mustangs to escort my bombers I want to simply add a couple of Mustang *units* to the box and select escort. . If I want a *unit* to fly close Airsupport I simply attach it to the Corps or Army Hq. When I attach those units to do whatever job has been chosen they automatically select all the settings. I think presently it is too hard to quantify things to tweak them so I can see the all or nothing curse coming in that effects wargames in particulair in that everyone just selects interdiction!




SigUp -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/8/2015 9:47:28 PM)

I don't get your problem. You can assign specific air units to specific missions as it is right now.




Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/8/2015 11:27:05 PM)


Im just not kinda good with raw figures looking at GROUPS (34ac/0) dont really tell me much nor does it immerse me if i was seeing GROUPS (150 Wing/100 Wing) or GROUPS (KG1/IIIJG26) that might trigger oh yes that is my Typhoon wing being escorted by Spitfires or thats my JU88's escorted by 109's. I keep forgeting whats in what group when I put them together.




Radagy -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/9/2015 6:22:01 AM)

My first campaign is teaching me a hard lesson about super heavy fortresses. As WA I'm sieging Cherbourg, ten British divisions with engineers, super heavy arty and two Amph Hq, two attacks per turn, but fortress level is not even dropping from 4 to 3. Moreover my losses are horrendous (an average of 10 to 1).
I'm starting to think that the only way you can get that spot is conducting a long siege in a medieval way.




loki100 -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/9/2015 7:45:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



The Germans did a good job vacating the front line during Bagration.

That was by Hitler's orders. The Germans did a very good job using the "Großkampfverfahren" developed in the World War One to bloody the Soviet offensives in the area of AGC in late 1943 and early 1944, causing hideous Soviet losses. Especially Heinrici was good at it. The first line was lightly manned and got evacuated immediately after shelling began. Real resistance only happened at the (main) secondary line to the rear, which was largely untouched by Soviet bombardment. Thus, when the Soviets began assaulting that main line they ran into a stable line backed up by artillery, while they weren't being covered by theirs anymore. Prior to Bagration, however, Hitler forbade the evacuation of the first line and even hindered construction of secondary lines to its rear. The results weren't pretty during Bagration.


the reality was a bit more complex.

At its worst Soviet artillery doctrine was a combination of direct fire (the 76mm divisional guns) and by the map. Poor recon and astute German tactics could effectively negate this. The 'best' example of these failings were the multiple failed offensives leading to murderous losses by Western Front from late 42 to late 43 on the Orsha-Vitebsk sector.

At its best, it was a pragmatic solution to their problems. This meant good recon, multiple plans and considerable flexibility in their selection. A good eg of when they got it right was the northern portion of Kursk. Central Front had drawn up a series of artillery plans for a barrage to disrupt the German preparations, and they gambled (and relied on all the intelligence they had) and hit 9 Army's pre-assault positions.

In early 1944, Rokossovsky took over part of the old Western Front and revised their attack doctrine. This now saw a large 'reconnaisance in force', large enough to confuse the Germans as to whether it was a major attack or not, and with multiple fire plans. These included the possibility that the Germans would pull off a tactical witdrawal, with the bulk of the artillery ranged on likely fall back positions. The Germans repeated their tactics that had worked for the last year and fell straight into the Soviet trap. Capturing Gomel set up the later Bagration.

It may have been the failure of their traditional tactical response to a Soviet offensive that led Hitler to order holding the well fortified front lines?




HMSWarspite -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/9/2015 2:30:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Radagy

My first campaign is teaching me a hard lesson about super heavy fortresses. As WA I'm sieging Cherbourg, ten British divisions with engineers, super heavy arty and two Amph Hq, two attacks per turn, but fortress level is not even dropping from 4 to 3. Moreover my losses are horrendous (an average of 10 to 1).
I'm starting to think that the only way you can get that spot is conducting a long siege in a medieval way.

Your problem may be the "2 attacks per turn". If you do a big attack it uses a lot of supplies etc. it also fatigues your troops. It will burn down the defender as well but if you don't reduce the fortification level you are almost certainly suffering more than the defender on the second attack. It is then asking a awful lot to recover by next turn, so you risk a vicious death spiral on your troops. If my first set piece fails I don't do a second in the same turn unless I can add significant new troops. Also Cherbourg probably has a large well stocked depot...if it has a decent garrison it will be a tough nut. Why do you think most west coast French ports were left strictly alone?




HMSWarspite -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/9/2015 2:34:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy


Im just not kinda good with raw figures looking at GROUPS (34ac/0) dont really tell me much nor does it immerse me if i was seeing GROUPS (150 Wing/100 Wing) or GROUPS (KG1/IIIJG26) that might trigger oh yes that is my Typhoon wing being escorted by Spitfires or thats my JU88's escorted by 109's. I keep forgeting whats in what group when I put them together.

Don't get you. Available a/c units are listed sorted by type...




Radagy -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/9/2015 3:31:45 PM)

At last I got Cherbourg, but the price I paid is far too high in terms of vp (my fault, I attacked too much and with costly british troops). I wonder how long the siege could last if I didn't press so hard.
Right now (middle of july) I'm beginnig to break resistance in the Contentine Penisula, but I have a hard time dislodging the Axis from the Gothinc line.
Since I just invaded southern France, I sadly realize that I have not enough air forces to be on the offence and interdicting three fronts at once. No way to break a fortified line if you don't starve the defenders a bit.




Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/9/2015 4:12:57 PM)

Yes I see that and think air is really good but I just can't warm to how you physically operate it. I just can't understand the layers when all you do is put it in intediction. Why cant I just have a fighter Bomber HQ (s)and I click on superiority,escort, interdiction or ground support and thats what they do. Why cant the Hq just have your choice of target? 10 Group *click* Railways, *click*, area *click*, area size *click* good to go. As it stands now its unclick, unclick, unclick whoops forgot to unclick that, why are my 12 Typhoons not gettting supply? Wish they were just in Wings like the USAF Oh thats right click, wait a minute! unclick okay that should be interdiction maximised lets go!

[image]local://upfiles/13041/D8B51C284B0F4CA8A51D739D0850A507.jpg[/image]




SigUp -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/9/2015 4:20:17 PM)

What do you want to show us with this screenshot? I still don't get your issue. The settings from a handling point of perspective is very simple. I want interdiction? Click on ground attack, click on the target hex, set the range, click on interdiction in the priority setting, select the groups I want to do that job, maybe adjust altitude and schedule if I feel like it. Voila, done.




marion61 -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/9/2015 5:24:25 PM)

Did you bomb it's port and rail yard before you took it? Doing that reduces the supplies stockpiles at the port. Port doesn't function, supplies don't go out, inbound or outbound. And lock it down with naval interdiction if you haven't already.




Smirfy -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/9/2015 8:34:48 PM)

I am having trouble strategically bombing anything after the first couple of turns, what should be a couple of clicks becomes infuriating




loki100 -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/9/2015 9:32:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

I am having trouble strategically bombing anything after the first couple of turns, what should be a couple of clicks becomes infuriating


how?

I have a default mission set up for Bomber Command - top priority manpower, second HI and have 2 basic groups and shift them around with one tending to hit the Ruhr and the other wandering across the bigger targets in Germany. In effect of the 2 groups, I change target priority of 1 or 2 per turn

For the US its a wee bit more complex as I am either after U-boats or fuel so if I shift target I have to alter the priority chart too.

but you do know you can set the airwar to the AI? Or just fuss with the air doctrine screen? I think in an AI game the AI does a good enough job, esp if you don't want to invest the time in using the range of tools provided?




GrumpyMel -> RE: Thoughts on Fortifications (1/12/2015 5:58:55 PM)

Hey Meklore....

Thanks! Getting better results after following your advice on air settings. It took a litteral ton of tweaking for me to do.... but the bombs (and more like the rockets, really) are finally doing some good effect.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.139648