Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> After Action Reports >> RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 5/28/2010 12:17:02 AM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		Odds & Ends
This set of trials does provide some INTERESTING FACTS, some of which are likely to be less statistically valid than the others (or less interesting come to that)

55-65% of the damage to the gruppen was inflicted on the approach to target.
9% of bomb runs resulted in an 'Instant Kill' in addition to any other damage being scored by the flak. I did not count crashes on the way home or on landing.
75% of these Instant Kills were scored on the approach, although with a sample of just 13 this is almost certainly not statistically valid, but it's always good to get in the habit of being on the lookout for patterns.
0% of the raids suffered >1 Instant Kill.

Past experience, of actual games as well as similar trials, suggests that as the intensity of flak increases, due to more guns, less height or maybe even gunners being more alert, so does the chance of scoring multiple Kills.

NOTE that strictly speaking I should talk in terms of 'damaging hits suffered to an aircraft', and not 'aircraft hit'. That is to say that the trials show the number of damaging hits scored on the aircraft of a gruppe; I have no way of knowing if any particular aircraft took more than one hit, of even how the game system handles multiple hits.

So, after all of that analysis and pretty charts I suppose I ought to get on with actually fighting the war before I get too carried away.

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 91
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 5/29/2010 12:58:43 PM   
invernomuto


Posts: 986
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline 		Thanks again for the infos and graphs. Very useful for newbie.
Do you use excel or similar to keep track of your game?



_____________________________


(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 92
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 5/29/2010 4:35:11 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		They're all from Excel, and I usually use it to keep track of a few things at any one time, to keep track of the key things. In this case a lot of what I've used has been done especially for the AAR. Glad you find it useful.

< Message edited by K.Pooley -- 5/29/2010 4:40:19 PM >

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to invernomuto)
Post #: 93
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 5/30/2010 1:03:51 AM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		Timetable
I want to vary my normal routine, of several waves attacking at fairly predictable intervals. I don't want to be so predictable, especially as the game is at such a critical point (I know, I've been saying that for the last couple of weeks).

0600 - All 20 RADAR strikes.
Since I already have a perfect set of recce photos I'm not doing any PR against the RADAR sites at this stage. I also have current photos for all Sector AFs and all but one 11 Group SECAFs, so will be dispensing with all pre-strike recce today. The first wave will be

0610 - Following on almost straightaway will be fighter sweeps against 11 Group SECAFs. Hopefully these will blend a little in with the previous wave of attacks. And just a short time later,

0640 - Bombing raids against the same AFs targeted by the fighter sweeps.

As to the actual targets of these two waves, I have gone for the two highest priority categories as in the graph above, and as ringed on the map below, for a total of eight targets. The raids' altitudes will vary depending on, amongst other things, the amount of flak as previously mentioned.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 94
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 5/30/2010 1:44:53 AM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		This RL example is how I imagine (hope) some of my targets are looking about now:

'The devastation at Hawkinge was appalling, hangars, workshops and domestic buildings flattened and others burning. From the water tower sprang a series of fountains caused by bomb splinters and over the station lay a slowly drifting clouding of dust and smoke. Hawkinge was out of commission…'
[Biggin on the Bump, page 51, by Bill Ogley, pub. Froglets Ltd]


_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 95
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 5/30/2010 2:13:48 AM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		Despite having 20 RADAR targets to hit, I managed to use Stukas, Do's and fighter-bombers for most of them, with only some of the east coast targets calling for the use of main-force bombers.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 96
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/7/2010 10:15:19 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		Turn 26






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 97
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/7/2010 10:50:37 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		As for the RADAR picture, this just goes to show that you can't win 'em all:






Although it's not bad out of twenty targets!

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by K.Pooley -- 6/7/2010 10:51:03 PM >

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 98
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/7/2010 10:59:35 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		So, what happened?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 99
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/13/2010 12:38:59 AM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		It's obvious that by shifting the bulk of my attention from the Sector AFs for just 24 hours has had serious consequences. I thought I had allocated enough resources to keep them 'simmering', but obviously not. As you can see below I have gone back to recce - bomb radar - bomb Sector AFs - recce.

I have tried to strike a balance between reaching the less damaged (and usually more distant) AFs to increase AS directly, hammering individual (usually closer) ones in an attempt to cripple their comms and so degrade response times, and conserving the strength of my own forces.

The turn includes some large, well-escorted, raids, some unescorted and very vulnerable raids, and Raid No.54 on North Weald, which is comprised of 20 '110s of ErprGr 210, plus their 209-strong escort of '109s. If Swift intercepts it (and why wouldn't he) he will at the least get a shock. The staggered timings for this day's missions are intended to make a unified response by FC more difficult, and maybe just throw him off balance a little.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 100
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/13/2010 5:46:59 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		Turn 27

Well, it was an interesting turn. AS bobbed back up nicely, mainly as a result of my better availability figures and the return to heavy bombing of Sector AFs. I assume that resting some of my bombers (ie no 2nd mission) probably accounts for the former, as I took the usual (heavy) casualties.

To quote myself from yesterday:

quote:

If Swift intercepts it (and why wouldn't he) he will at the least get a shock. The staggered timings for this day's missions are intended to make a unified response by FC more difficult, and maybe just throw him off balance a little.


I can announce that this actually worked quite well, as revealed in a recent decrypt of a signal from the headquarters of Air Marshall Sir Swift 'Swifty' Swift, CBE, DSO, DFC, BBC, Channel Four and bar. It read, in part, as follows:

quote:

This turn I went for the wrong raids......they looked nice but went so far north that FC was not able to intercept some of the later raids......


This deception worked so well that the North Weald 'Trojan Horse' mission, designed to hammer the unsuspecting interceptors, faced no significant opposition. On the other hand the 'uber' raid against Filton worked very well.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by K.Pooley -- 6/13/2010 5:47:47 PM >

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 101
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/13/2010 5:54:30 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		As you table below shows, the crews on the Church Fenton raid paid a very heavy price to be part of my successful deception strategy:





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by K.Pooley -- 6/13/2010 5:55:46 PM >

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 102
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/13/2010 11:07:31 PM   
invernomuto


Posts: 986
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline 		Could you please post LW and RAF total losses?
Thanks.

Bye!


_____________________________


(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 103
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/15/2010 3:34:52 AM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		It's not very pretty I'm afraid: LW 1,758 RAF 398

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to invernomuto)
Post #: 104
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/18/2010 12:14:34 AM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		This time I'm going for Sector AFs, but with a much lumpier attack profile, as opposed to the fairly evenly spread attack waves I usually mount.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 105
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/18/2010 2:25:59 PM   
Derfel


Posts: 85
Joined: 6/19/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline 		what! You are using your pathfinders in the daytime?

Thats just crazy, better use them at night where they can bomb the airfield.
That way the morale of the fighters will go down even further!

It seems that it is not the size of the attack, but the number of attack that will reduce morale, so each staffel should go for a Primary Airfield.

< Message edited by Derfel -- 6/18/2010 2:26:51 PM >

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 106
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/18/2010 11:52:06 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline
quote:

what! You are using your pathfinders in the daytime?

It's the only time I can use them, as I almost never fly night raids

quote:

Thats just crazy

Tactfully put!

quote:

...better use them at night where they can bomb the airfield. That way the morale of the fighters will go down even further!

Interesting. What percentage of daytime damage do you typically find you get when bombing with the same size force at night?

quote:

It seems that it is not the size of the attack, but the number of attack that will reduce morale, so each staffel should go for a Primary Airfield.

If you mean the morale of individual units, at the moment I am aiming to score AS points, and having spent many turns launching large numbers of small raids I have caused considerable airfield damage. Now I am trying to increase the amount of sdam and cdam amount to key stations. Experience has taught me that this means smaller numbers of larger raids, hence the (for me) radical departure of using today's strategy. Hopefully this will cause longer-lasting damage than the smaller raids which often just crater the runway, damage that is often repaired before the bombers land.

Obviously it's a gamble, but this sort of change in strategy always is. If I'm wrong we should see in a few days! And thanks for making such good points.

Kevin


_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to Derfel)
Post #: 107
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/19/2010 6:17:38 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		Turn 28





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 108
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/19/2010 9:05:24 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		That's a relief! As you can see from the graph above I did exactly the right thing last turn. After all, AS has continued to climb almost as steeply as the previous day* and that's obviously a good thing, so if I just carry on doing the same thing I'll win won't I?

* Why 9.998? When I refreshed the graph after entering the new data it read 10, which made me think the game's sums were up the creek. Not so, it's just that to one decimal place 9.998 is of course 10.

Mmm... I'm not so sure.

If you look at the two formulae below you'll see why I'm a bit reticent about claiming a stunning success. The top one shows the calculation for the turn before last, while the bottom one was for the last turn. As you can see, the LW readiness and Sector AF damage figures are virtually unchanged; the big difference is in the RAF's readiness figures. The figure in brackets shows what would have happened to the AS score if the RAF figures had remained unchanged - Virtually nothing.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 109
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/20/2010 12:15:35 AM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		Summary




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by K.Pooley -- 6/20/2010 12:16:57 AM >

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 110
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/20/2010 12:17:54 AM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		Action Reports





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 111
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/21/2010 9:39:41 AM   
Derfel


Posts: 85
Joined: 6/19/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline 		I usually go for the industry with the KG 100, to keep his production down. Occasionally I use them to harass the Airfields that are crowded, a few bombs in the night will keep the bombed crews fatigue up and their morale will go down.
Low morale will not let them engage your bombers, they will break off combat sooner.
High fatigue results in less kills from the fatigued crews and more kills from your escorting fighters, hopefully

My way of using the KG 100 at night is not to inflict much damage, but more to spread out the pain,also to airfields that are beyond normal fighter escort range. (=less FLaK)

As you stated, your mission today was a gamble where you throw everything at his airfields, and rightly so!
It seems to be paying off

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 112
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/21/2010 6:15:13 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline
quote:

I usually go for the industry with the KG 100, to keep his production down. Occasionally I use them to harass the Airfields that are crowded, a few bombs in the night will keep the bombed crews fatigue up and their morale will go down.


It seems so obvious now you put it like that! I think I've become stuck too much in the mindset of wanting to create 'measureable damage' every time, and am overlooking the more subtle tactics.

quote:

My way of using the KG 100 at night is not to inflict much damage, but more to spread out the pain,also to airfields that are beyond normal fighter escort range. (=less FLaK)


Of course what a suggestion! This could be the answer to my 'Church Fenton Problem'. Looked at this way night raids can actually add an extra dimension to the game, through which a small force of bombers can 'slip', avoiding the daytime defences.

quote:

As you stated, your mission today was a gamble where you throw everything at his airfields, and rightly so!
It seems to be paying off


I've got to be lucky some time

In the next turn you may see what I think I'm going to call "The Derfel Doctrine" being employed for the first time by the Luftwaffe With a name like 'Derfel' I just knew you had to be Welsh!



< Message edited by K.Pooley -- 6/21/2010 6:17:27 PM >

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to Derfel)
Post #: 113
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 6/22/2010 10:08:42 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		On a more restrained note, this is the pre-strike recce for the next turn. It consists of at least one mission to every Radar site (in my area of interest), every Sector AF, the ten AFACs I damaged a couple of weeks back and most of the EFACs. The last two are so that I can make a decision about possible night raids on industry. I have also moved 3/KGr100 from Vannes to Zeebrugge, in order to make it possible to use on these hypothetical raids or forays to to (say) Church Fenton.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 114
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 7/7/2010 8:56:24 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		Turn 30






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 115
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 7/7/2010 9:09:32 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		Air Superiority Overview






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 116
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 7/7/2010 9:12:20 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		AARs





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 117
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 7/7/2010 9:13:35 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		Summary





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 118
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 7/7/2010 9:14:49 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		RADAR

Well at least something's going right. I managed to get radar suppression under control after losing it for a few days:






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 119
RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift - 7/28/2010 6:55:17 PM   
K.Pooley


Posts: 709
Joined: 4/15/2008
From: Crystal Palace, London.
Status: offline 		Air Superiority Overview






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Kev

Y Ddraig Goch am Byth

(in reply to K.Pooley)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> After Action Reports >> RE: BoB - Kevin v Swift Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.344