Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

pre-assault Air Bombing ?

 
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 War in the East Series >> pre-assault Air Bombing ? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 9/16/2013 10:30:06 AM   
AlexSF


Posts: 183
Joined: 9/2/2013
From: France
Status: offline
I was wondering if air bombing of an enemy fortified pack you want to assault/attack is efficient ?
What would be the effect on the enemy? The manual is very vague, is it only disruption ?
Post #: 1
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 9/16/2013 10:34:43 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 4778
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlexisSF


I was wondering if air bombing of an enemy fortified pack you want to assault/attack is efficient ?
What would be the effect on the enemy? The manual is very vague, is it only disruption ?

Alors! I think, if not mistaken, it's better to use ground-support missions and a high % at the air-doctrine; never really looked much into the air war at WitE; so perhaps a wing commander of the lads here can help.

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.

(in reply to AlexSF)
Post #: 2
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 9/16/2013 10:53:58 AM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		Yes, it's useful and equally, if your attack hex is not isolated, recon behind the front and bomb anything you fear might intervene. Disruption caused will significantly reduce the chance of reserve activation, as will having units on both flanks of the defender.

_____________________________

“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 3
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 9/16/2013 11:11:56 AM   
AlexSF


Posts: 183
Joined: 9/2/2013
From: France
Status: offline 		ah ok, disrupting the reserve behind, that makes sense.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 4
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 9/16/2013 11:19:56 AM   
swkuh

 

Posts: 1034
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline 		Useful to know this; thanks the Q & A!

(in reply to AlexSF)
Post #: 5
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 9/16/2013 5:09:18 PM   
Mike13z50


Posts: 344
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline 		Bombing the stack you are going to attack also causes disruption and fatigue to the defenders, which lowers their actual CV. Don't be fooled by the killed 10 men and 1 art result, well worth doing on tough hexes.

(in reply to swkuh)
Post #: 6
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 9/16/2013 7:55:28 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike13z50

Bombing the stack you are going to attack also causes disruption and fatigue to the defenders, which lowers their actual CV. Don't be fooled by the killed 10 men and 1 art result, well worth doing on tough hexes.


agree, the published losses are misleading as to the impact. A couple of large raids will ease a major attack on a key position by disrupting. Remember that disrupted elements take no part in combat.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike13z50)
Post #: 7
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 9/17/2013 12:13:01 PM   
AlexSF


Posts: 183
Joined: 9/2/2013
From: France
Status: offline 		Thank you, good to know. Same thing with interdiction, the enemy losses shown seem very weak...

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 8
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/2/2013 6:51:15 PM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline
quote:

Bombing the stack you are going to attack also causes disruption and fatigue to the defenders, which lowers their actual CV. Don't be fooled by the killed 10 men and 1 art result, well worth doing on tough hexes.


Is this actually quantifiable or just a subjective statement. Because in my experience it makes absolutely no difference to have ground support on or off. And pre-assault bombing also seems to make absolutely no difference.

In one of my games my lousy 1 CV cavalry was attacked by a 90 moral German division with 100 bombers in support and that attack was a Held. Just one of many examples.

(in reply to Mike13z50)
Post #: 9
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/2/2013 7:41:10 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline 		In my experience it does make difference. Against the AI on high morale levels many 50-50 or even 40-60 battles were only won due to ground support on. I haven't done empircal tests to quantify it, but a couple of times, just for interest I conducted battles 5 to 10 times with and then without ground support. All were kind of 50-50 battles. While the ratio was negative without ground support, I did win the majority of the battles with ground support.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 10
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/3/2013 12:09:47 PM   
Toidi

 

Posts: 200
Joined: 8/31/2011
Status: offline 		In my perspective, bombing is quite efficient on the Soviet side, you just need to mass your bombers (some 100 or so). My experience is that it reduces cv by 10-20 %.

The disruption translates into fatigue after battle, so no disruption is carried after the bombing attack... Additional effect is that the units use their ammunition, so they have less ammo later on in battle which may be somewhat helpful as it should at the very least reduce the losses.

Playing Axis side, bombers were more useful carrying fuel and supplies. Now, after the new beta, the pre-assault bombing will be probably a norm for me...

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 11
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/3/2013 11:32:34 PM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline
quote:

My experience is that it reduces cv by 10-20 %.


Are these numbers verifiable? It's seems all very subjective.

(in reply to Toidi)
Post #: 12
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/4/2013 1:46:40 AM   
Disgruntled Veteran


Posts: 615
Joined: 2/19/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

quote:

My experience is that it reduces cv by 10-20 %.


Are these numbers verifiable? It's seems all very subjective.

It is best I can tell but I would also agree that pre bombing and Ground support are helpful in turning the tide.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 13
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/4/2013 2:28:00 AM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline 		I ran some tests. Basically, I'm doing an attack with 3 divisions (each with a Pioneer) in one stack against two Russian rifle divisions in separate hexes with level 2 forts. These are attacks I need for the extended Lvov pocket. I did 10 attacks each with no ground support and ground support at 60%, 100%, 150% and 300%. The results are depressing:

No Ground Support
5 Held
20 Retreat

60%
19 Held
17 Retreat
This means 3 catastrophic failures

100%
14 Held
18 Retreat
This means 2 catastrophic failures

150%
11 Held
20 Retreat

300%
19 Held
16 Retreat
This means 3 catastrophic failures

Can someone explain these absurd results? There seems to be no point in using ground support.



< Message edited by Bozo_the_Clown -- 10/4/2013 3:05:13 AM >

(in reply to Disgruntled Veteran)
Post #: 14
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/4/2013 7:06:17 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline 		I'm sorry to come over all social scientist, but I can't see what the numbers you are quoting mean, since the base N is different in each case, and I've not yet had a catastrophic failure combat result generated (plenty of damn annoying ones though)

By the time you have set GS for 300% its very likely you get a single mission a turn, its akin to telling the usage algorithm to concentrate everything into one or two raids.

Add to that

quote:

These are attacks I need for the extended Lvov



sounds like the real issue with what you are trying?

_____________________________


(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 15
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/4/2013 11:09:26 AM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline 		So, I also ran a quick test. Once with no GS, once with GS at 50%. The attack was conducted using two German infantry divisions with displayed attacking CV 11 against a Soviet rifle brigade and rifle division in a level 2 fort with a displayed defensive CV of 9. To clear up possible distracting factors I removed all support units from their parent units (so no different SU committment levels to distort the results). The results were with ground support 13 of 20 attacks were successful. Without only 4 of 20 resulted in retreats. So in this specific example, albeit on a small sample size, the chance for success was boosted from 20% to 65% with GS committment. Of course 65% is no world beater, but it turned a battle that could only be won by lucky dice rolls into a more than even affair.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 16
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/4/2013 12:11:12 PM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline
quote:

sounds like the real issue with what you are trying?


I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you sure that is the real issue here?

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 17
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/4/2013 1:38:44 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline 		Did another 30 tests, now with the 20 before:

With GS
32 of 50 --> 64% success rate

Without GS
9 of 50 --> 18% success rate

So, I think 50 times the same battle is an acceptable sample size. Therefore I think the myth that ground support makes no difference during battles can be laid to rest. We are talking about a contrast of 46%. Basically this battle without ground support is close to unwinnable, except for a lucky dice roll. With ground support, however, this battle turns into a more than even affair. Now, of course there is the question why Bozo had those results. Well, in my opinion, first, support unit committment. They (for both sides!) can alter the odds in quite a meaningful way. If you want to get as close as possible to the effects of ground support itself, you have to remove as many chance variables as possible. Second, I don't know, but did you conduct these battles under the same situation? Third, the higher your initial odds are, the less ground support will affect the battle. Without ground support you already had an 80% success rate. With the way this combat system is dependent on dice rolls you will, under normal circumstances, always have a chance of bad dice rolls derailing the battle, no matter with or without ground support.

< Message edited by SigUp -- 10/4/2013 1:39:07 PM >

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 18
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/4/2013 2:22:31 PM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline
quote:

Second, I don't know, but did you conduct these battles under the same situation?


Yes, they were all T1 battles under the exact same conditions.

Maybe I have time tonight and can run the same test on a larger sample without support units. I'm more then happy if you prove me wrong. I'm not trying to create a myth. I'm not trying to trash the game.

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 19
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/4/2013 2:27:40 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline 		I wasn't accusing you of creating a myth. It is just that many people for years have doubted the effect of ground support. Truth is, the higher the odds are for the attack to succeed, the less difference ground support will make. So for example is guys are only launching high odds attacks, to them ground support is really more or less redundant, except for hard nut cases like Leningrad for example. So if you are running another tests, I'd advise you to choose mid to low odds attacks, so about 50-50 attacks, because then the effect of ground support is more clearly visible.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 20
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/5/2013 11:44:23 AM   
mktours

 

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline 		I have the same impression as you, I turn off the ground support completely and reserve all bombers to interdiction, which is more effective.
But I am a new player；maybe others have figure out how to use it effectively, to me it is very frustrating. Bombing before attacking is also not effective, according to my impression, and the casualty of bombers are very high due to flak fire.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

quote:

Bombing the stack you are going to attack also causes disruption and fatigue to the defenders, which lowers their actual CV. Don't be fooled by the killed 10 men and 1 art result, well worth doing on tough hexes.


Is this actually quantifiable or just a subjective statement. Because in my experience it makes absolutely no difference to have ground support on or off. And pre-assault bombing also seems to make absolutely no difference.

In one of my games my lousy 1 CV cavalry was attacked by a 90 moral German division with 100 bombers in support and that attack was a Held. Just one of many examples.

(in reply to Bozo_the_Clown)
Post #: 21
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/5/2013 12:45:03 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline 		I have provided numbers that show that ground support does matter, as it can turn unwinnable battles into even affairs. So unless people provide numbers that refute mine, or point out flaws in my testing I don't see the reason why you continue to say that ground support has no effect. Once again, my conclusion is, due to the nature of the combat system, the better your odds of success are, the less ground support is going to affect the battle. I wonder, however, why you think interdiction is more effective. I have very rarely encountered cases of interdiction successfully reducing the MP of an unit and for the purpose of driving up fatigue of units moving / retreating beyond my reach the losses (and morale losses) just not worth it to me. I'd rather have bombers driving up the odds from 20% to 60%, then have them bomb somewhere in the vast expanses of Russia. That said, if your playstyle goes for the sure thing instead of also launching 50-50 battles, then ground support is indeed something you can ignore for the most cases.

(in reply to mktours)
Post #: 22
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/5/2013 12:59:25 PM   
mktours

 

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline 		I am just giving my own impression, which is certainly not a scientific result,
I seldom went for a 50-50 battle, mostly I only tried highly successful battles. That is why I need to strip the flank protection to get enough power to break through, and that is very risky.
quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I have provided numbers that show that ground support does matter, as it can turn unwinnable battles into even affairs. So unless people provide numbers that refute mine, or point out flaws in my testing I don't see the reason why you continue to say that ground support has no effect. Once again, my conclusion is, due to the nature of the combat system, the better your odds of success are, the less ground support is going to affect the battle. I wonder, however, why you think interdiction is more effective. I have very rarely encountered cases of interdiction successfully reducing the MP of an unit and for the purpose of driving up fatigue of units moving / retreating beyond my reach the losses (and morale losses) just not worth it to me. I'd rather have bombers driving up the odds from 20% to 60%, then have them bomb somewhere in the vast expanses of Russia. That said, if your playstyle goes for the sure thing instead of also launching 50-50 battles, then ground support is indeed something you can ignore for the most cases.


(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 23
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/5/2013 1:06:06 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours
I am just giving my own impression, which is certainly not a scientific result,
I seldom went for a 50-50 battle, mostly I only tried highly successful battles. That is why I need to strip the flank protection to get enough power to break through, and that is very risky.


This is the key, if you are aiming at say 80% likelihood in the first case, ground support will make little obvious difference.

If we assume that a given allocation of airpower reduces your chances of losing by 10% (pick a value to your tastes but this makes the example simple), then:

- if the base odds are 50/50, airpower shifts it to 55/45
- if the base odds are 80/20, airpower shifts it to 82/18

In other words if you have already stacked the combat odds by the allocation of ground units you will see very little gain for the application of airpower. So GS is key, if you are operating on the margins and may make a major difference in terms of success, but is optional if you already have battlefield dominance

_____________________________


(in reply to mktours)
Post #: 24
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/5/2013 1:06:24 PM   
mktours

 

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline 		I am just giving my own impression, and what I really did in my games. I am not against you here,
I seldom went for 50-50 battles, mostly I only try battles which are very likely to succeed, that is why I always need to strip the flank protection to ensure I have enough power to break through. This tactic is very risky.
quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I have provided numbers that show that ground support does matter, as it can turn unwinnable battles into even affairs. So unless people provide numbers that refute mine, or point out flaws in my testing I don't see the reason why you continue to say that ground support has no effect. Once again, my conclusion is, due to the nature of the combat system, the better your odds of success are, the less ground support is going to affect the battle. I wonder, however, why you think interdiction is more effective. I have very rarely encountered cases of interdiction successfully reducing the MP of an unit and for the purpose of driving up fatigue of units moving / retreating beyond my reach the losses (and morale losses) just not worth it to me. I'd rather have bombers driving up the odds from 20% to 60%, then have them bomb somewhere in the vast expanses of Russia. That said, if your playstyle goes for the sure thing instead of also launching 50-50 battles, then ground support is indeed something you can ignore for the most cases.

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 25
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/5/2013 1:08:37 PM   
mktours

 

Posts: 712
Joined: 5/25/2013
Status: offline 		yes, I suppose so.
Thanks for the reply,
quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours
I am just giving my own impression, which is certainly not a scientific result,
I seldom went for a 50-50 battle, mostly I only tried highly successful battles. That is why I need to strip the flank protection to get enough power to break through, and that is very risky.


This is the key, if you are aiming at say 80% likelihood in the first case, ground support will make little obvious difference.

If we assume that a given allocation of airpower reduces your chances of losing by 10% (pick a value to your tastes but this makes the example simple), then:

- if the base odds are 50/50, airpower shifts it to 55/45
- if the base odds are 80/20, airpower shifts it to 82/18

In other words if you have already stacked the combat odds by the allocation of ground units you will see very little gain for the application of airpower. So GS is key, if you are operating on the margins and may make a major difference in terms of success, but is optional if you already have battlefield dominance


(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 26
RE: pre-assault Air Bombing ? - 10/6/2013 12:09:36 AM   
Bozo_the_Clown


Posts: 890
Joined: 6/25/2013
From: Bozotown
Status: offline
quote:

If we assume that a given allocation of airpower reduces your chances of losing by 10% (pick a value to your tastes but this makes the example simple), then:

- if the base odds are 50/50, airpower shifts it to 55/45
- if the base odds are 80/20, airpower shifts it to 82/18


But what's the point since you can't calculate the odds in advance. It's nothing but Russian Roulette. I agree with mktours on this point. The price is just too high. Also, many times I have noticed absolutely absurd interdiction attacks with the Axis losing dozens of bombers.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 27
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> pre-assault Air Bombing ? Page: [1]
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

1.000