|
Harrybanana -> RE: Pelton (GHC) vs KWG (WA) turn 50 (12/6/2015 10:21:26 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pelton
Turn 49
WA Loses: 256,000
GHC Loses: 268,000
Turn 51
WA Loses 273,350
GHC Loses 326,564
WA loses over 3 turns; 17,000
GHC loses over 3 turns: 58,000
ratio: 1 to 3.4
Pelton,
What KWG is saying is that there is a good reason why your data for the last 3 turns shows the German losses at 3.4X that of the WA; namely because he is using his strategic air force (ie BC and 8th) solely for the purpose of bombing your troops rather than (as they were used historically) for bombing your cities. In one post here he shows that his air force bombing caused you approximately 12,000 losses in 1 turn. If he had the same results for the 3 turns you posted your data on than it means that (according to my 7 year old nephew) 36,000 of your 58,000 losses were caused by the air bombing and only 22,000 by other causes. Of course, this intensive carpet bombing would have also caused disruption of your units so that the ground attack loss ratio was slightly in his favour (17,000 to 22,000). Historically, as far as I am aware, the Allies only used this carpet bombing tactic once in, as KWG points out, Operation Cobra. Some of the credit for the success of this operation is due to the carpet bombing. It was an historic example of the proper use of "Shock and Awe." KWG is not making historic use of his strategic air forces and therefore I do not think you should be able to expect your loss ratio data to match the historical loss ratio data. Of course you are benefiting from this as KWG should not be gaining as many strategic bombing VPs. So to be fair you should also be showing us the data for the Strategic Bombing VPs for the last few turns.
FYI, in my game against QBall (the first one as we have now started a second game with me as the Germans) it seems to me that I was almost always suffering more casualties than him even when he retreated. This was until I started using Bomber Command to bomb his units like KWG is doing to you. I have found BC far more effective at killing and disrupting German units than any of my FB Commands. It seems that the quantity of bombs you drop is far more important than the height from which they are dropped or the training of the air groups. FBs are still more effective at interdiction of course. QBall is returning the favour, bombing my units almost every turn and killing my men, even in snowfall weather. Another advantage is that since BC air groups are more durable and fly above 15,000' my Flak losses and damage seem to be much less, so I don't need to "Rest" 1/2 my Air force every turn. The difference is that in our game I didn't start this tactic until late 44 and I am not using 8th AF like KWG is.
So the issue for me is: are the losses and damage caused by the big bombers historical? Personally I think they are over rated in the game. Shock and Awe will only work so often before the enemy adapts. At the same time I think the losses and damage caused by the tactical air groups (FBs and 2 engine bombers), especially Air Support missions and enemy units reserve reacting through interdicted hexes, is under rated. You may have read my posts on the nerfing of rockets and interdiction, if not I suggest you do so as they make fascinating reading. So I actually agree with you (Good Lord) that the loss ratio should not be as one sided as it is because he should not be causing as many bombing losses as he is. If the Allied player chooses to use his strategic AF to support the ground war then the loss ratio should be more in his favour than historical; just not as much as is happening here.
|
|
|
|
