Strategic bombing (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan



Message

Jim D Burns -> Strategic bombing (11/17/2019 6:57:57 PM)

In my current AAR, I held off doing strategic bombing until 1943, as many were complaining loudly in the forums that it was somehow overpowered in game and I didn't want to cheese it in a PBEM game.

Well I've come to some conclusions that fly in the face of the complainers complaints. First if you do not attack Germany's industry from day one, they will reach their logistics limits in possible builds by late 1942 early 1943. From that point on in game all Germany will spend production on is repairs and the occasional build to replace a loss.

There is no longer a reason to strategically attack his industry once his army is built and on the map, because you'll never reduce his income enough to effect his repair bills. So that leaves his oil as your only target and by 43 his silos will be full. So no sense attacking his oil until 44 when you attack him and force him to burn significant fuel.

So without the ability to attack Germany's industry from day one, the allies will be at a significant disadvantage in 44 when they invade, because unlike Germany they will still be building towards their logistic caps and also trying to pay for repairs. I am of the firm opinion the allied economies are far too weak in game. They need the ability to out build Germany in the later half of the game and right now that simply isn't possible.

My second observation is that by 1943 going after Germany strategically is not financially feasible. You are so far behind him in builds that spending close to 100 production a turn on repair bills for your strategic bombers is crippling. So the only time its worth it to strategically bomb is early game before his air defenses get built up. There simply isn't enough production in game to make a late war bombing campaign worth pursuing.

So I am of the opinion that the allies need to go after Germany's economy hard from day one and never let up. Germany needs to be held below its logistic cap so when you do invade his economy will still be stretched just like yours.

Jim



TrogusP96 -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/17/2019 7:17:17 PM)

I've notice in the Editor German Industrial Growth is set to 90% while USA is 95%; UK 70% FR 50% USSR 50% and Italy 50%. If this is the underlying ratio the effects of which you are describing perhaps that's the issue. Too simple? But the Devs does not reveal all so clearly or do they?



AlbertN -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/17/2019 7:24:18 PM)

I may be wrong but I feel German's problem is oil (at least so is in the few games I've going on) and manpower.
If Germany's not losing more than 41 manpower per turn in mid-late game I think it's the Allies playing far too much conservative.
The logistic cap is a different tale and I do not feel I've enough troops to cover what I need when maxed out so...

The % of industrial growth is something related to your -base- production. Which means anyhow that 95% of the USA is 95% of their production (think it's 0.95% per turn to be precise).
So these numbers are relative to your production multiplier.



Flaviusx -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/17/2019 7:24:58 PM)

I've been tooling around in solo play with a 6 strat bomber allied force and it is pretty much demolishing the German economy in 1943.

I will admit the German AI hasn't put together anything as strong of a defense against this as I would in terms of either flak or fighter cover.

But you probably do need to get this rolling early. For the UK I saved up enough production to buy a bomber in 41 and then 42, and they had 3 total by the end of 42.

The other 3 are USAAF and they all got built in 1942. Bottom line, you can get this going by the end of 42 if you make a point of it. 6 bombers is pretty damn terrifying. You also have to make a commitment to researching and building escort fighters to go with them. With the USA I actually skipped interceptor research entirely and put it all in escorts, even scrapping the initial fighter.

Will this work against a human? I don't know. It's not cheap or easy or quick. But it has potential if you are willing to go all in on this.



Flaviusx -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/17/2019 7:33:07 PM)

I think Soviet manpower is on the low side in this game, for whatever it is worth. I'm not sure I agree that production is out of whack otherwise. The allies do have an edge here of roughly 3 to 2. This is admittedly lower than real life.

With some bombing you can turn that into a 2-1 or better production advantage.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/17/2019 7:52:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I think Soviet manpower is on the low side in this game, for whatever it is worth. I'm not sure I agree that production is out of whack otherwise. The allies do have an edge here of roughly 3 to 2. This is admittedly lower than real life.

With some bombing you can turn that into a 2-1 or better production advantage.


I added it up earlier, it was close to 1-1 production if you include the minors. The real problem is the allies are so low production for so long by the time they ramp up Germany is probably 10,000 or more production ahead of them on map, so the allies are far outproduced in the game in actuality.

The allies need to probably double production in 1943 if they ever hope to first catch then exceed axis production.

The Soviets are below 30% manpower in my game and I've never launched a single major offensive. They barely have enough manpower to survive.

Jim



AlbertN -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/17/2019 8:04:10 PM)

I don't feel Allies are low on production - at least in games starting late.
Have yet to get to late game in any PBEM - but had some non '39 starts, and Allies there do fine (though Axis situation may be 'compromised' by default already in these scenarios).

I realized though in the '39 scenario the Allies have to be quite careful not to waste their limited resources - because yes, at the start they've limited resources as it is right.
But by '41 I have already quite a force to do invasions with if I want, once Germany is busy with the Soviets.

If Soviet manpower is low - that I have no opinion on yet as I've not got there. But IF that's factually low it can be improved.



Flaviusx -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/17/2019 9:13:32 PM)

The entire Axis economy, minors included, is 724 in our game as of September 1943. The US and Soviets by themselves exceed this, and then add the British to that. It's pretty close to 3-2 overall. I'll grant that Allied production is a bit understated here. I think it ought to be closer to 2-1.

Part of the problem here is that Italy is persisting and contributing 100 to this total. And Italy is worth keeping around for reasons besides that.



Michael T -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/17/2019 9:38:03 PM)


quote:

In my current AAR, I held off doing strategic bombing until 1943, as many were complaining loudly in the forums that it was somehow overpowered in game and I didn't want to cheese it in a PBEM game.


Why would you think it cheesy to use a tool that the designer defended as being balanced?
That the designer confirmed was not bugged. That the designer defended and outlined the pro's and con's in it's current state.

You consistently argued that Strategic Bombing was a waste and could not be a success. I tried to show you that you needed to look beyond the numbers of just Bomber losses. Now you think that strategic bombing is the only way to win. And now that you are losing, you try to blame the very people who pointed out how effective it actually can be. It makes no sense.






AlvaroSousa -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/17/2019 9:42:31 PM)

The fact you guys are on both sides of this equation is a good sign.

As for manpower. It was taken directly from population #s.

The ratios are ~1133 to 644 currently in the 1944 scenario = 1.75:1
The USSR does get an extra +30 via Vladivostok as a constant event. which makes it 1.8:1

So it is assumed that some strat bombing will take place.

So KOing just 10% of Germany's economy in 1944 makes it 2:1

That is how it was designed.

It will take time to explore all possibilities. But there is a return on a strat bombing campaign.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/17/2019 10:03:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The entire Axis economy, minors included, is 724 in our game



Current allied production:

UK: 185
US: 468
Soviets: 333
Canada: 25

Total: 1011

There are no events for the Soviets bringing in 30 a turn for Vladivostok, so perhaps that's 44 scenario only. This is a 39 game.

Jim



Jim D Burns -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/17/2019 10:07:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa
As for manpower. It was taken directly from population #s.


If that's the case, then the Soviets should have at least twice the manpower as Germany. Germany had roughly 80 mil pop and the Soviets about 160-180 mil pop in 1939.

Here's a wiki on pops, but it includes Germany's occupied territories at the end of year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1939

Jim



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/18/2019 2:02:39 PM)

I believe I did 1.5x for the USSR because in the beta games they NEVER had a manpower problem. They should have some in 1944. At the same time the Germans also should be having manpower problems about that time.

I'll keep an eye on this. It will take a good game sample in PBEM to make a determination. Sometimes historical data doesn't translate into game play.



Flaviusx -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/18/2019 6:22:37 PM)

Even against the AI, I run into Soviet manpower problems as early as 1943. It's not that they run out of manpower, but that they drop below the 50% threshold by 1943 and new builds will come in at this lower experience level.

In PBEM play this manpower pool is even more stressed. Far more so.

My own sense is that Soviet manpower should be something like 80 per turn as opposed to the present 63. That would put it just about twice as big as the Germans. Presently it is more like 1.5 times as large.



abulbulian -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/18/2019 6:35:47 PM)

I don't think people realize there was a significant manpower shortage for the Soviets in WW2 towards the end of the war. The idea of endless Soviet manpower is ridiculous. The Soviets had to bring women in large numbers to the front line as well as emptying out prisons and work camps for manpower. So for the Soviets to see a decrease in experience for the common soldier in 1943 is logical. This was offset of course by the Germans struggles with manpower, logistics, munitions, fuel, and the list goes on. So I like to see when games start to account for the historical account of Soviet manpower. Always remember that the victors write the history as much as they can. Just before the war, Stalin fired (to put it lightly) most of the people who did a recent census because he didn't like the numbers. The new team put out figures that were more acceptable if you know what I mean.



Flaviusx -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/18/2019 6:40:54 PM)

Oh, I know there was.

But not that soon and not anywhere near to the degree the Soviets are having in my PBEM or even in solo play.

Soviet manpower in 1943 in my PBEM game is in the place I'd expect to be in 1945. The flipside of this is German manpower is holding out fine. I've managed to keep it just above 50%. This is kind of a moot point because Germany doesn't have the logistics for new builds, but if I had to I could in fact build more units without seriously compromising their initial experience levels. Partly this is a matter of choice and management on my own part (I have deliberately not pushed the Germans to fight too hard in the Eastern Front so as to avoid stressing manpower) but even so.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/18/2019 7:06:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

I don't think people realize there was a significant manpower shortage for the Soviets in WW2 towards the end of the war. The idea of endless Soviet manpower is ridiculous. The Soviets had to bring women in large numbers to the front line as well as emptying out prisons and work camps for manpower.


I 100% agree here. But sometimes we need to balance things for game play. The main goal is for Germany and the USSR to be manpower stressed late in the war.

I'd like more players in games to give feedback here just to be sure. There are a couple things I can do to balance this our besides manpower.

I'd also like to know the attrition rate on the Axis later in the war.




Jim D Burns -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/18/2019 7:58:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian
I don't think people realize there was a significant manpower shortage for the Soviets in WW2


Of course there was, the Soviets had lost vast numbers of men in the huge encirclement battles early war and in the human wave tactics used early on as well. Problem is in my game, no encirclement losses, no big campaigns of Soviet attacks either.

All my losses except perhaps 300-500 or so in the first winter, are from Germany simply grinding away at the Soviets in steady attacks that only grab a hex or two, nothing dramatic. By the end of 43 the Soviets are now down to 22% manpower. Had I launched even one campaign of Soviet attacks I would have been out of manpower by early 43.

Part of the problem may be the combats themselves. Germany routinely causes me 3-5 times as many casualties as he suffers, even in low odds attacks. The war was actually the opposite. The attacker almost always took more casualties, that simply not the case in game.

Jim



Michael T -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/18/2019 8:00:35 PM)

Yes, you can't justify major changes based on the feed back of one or two novices to the system. And we are all in that boat bar the designer. I would like to see how some skilled allied players go before making any drastic changes.



Flaviusx -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/18/2019 8:26:17 PM)

Some of this is due to the heavy use of the hold order which is increasing Soviet losses.

But most of this is due to German tech and experience edge. If you play the style of game I am playing, you can use that edge to impose a very favorable exchange ratio on the Soviets. And over time this is crippling the Soviets. It's been my strategy all along once it became clear that big encirclements were not going to be possible given the Soviet stubborness in defense. I was never going to be able to overrun the Soviet Union by maneuver. Breakthroughs of any kind were infrequent and limited in scope and usually only possible by use of paratroopers.

The dominance of the luftwaffe also has a lot to do with it. The Red Air Force seems to be permanently on the backfoot here.



Michael T -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/18/2019 9:31:49 PM)

On the face of it, 30% extra losses for a hold order doesn't seem enough.



Flaviusx -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/18/2019 10:08:29 PM)

It's a heavy enough penalty, imo. And it obviously it adds up over time since literally every combat in the Eastern Front is against units with hold orders. (This is true on my side as well.)

I do think the hold order is a little too good in this game and maybe shouldn't have quite so high a chance to prevent retreats. But I don't feel quite as strongly about this as before seeing how the attrition involved adds up over time. Frankly, it's giving me an entirely different idea of how to run the Eastern Front in PBEM when I get a chance to do this myself. Hold orders should be used sparingly. Mech should be used sparingly in the front lines. The Soviets should be willing to give up more ground early on and create opportunities for maneuver later. And I am also thinking about maybe saving up advancements until the 1941 winter and going all in on winterization with the Sovs. Find a good section of the front and drop a half dozen such advancements on it, choosing the Siberians first for this. But this only works if the Germans are stretched to begin with. So...give them some room to run.

I also think the Soviet needs to defend forward early on with a bunch of trash infantry and build no mech at all. Probably not until the first winter when you have 40+ experience on new builds.



Michael T -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/18/2019 10:16:09 PM)

No one really want's to play WWI in the East. 1941 and 1942 should be about maneuver. If hold is turning it in to static warfare it needs to change. Just telling someone to hold shouldn't mean it's automatically effective. I would be inclined to only make such orders effective at low odds. Say 3:1 or less. Once odds get above 3:1 hold makes no difference, but you still incur the extra loss. That way it will encourage the order to be used in a sensible manner.



Flaviusx -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/18/2019 10:19:07 PM)

Player choice.

I am okay with that choice. I think I've proven it's not necessarily a good choice. I wouldn't make it myself based on the results. A slight nerf to hold is in order perhaps, but the player should have the choice to use it as much as they want, or do a runaway, or whatever. So long as there is a price to pay for it. There clearly is.

Also, I am having fun doing the Eastern Front in the way I am doing it. I'm running my German army in...a Soviet way.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/19/2019 12:26:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Some of this is due to the heavy use of the hold order which is increasing Soviet losses.


I never generally used the hold order in Russia (except for major cities) until 1943 when Moscow was only 4 hexes from the Germans. The attrition is due to lopsided casualties. Were you losing at least the same level of manpower as I you'd have been forced to ease up to recover occasionally. But you might lose 4 while I lose 12 in a 3-1 retreat result. This adds up fast.

Jim



Flaviusx -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/19/2019 12:31:47 AM)

Fair enough, it seemed like you were using more than that because I can hardly ever get a retreat until a unit is worn down below 50% even at high odds.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/19/2019 12:38:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Fair enough, it seemed like you were using more than that because I can hardly ever get a retreat until a unit is worn down below 50% even at high odds.


Initially I was afraid to use it because of fear my expensive mechs would die in droves. Once manpower revealed itself to be on a steady decline I decided giving up turf was better than taking high losses so made the decision to never use it if possible except to hold a production city. Only when you got close to Moscow did I decide the Soviets were going down anyway might as well make it as tough as possible.

Jim



AlbertN -> RE: Strategic bombing (11/19/2019 1:06:34 AM)

The 12 in the 3-1 though is mostly due to planes, more than land forces. Once planes run out of actions the losses for the defender drastically drop.
Or at least that's my experience.
But at the same time I doubt airplanes alter much damage from infantry to panzers or mechs.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.078003