Ground attack vs Ground support (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

bo -> Ground attack vs Ground support (5/8/2015 12:36:38 AM)

Posing a question more for my own benefit than for game players [:(]

I realize the importance of ground attacks because if you disorganize a unit that is either out of supply or will be soon, then they are only defending with a 1 value unless they are elite units. But for some strange reason I rarely disorganize a unit with my die rolls, and then I have lost that air unit for awhile but if I use ground support I am always entitled to its combat factor.

This what makes this game so intriguing, the what ifs. If you can help me, what are your experiences, which do you prefer? Does where you are in the turn have a factor in this decision. I really abhor losing a plane factor if my ground attack fails, oh well.

Bo




Sewerlobster -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/8/2015 1:12:48 AM)

I'm with you wholeheartedly, I almost never make ground attacks unless it's a surprise turn. The payoff vs odds is just too low.



Ur_Vile_WEdge -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/8/2015 1:20:36 AM)


Generally, you don't want to order a groundstrike on a lone unit, about the only time I'd do so is when the guy is sitting on an island and out of supply, and I need to take it. Groundstrikes are either for surprise rounds, or when enemies are stacked 2 high.


Remember, if the hostiles are stacked 2 corps to the hex, then you'll need much more in the way of Ground Support to get the next odds shift, at the same time the ground strike is more effective since you get a chance to shoot at everyone in the hex at the same time.

And when you want to crack a hex, don't be afraid to "waste" some ground strike capacity. When I make my breakthrough in the France line, or I'm aiming at something big in Barbarossa, I'll usually try to hit the critical hex with my 2 biggest stukas, which give you a 75% chance to hit each of them if you use 5 strength guys. Concentration of force is usually how you win the land wars; it's not so much how many factors you have, it's how many factors you can bring to bear on the hex you're attacking.




bo -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/8/2015 1:37:08 AM)

Very good comments, appreciate it, keep them coming, experiences etc.

Bo



paulderynck -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/8/2015 2:14:04 AM)

If you intend to attack the unit, look at the ground support factor versus the unit's defense factor. An over-simplified example: Suppose the unit defends with 5 and your plane attacks with 5. In 2D10 in the attack, you are guaranteed a +2. If you ground strike, you have a 50% chance of a +2 and a 50% chance of nada. Should be an easy decision.

Of course the more units that are in the hex, the better the ground strike chances are.

On the other hand, a black print OoS unit should almost always be ground struck.



composer99 -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/8/2015 4:08:51 AM)

You really have to take it case by case and see what the possibilities are, but the four rules of thumb, I would say, are:

(1) If ground support gets you an odds shift (for 1d10 combat) or a guaranteed +1-+2 die roll modifier (for 2d10), then use ground support.

(2) Otherwise you are probably better off trying ground strikes, as success gets you big modifiers (+1 on the 1d10 die roll is big, and so is +2 on 2d10, and of course massively reducing out of supply defenders' combat factors is awesome).

(3) Key hexes (cities, beefy blitz hexes, Gibraltar) should be ground struck and get ground support to maximize your chances.

(4) Ground strike any HQ you can.



alexvand -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/8/2015 12:05:31 PM)

Or groundstrike units beside the ones you are going to attack. That way after your successful attack they cannot move and can be put out of supply which equals easy death.

This is what I'm always trying to do on the Eastern front when on the offensive. If you can imobilize units to be cut off out of supply later in a turn you get easy kills.

I actually prefer ground strikes to air support at least early in the turn.

Ground strikes on the defensive can also be devastating. A lucky russian ground strike on a key stack of armour can delay or even halt an entire offensive. What's more the threat of a ground strike on a key stack can draw off enemy fighters which can let you ground support get through later in the turn.

All these wonderful decisions make WiF awesome!



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/8/2015 2:17:53 PM)

Mostly I prefer ground strikes...especially when playing with fractionals. Everything alex says above expresses my opinion on this as well.



Centuur -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/8/2015 5:53:43 PM)

Keep in mind that a ground strike can be used as a "probe". If it succeeds, you attack the hex this impulse. If not, you don't attack.

This can be usefull to determine whether or not you can advance this impulse. Especially when breaking strong defensive lines, this can be usefull, since you move your units after the ground strike...

By the way: I don't agree with the stated fact that you don't ground strike a land unit which is on his own. It all depends on the situation. If that unit has a lot of combat factors, why not ground strike it and kill it in an attack? A hex containing only one enemy unit can be taken more easily than a hex with multiple defenders...



Mayhemizer_slith -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/8/2015 7:54:52 PM)

Combinatorics was my favorite part in math. I want to give few examples about different situations. In these cases units are in supply and I'm using 2d10:

1) Factor 4 bomber, attack vs 3 units total def value of 16.

Ground strike:
To flip 3 units: 6,4% -> +5
To flip 2 units: 28,8% -> avg +3,333
To flip 1 unit: 43,2% -> avg +1,667
To flip 0 units: 21,6% -> +0
AVG TOTAL (0,064x5+0,288x3,333+0,432x3,333+0,216x0)= +2

Ground support: +0,5


2) Factor 5 bomber, attack vs 2 units (corps) total def value of 10.

Ground strike:
To flip 2 units: 25% -> +4
To flip 1 unit: 50% -> +2
To flip 0 units: 25% -> +0
AVG TOTAL +2

Ground support: +1


3) 2 x factor 2 bombers, attacking Yamamoto alone and most likely he is using Defending HQ support (def value 8, HQ value 4).

Ground strike:
To flip: 36% -> +2 and negating HQ support = +4
To fail: 64% -> +0
AVG TOTAL +1,44

Ground support: +1


In many cases it a question about taking risk of failing ground strike or going with safe ground support.

Hopefully calculations are correct [:)]



bo -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/8/2015 10:12:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mayhemizer

Combinatorics was my favorite part in math. I want to give few examples about different situations. In these cases units are in supply and I'm using 2d10:

1) Factor 4 bomber, attack vs 3 units total def value of 16.

Ground strike:
To flip 3 units: 6,4% -> +5
To flip 2 units: 28,8% -> avg +3,333
To flip 1 unit: 43,2% -> avg +1,667
To flip 0 units: 21,6% -> +0
AVG TOTAL (0,064x5+0,288x3,333+0,432x3,333+0,216x0)= +2

Ground support: +0,5


2) Factor 5 bomber, attack vs 2 units (corps) total def value of 10.

Ground strike:
To flip 2 units: 25% -> +4
To flip 1 unit: 50% -> +2
To flip 0 units: 25% -> +0
AVG TOTAL +2

Ground support: +1


3) 2 x factor 2 bombers, attacking Yamamoto alone and most likely he is using Defending HQ support (def value 8, HQ value 4).

Ground strike:
To flip: 36% -> +2 and negating HQ support = +4
To fail: 64% -> +0
AVG TOTAL +1,44

Ground support: +1


In many cases it a question about taking risk of failing ground strike or going with safe ground support.

Hopefully calculations are correct [:)]



I hate statistics [:@] Really, thank you for that report Mayhemizer [;)]

Bo



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/8/2015 11:26:53 PM)

Very good Mayhemizer! I love statistics[&o]!

Risk taking vs safe bet: If you are a reasonable risk taker combined with knowledge of statistics, you should do well in WiF!



juntoalmar -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/9/2015 1:58:29 AM)

Fantastic analysis Mayhemizer!

Yes, I think the key is to maximize your gain. A 20% chances of getting a great result, may be better than a 100% chances of slightly improving your chances of success.

I am not being very successfully myself on Barbarossa scenario, but I try to ground strike often, specially in first impulses. You can ground strike units in second line, that you expect to surround and leave out of supply.




brian brian -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/9/2015 4:44:48 PM)

The most overlooked decision option in the game is an Air Impulse...



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/9/2015 9:55:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

The most overlooked decision option in the game is an Air Impulse...

Which lets a player reorganize his air units at half the cost of reorganization points, then use them again in a later impulse in the turn.



juntoalmar -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/10/2015 9:02:10 AM)

Oh, actually I had never considered this before... it may be a particularly good idea on a storm/blizzard impulse when there's not much to do on land anyway.



AlbertN -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/10/2015 9:48:54 AM)

In late game too there are many, many planes and Air Impulse allows for quite some rebases and to rail air squadrons upfront.

When Germany is deep into Russia, that is sort of your only way to get your short range fighters to get there in a decent amount of time.
On that "Air" note I suggest though to use the variable reorg values, otherwise Strat Bombers are way too cheap to reorganize with 1-2 HQs (If they cost 1 each) and they can really cripple Axis economy.



brian brian -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/10/2015 1:47:14 PM)

An Air Impulse plus an Offensive Chit is a powerful thing for a rich Major Power, and not just for Strategic Bombing. On the Air Impulse, your entire Air Force pounds the enemy front line. Then, all of your HQs reorganize aircraft. On your next impulse (summer time in Europe is best for this), an O-Chit re-orgs all of your HQs. Now your Air Force flies again, and your tanks move out...



bo -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/10/2015 4:31:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

An Air Impulse plus an Offensive Chit is a powerful thing for a rich Major Power, and not just for Strategic Bombing. On the Air Impulse, your entire Air Force pounds the enemy front line. Then, all of your HQs reorganize aircraft. On your next impulse (summer time in Europe is best for this), an O-Chit re-orgs all of your HQs. Now your Air Force flies again, and your tanks move out...


Gives me goosebumps brian [;)]

Bo



bo -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/10/2015 4:32:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

The most overlooked decision option in the game is an Air Impulse...

Which lets a player reorganize his air units at half the cost of reorganization points, then use them again in a later impulse in the turn.


Good idea rarely or maybe never used an air impulse, will have to try that one out.

Bo



Orm -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/11/2015 10:42:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

An Air Impulse plus an Offensive Chit is a powerful thing for a rich Major Power, and not just for Strategic Bombing. On the Air Impulse, your entire Air Force pounds the enemy front line. Then, all of your HQs reorganize aircraft. On your next impulse (summer time in Europe is best for this), an O-Chit re-orgs all of your HQs. Now your Air Force flies again, and your tanks move out...

Or you strike their second line and their HQs. Now they have limited mobility and reorganization capability. Your aircraft is ready to strike their front line, next impulse, where you want to break through.



bo -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/11/2015 3:12:47 PM)

Yesterday I decided to start using ground strikes in Barbarossa fast start and was pleasantly surprised by the results. On the Germans opening move I used AIR in the selection box. I did 4 ground attacks on hexes with at least 2 units in them on the northern front. In three of the hexes both units were disorganized and in the 4th hex one of the two units were disorganized, I used all available German air power to do this.

Now of course I had no movement of German armored or infantry allowed by doing that. I also did what another poster suggested and use my HQ's to reorganize all air units which only needed a 1 to be reorganized just for a test. The Russian land move was very limited but only in the North.

On the German 2nd move, 3rd impulse of the first turn the German units cut off all supply of two of the 4 Russian units which were easily disposed of in the land attack, on the German 3rd move 5th impulse of the first turn I cut off supply to the 2 remaining Russian units and disposed of them easily. On the re-airbase phase I sent 4 air units to the central and southern armies.

The weather was clear for 11 phases of the first turn so everything worked very well because of some luck involved. At the start of the second turn the Germans were in excellent shape to continue the attack in the north, decent shape with the central command and soso with the southern command near Odessa.

Even though that attack worked to perfection with luck there were some negatives. The Hq's were disorganized after the first German impulse because they reorganized the German air units, this meant they could not keep up with the German armored and infantry units in the north nor could the German units stray to far away from their supply bases which was not good as there was very little opposition in front of these units.

My conclusion is that I am not sure if I would do this again, I had good results from the ground attacks and good weather, next time might not be so good, HQ's reorganizing the air units right away might had been better in the south as compared to the northern front. It was just a test but I did not like having my HQ's disorganized so early in the first phase of the first turn. Any comments?

Bo




Jagdtiger14 -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/11/2015 4:26:32 PM)

bo: If in preparing for Barbarossa, Germany had built a third O-chit, then you could use your second one to re-org your HQ's and still have an O-chit in reserve.

Don't count on a human USSR opponent keeping those types of stacks in range of German air pre-Barbarossa.



bo -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/11/2015 7:18:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

bo: If in preparing for Barbarossa, Germany had built a third O-chit, then you could use your second one to re-org your HQ's and still have an O-chit in reserve.

Don't count on a human USSR opponent keeping those types of stacks in range of German air pre-Barbarossa.


Thank you Jadg, no I would not count on that, I was just trying different tactics with air power in Barbarossa fast start.

Also I rarely played or tested Barbarossa, I just worked on Guadalcanal and Fascist Tide, and truthfully I just noticed the "O" chit in fast start thanks to you and have not used it as of yet, almost all of the time if I play Barbarossa I use the new game setup I made up a long time ago. I know, I am not the brightest lamp on the street[:(]

Bo



Orm -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/11/2015 7:41:25 PM)

quote:

I was just trying different tactics with air power in Barbarossa fast start.

Why not try it and only use one HQ to reorganize the air units? Then you have two German HQs available to advance so that the German forces can exploit the Soviet rear areas. Focus the bombers and HQs on one front.



bo -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/11/2015 7:56:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

I was just trying different tactics with air power in Barbarossa fast start.

Why not try it and only use one HQ to reorganize the air units? Then you have two German HQs available to advance so that the German forces can exploit the Soviet rear areas. Focus the bombers and HQs on one front.



That is what Terry Pratchett would do Orm, or a good player like you but not the Bo, why would I not do that, because it would make sense to do it that way [:D] I am going to start using the "O" chit Jadg made me aware of.

Bo




paulderynck -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/11/2015 11:57:19 PM)

Not using the O-chit in Barb is like lessening the scenario length by a full turn. It's no wonder you were having so much trouble as the Germans.



bo -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/12/2015 12:57:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Not using the O-chit in Barb is like lessening the scenario length by a full turn. It's no wonder you were having so much trouble as the Germans.


Oh nice now you tell me [:D] Never saw it paul, no excuses.

Bo



Orm -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/12/2015 1:20:11 AM)

Do not forget to use the Soviet offence to make some spectacular counter attack.



bo -> RE: Ground attack vs Ground support (5/12/2015 11:34:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Do not forget to use the Soviet offence to make some spectacular counter attack.


Ahem Orm I am always the Germans and I do not need a spectacular counter attack
from a dumb old Russian player. Meaning me [:(]

Bo



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.578125