Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



That's why I don't disband the Luftwaffe bombers. If you use them in quieter areas of the front you can sometimes get away with only losing a few of them. Even in more heavily defended areas, I was trading half the Luftwaffe bombers for good vps.

Before the rockets got fixed I was also killing an awful lot of guns and afvs. But the dive bombers are pretty good too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

Really? only 12 for the unit that was in the thickest fighting from start to end?

As most reports have the Totenkopf losing over half all AVF and vehicles.

You have to distinguish between damaged and destroyed. As the Germans were on the offensive they controlled the battlefield and they were very meticulate in recovering their AFVs. German irrecoverable tank and StuG losses at Kursk numbered fewer than 300 total. The Germans lost far more tanks during retreats than during offensives. Army Group Centre in July 1943 lost 311 AFVs, of which only 88 came during Kursk. The defensive battle at Orel was far more costly.

quote:

You have to distinguish between damaged and destroyed. As the Germans were on the offensive they controlled the battlefield and they were very meticulate in recovering their AFVs. German irrecoverable tank and StuG losses at Kursk numbered fewer than 300 total. The Germans lost far more tanks during retreats than during offensives. Army Group Centre in July 1943 lost 311 AFVs, of which only 88 came during Kursk. The defensive battle at Orel was far more costly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I am just am player all I can do is post the info and someone smarter then me has to find out just whats wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

The issue here isn't with the bombers, it's with the vulnerability of the HQ units. HQs have been extremely soft going back to WitE. The biggest killers here are tactical bombers/fighter bombers. Of course the more packed an HQ is the more you can kill. Even a small number of tactical bombers coming through can create a bloodbath as I have shown in my post earlier with the five-digit losses caused to SHAEF.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Is all the data posted with FoW Off ?
Strange to see WitW still having vulnerable HQs - most of the assigned units and support squad should actually be spread to multiple units with HQ just acting as virtual force concentration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I am just am player all I can do is post the info and someone smarter then me has to find out just whats wrong.

Can you post a before air execution phase save so we can delve into particulars?
I'm down to 1 game waiting on me, so I might have time to test soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

think that SHAEF is a bit of a special case - a lot of allied players don't really bother moving most of the AA that builds up in that command away so it may be over-stuffed. But there is a wider issue which is that senior command units in WiTW seem to lock up more manpower and stuff than they do in WiTE.

quote:

If anybody wants to try it out, here's the save file:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

A reasonable HR on unit bombing might be to limit it to the front and 1 hex back. Or forbidding the intentional bombing of HQ units, but it's tougher to measure intent.

Keeping your HQs a couple hexes back would keep them from getting unit bombed if that HR was followed.

quote:

A reasonable HR on unit bombing might be to limit it to the front and 1 hex back. Or forbidding the intentional bombing of HQ units, but it's tougher to measure intent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
Let's do this scientifically though. Whats the causalities we get with 500 FB on an infantry div? What casualties do we get with 500 FB split in to say 3 ADs onto 3 Inf Divs? And the same on 3HQs. Then we can debate if it is ahistoric, whether it matters, petition 2by3 to fix and debate HR...

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

I don't know about you, but raising 500 ground attack aircraft is not that easy, and would be 3-4 times what I would use on GA. I would rather split them than go hunting HQ with them. I don't think anyone has shown this is a game breaker in need of HR.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

OK, that does seem pretty significant.

How vulnerable should HQs be? I think there are several factors: Corps HQs should not be less hard than than an infantry division - they don't physically draw attention to themselves like teeth arms (no outgoing fire etc), although they could be more vulnerable to sigint/DF (volume of signals) based detection and localisation. They wont normally dig in properly as such, but camoflage is easier and more thorouh. Higher HQs are maybe less hard (more vulnerable - bigger and so on), but probably not worth worrying about. All HQs should only score for troop density at maybe 10% of their actual strength (if that is a factor)?

Actual (RL) air attacks are hard to find in the records - you hear if seniors are hit but not the other HQ staff and functions. Probably the most realistic effect would be a temporary hit on command ability... or a chance of one.

Anyone got better ideas?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

think that SHAEF is a bit of a special case - a lot of allied players don't really bother moving most of the AA that builds up in that command away so it may be over-stuffed. But there is a wider issue which is that senior command units in WiTW seem to lock up more manpower and stuff than they do in WiTE.

Yes, SHAEF is just extremely packed with 180.000 men, so I set up the test again with the Westwall scenario and targeted various HQs. Fog of war is off, recon on days 1-3 then a single 500 bomber strike mainly using fighter bombers (trained as fighters) plus a few level bombers on days 4-7 from 15.000 feet. The FW-190s are equipped with one 250kg bomb. The He-111s with one 1000kg bomb and four 250kg ones. And the Ju-88s with two 500kg bombs. The Allied airforce is set to rest.

First VIII British Corps:



Then 2nd British Army:



21st Army Group:



SHAEF:



VII US Corps:



1st US Army:



Also to check the effect on regular units,

Guards Armoured Division:



Stack of units (6th Guard Armoured Brigade, 8th Armoured Brigade, 43rd Infantry Division)



Last but not least, bombing a hex with more than one HQ (XII British, XXX British Corps plus Irene Brigade)



If anybody wants to try it out, here's the save file:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j611m9bvkong0r5/test.sav?dl=0

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

OK, that does seem pretty significant.

How vulnerable should HQs be? I think there are several factors: Corps HQs should not be less hard than than an infantry division
- they don't physically draw attention to themselves like teeth arms (no outgoing fire etc), although they could be more
vulnerable to sigint/DF (volume of signals) based detection and localisation. They wont normally dig in properly as such,
but camoflage is easier and more thorouh. Higher HQs are maybe less hard (more vulnerable - bigger and so on), but probably
not worth worrying about. All HQs should only score for troop density at maybe 10% of their actual strength (if that is a f
actor)?

Actual (RL) air attacks are hard to find in the records - you hear if seniors are hit but not the other HQ staff and functions.
Probably the most realistic effect would be a temporary hit on command ability... or a chance of one.

Anyone got better ideas?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

Is all the data posted with FoW Off ?
Strange to see WitW still having vulnerable HQs - most of the assigned units and support squad should actually be spread to
multiple units with HQ just acting as virtual force concentration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

Given a working administration and reporting system the own loss reports is more or less accurate, especially if they have control over the battlefield which was the case for the Germans at Kursk. Meanwhile opposing loss reports is nearly always too high and there are a multitude of reasons for it. Tendency to look at it positively, tough to gauge destroyed vs. damaged, chaos of the battlefield etc.

The Germans grew suspicious of their own reports regarding destroyed Soviet tanks that OKH decided in December 1942 to cut 50% off the reported losses for a better estimate of the Russian losses. Turns out 50% was a bit too much with overreporting numbering about 40%.

German losses at Kursk have been checked from multiple angles by German and foreign historians and they can be seen as more or less accurate.

Game losses are low for afv and some of those return , true? as with the troop losses?

Can 36 aircraft flying 72 sorties in excellent weather cause 4,849 casualties if the variables and FATE are right? And is that FOW for the Germans in the report above?

How does everything Tactical get accounted for?

In Normandy it was almost impossible for the Germans to fly recon over Allies until the Ar 234 recon. Yet in game, with Allied fighters stationed in Normandy and with Air Supremacy missions the Germans recon many Allied hexs.
I dont see that as impossible as the game engine has enough room to account for a change in tactics being used.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

OK, that does seem pretty significant.

How vulnerable should HQs be? I think there are several factors: Corps HQs should not be less hard than than an infantry division - they don't physically draw attention to themselves like teeth arms (no outgoing fire etc), although they could be more vulnerable to sigint/DF (volume of signals) based detection and localisation. They wont normally dig in properly as such, but camoflage is easier and more thorouh. Higher HQs are maybe less hard (more vulnerable - bigger and so on), but probably not worth worrying about. All HQs should only score for troop density at maybe 10% of their actual strength (if that is a factor)?

Actual (RL) air attacks are hard to find in the records - you hear if seniors are hit but not the other HQ staff and functions. Probably the most realistic effect would be a temporary hit on command ability... or a chance of one.

Anyone got better ideas?

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

Given a working administration and reporting system the own loss reports is more or less accurate, especially if they have control over the battlefield which was the case for the Germans at Kursk. Meanwhile opposing loss reports is nearly always too high and there are a multitude of reasons for it. Tendency to look at it positively, tough to gauge destroyed vs. damaged, chaos of the battlefield etc.

The Germans grew suspicious of their own reports regarding destroyed Soviet tanks that OKH decided in December 1942 to cut 50% off the reported losses for a better estimate of the Russian losses. Turns out 50% was a bit too much with overreporting numbering about 40%.

German losses at Kursk have been checked from multiple angles by German and foreign historians and they can be seen as more or less accurate.

Game losses are low for afv and some of those return , true? as with the troop losses?

Can 36 aircraft flying 72 sorties in excellent weather cause 4,849 casualties if the variables and FATE are right? And is that FOW for the Germans in the report above?

How does everything Tactical get accounted for?

In Normandy it was almost impossible for the Germans to fly recon over Allies until the Ar 234 recon. Yet in game, with Allied fighters stationed in Normandy and with Air Supremacy missions the Germans recon many Allied hexs.
I dont see that as impossible as the game engine has enough room to account for a change in tactics being used.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

Pelton,

I am at least partially on your side on this. Your data shows bombing creating way more casualties than it should especially, it would appear, to HQ Units. But I for one would appreciate more data on how your bombers are creating these casualties. I have run some test as well and have not been nearly as effective as you. In particular could you post data showing:

1. How many days per week are your bombers flying these missions?
2. How many bombers do you have in each mission?
3. What are the bomber air groups morale at the end of the week?
4. How much of the damage is being caused by the heavies and how much by the medium bombers and FBs?
5. How many of the casualties are being taken by the HQs as opposed to the combat units?

Like Seminole I would really appreciate it if you could post your save just prior to Air execution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

OK, that does seem pretty significant.

How vulnerable should HQs be? I think there are several factors: Corps HQs should not be less hard than than an infantry division - they don't physically draw attention to themselves like teeth arms (no outgoing fire etc), although they could be more vulnerable to sigint/DF (volume of signals) based detection and localisation. They wont normally dig in properly as such, but camoflage is easier and more thorouh. Higher HQs are maybe less hard (more vulnerable - bigger and so on), but probably not worth worrying about. All HQs should only score for troop density at maybe 10% of their actual strength (if that is a factor)?

Actual (RL) air attacks are hard to find in the records - you hear if seniors are hit but not the other HQ staff and functions. Probably the most realistic effect would be a temporary hit on command ability... or a chance of one.

Anyone got better ideas?

Ive read 1/3 of German Generals killed were from air attacks. There is the attack on 5th Panzer Army, ULTRA?, that wounded von Schweppenburg.


When I was with 2nd Armor we were attached to BN HQ and we were left alone- usually our "own space" in the field. 120mm - "4deuce" mortar. So it would be different for each unit attached to HQ. A unit could be attached but be miles from HQ. But still in the Hex in a combat mode.

YET when we fired we brought alot of ATTENTION to our position.


In the above example with SHAEF how many troops in the hex? And how do test turns compare to game turns. Ive set up some devastating test turns with both side's Air Forces.

In my game against Pelton Ive NOT setup my Air Forces to "GO for the Jugular" Unit Bombing. Ive done unit bombing in a way I think it could have happen while at the same time doing other type of missions.


with Pelton's Germans, or any player, being stronger than the Real Germans the Allies are left with few options. And Iam advancing thru France at a HISTORIC rate.
With no Luftwaffe in sight except for recon.


Bombing units every turn is not a WIN, there is a fine line that has to be walked.

quote:

This is an issue that effect both sides not just one here - lets not get all OMG we have to stop Germany from doing this. This is effects both sides which is why house rules are in effect for both sides WitE

The issue is you can set up boxes at 20-30% 5 hexes wide with 1 Air HQ and spam bomb that area - then another with another HQ causing unhistorically high loses aka bad ratio's

So any HQ's near the front or in England before invading France and cause massive loses and you can do it at night also to have a higher % at night and only lose 15 planes in a box.

As Loki points out players can not house rule this out in WitW it would appear, depots in hexes also appear to inflate loses.

quote:

This is an issue that effect both sides not just one here - lets not get all OMG we have to stop Germany from doing this

quote:

I dont see that as impossible as the game engine has enough room to account for a change in tactics being used.