City Bombing

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

City 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 >> The War Room >> City Bombing

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

City Bombing - 8/27/2016 5:32:21 PM

thedude357

Posts: 87
Joined: 10/13/2012
From: California
Status: offline

Is it just me or is city bombing ridiculously ineffective. 200+ level bombers against zero enemy fighters did...1% of damage on a railyard. Another mission 200+ level bombers against zero enemy fighters did 0% damage to a factory. Same exact kind of numbers against a port did only 8% damage. What gives? Does the game nerf the German bombers that much or am I doing something wrong? I even recon the city first if that makes a difference? With total air superiority/supremacy in 1941 my airpower is only really effective targeting units...and even that is iffy.

< Message edited by thedude357 -- 8/27/2016 7:43:46 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: City Bombing - 8/27/2016 7:02:39 PM

Stelteck

Posts: 1376
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

I also just performed 2x200 bombers air strike to Leningrad Port. Did 13% damage.
Next turn everything was repaired.

Not effective at all.

But i cannot compare from previous situation as i have few experiences on previous patch.

< Message edited by Stelteck -- 8/27/2016 8:43:06 PM >

(in reply to thedude357)

Post #: 2

RE: City Bombing - 8/27/2016 7:41:55 PM

thedude357

Posts: 87
Joined: 10/13/2012
From: California
Status: offline

I somehow feel city bombing was overlooked with all the other logistics and features in the game. Especially with more than 200+ bombers with zero soviet intercept should in my opinion do at least moderate damage. 30%...at least? 2,200 bombers should be 100% destroyed. Even the Romanian/Italian/whoever air force should have some success flying unopposed doing city bombing.

(in reply to Stelteck)

Post #: 3

RE: City Bombing - 8/27/2016 10:17:21 PM

Aditia

Posts: 573
Joined: 3/27/2011
Status: offline

hmmm, I don't know.

I think there should be some effectiveness against railyards and oil production as those are relatively easy to hit, but the German bomber design was just not good enough to do any real damage against other stuff. Poor payload, very flimsy and they had no intel on where important targets were.

Apart from Oil production and maybe aviation industry, everything else should also be easy to repair.

(in reply to thedude357)

Post #: 4

RE: City Bombing - 8/27/2016 10:24:04 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Given the macrodynamics of the economic and strategic resources, bombing of cities is in effect pointless. I have been playing the game since release, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'problem' in that aspect of the game doesn't come up in top 15 things that need re-structured.

On the other hand, War in the West really has that side of the engine down well, and we can look forward to that system being the base for the start of War in the East 2 (which is a couple years out at least, but it's still cause for optimistic outlook).

Last, if you're new to the game, you are really reaping the reward of a LOT of improvements to the portion of the air engine that governs ground attack, ground support, and air supply. You missed a lot of headache and are receiving a really nicely balanced post-release air game in those areas that is very community-driven.

_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to Aditia)

Post #: 5

RE: City Bombing - 8/27/2016 11:00:06 PM

loki100

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: thedude357

Is it just me or is city bombing ridiculously ineffective. 200+ level bombers against zero enemy fighters did...1% of damage on a railyard. Another mission 200+ level bombers against zero enemy fighters did 0% damage to a factory. Same exact kind of numbers against a port did only 8% damage. What gives? Does the game nerf the German bombers that much or am I doing something wrong? I even recon the city first if that makes a difference? With total air superiority/supremacy in 1941 my airpower is only really effective targeting units...and even that is iffy.

the key thing is that the impact of city/industrial bombing was not a product of the number of bombers but of the weight of bombs. A load of 250-500lb bombs will kill people and disrupt communications in the short term but do little real damage. If you want to destroy a factory or a train station or port facilities then you need to start dropping 1000lb bombs etc.

In WiTE the Germans have no strategic bombers, the Soviets start with a few but badly out dated. So both air forces default to tactical usage - and are effective in that role.

As Heliodorus says, WiTW has genuine strategic bombing, but keyed off having significant numbers of 4 engined bombers to hand. WiTE2 may model the possibility of strategic bombing better than WiTE does but you will still need the planes to carry it out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thedude357

I somehow feel city bombing was overlooked with all the other logistics and features in the game. Especially with more than 200+ bombers with zero soviet intercept should in my opinion do at least moderate damage. 30%...at least? 2,200 bombers should be 100% destroyed. Even the Romanian/Italian/whoever air force should have some success flying unopposed doing city bombing.

A key bit to understanding when generalised city bombing was effective - ie lowering morale and industrial capacity as opposed to killing some people is not the bombers but the quality of civil defense. Its noticeable that of the main combatents only Italy was really lacking in this respect (and both the Germans and the Soviets were very good) and it is only in Italy that you can track a real negative impact on the population from bombing. Richard Overy's The Bombing War is very good about this.

< Message edited by loki100 -- 8/27/2016 11:04:37 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to thedude357)

Post #: 6

RE: City Bombing - 8/28/2016 6:18:05 PM

thedude357

Posts: 87
Joined: 10/13/2012
From: California
Status: offline

I keep hearing the German bombers had a poor payload repeated above. The JU-88A4 was the workhose of the Luftwaffe. And its a little known fact that the JU-88A4 had a larger payload than the US B-17G bomber. Yes you read that right...look it up.

Now we can debate about effectiveness. But the fact remains that 200 bombers running unopposed over a city should be able to cause destruction to their target. Sure their may be a laundry list of things that need fixing, you can throw this in there.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 7

RE: City Bombing - 8/28/2016 6:35:15 PM

Aditia

Posts: 573
Joined: 3/27/2011
Status: offline

From Wiki:

B-17G
- Bombs:
Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
Long range missions (≈800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)
Overload: 17,600 lb (7,800 kg)

Ju-88A4
Bombs: Up to 1,400 kilograms (3,100 lb) of ordnance internally in two bomb bays rated at 900 kg (2,000 lb) and 500 kg (1,100 lb) or up to 3,000 kg (6,600 lb) externally. Carrying bombs externally increased weight and drag and impaired the aircraft's performance. Carrying the maximum load usually required rocket-assisted take-off.

(in reply to thedude357)

Post #: 8

RE: City Bombing - 8/28/2016 8:15:45 PM

Stelteck

Posts: 1376
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

A question on the subject.

In game, does trying to bombard roumanian oil field with the black sea air force from crimea like the soviets did (triggering the invasion of crimea from low priority to high priority) have any meaning ?

Assuming no opposition from luftware, is it possible to create fuel problem for the german this way ?

< Message edited by Stelteck -- 8/28/2016 8:17:24 PM >

(in reply to Aditia)

Post #: 9

RE: City Bombing - 8/28/2016 8:56:12 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

A question on the subject.

In game, does trying to bombard roumanian oil field with the black sea air force from crimea like the soviets did (triggering the invasion of crimea from low priority to high priority) have any meaning ?

Assuming no opposition from luftware, is it possible to create fuel problem for the german this way ?

It is not possible to create such a fuel problem in WitE.

_____________________________

(in reply to Stelteck)

Post #: 10

RE: City Bombing - 8/28/2016 9:57:31 PM

Stelteck

Posts: 1376
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline

Thanks so i will not try it

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 11

RE: City Bombing - 8/29/2016 8:30:20 AM

morvael

Posts: 11762
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

City bombing is not effective, to discourage attempts at strategic air war. The equipment is not there, the doctrine is not there. I would only ever recommend doing port strikes to isolate troops, but I guess ports larger than 3-4 will be out of reach of even a few week long air campaigns. I don't know about many instances of ports being closed due to bombing, especially that cranes to unload were coming with the ships themselves (optionally a plank could be used to load/unload lighter cargo manually). It was always the shipping that was targeted in an attempt to close communication/resupply via ports, not the ports themselves (of course ships in a port were good targets - big and immobile). Once again the problem lies in the binary way the ports are working in WitE - either you have effective (after discounting % of damage) level of 1 or more and you get full supply or you have level below 1 and get no supplies and are isolated. With such great "precision" available I'd say no major port was ever closed completely during WW2 on the eastern front. Damage to installations is scaled by size, so larger ports get less % damage than smaller ports (because the same % of a larger port means more port points are damaged) and thus are very hard to close.

(in reply to Stelteck)

Post #: 12

RE: City Bombing - 8/29/2016 9:40:33 AM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

City bombing is not effective, to discourage attempts at strategic air war. The equipment is not there, the doctrine is not there. I would only ever recommend doing port strikes to isolate troops, but I guess ports larger than 3-4 will be out of reach of even a few week long air campaigns. I don't know about many instances of ports being closed due to bombing, especially that cranes to unload were coming with the ships themselves (optionally a plank could be used to load/unload lighter cargo manually). It was always the shipping that was targeted in an attempt to close communication/resupply via ports, not the ports themselves (of course ships in a port were good targets - big and immobile). Once again the problem lies in the binary way the ports are working in WitE - either you have effective (after discounting % of damage) level of 1 or more and you get full supply or you have level below 1 and get no supplies and are isolated. With such great "precision" available I'd say no major port was ever closed completely during WW2 on the eastern front. Damage to installations is scaled by size, so larger ports get less % damage than smaller ports (because the same % of a larger port means more port points are damaged) and thus are very hard to close.

Current Rule set works just great I believe and is historical.

Why are you bombing Leningrad bro?

Bomb the small ports, only takes a few turns to shut them down if done right.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 13

RE: City Bombing - 8/29/2016 10:25:18 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Sevastapol is a classic example of port bombing being woefully ineffective. Ships were unloading troops and supplies under fire throughout, and a fair number of defenders were evacuated at battle's end. Even some of the defenders of Sevastapol were themselves evacuees of Odessa.

All the bombing along the Volga couldn't isolate Stalingrad.

_____________________________

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 14

RE: City Bombing - 8/30/2016 10:39:21 AM

No idea

Posts: 495
Joined: 6/24/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

City bombing is not effective, to discourage attempts at strategic air war. The equipment is not there, the doctrine is not there. I would only ever recommend doing port strikes to isolate troops, but I guess ports larger than 3-4 will be out of reach of even a few week long air campaigns. I don't know about many instances of ports being closed due to bombing, especially that cranes to unload were coming with the ships themselves (optionally a plank could be used to load/unload lighter cargo manually). It was always the shipping that was targeted in an attempt to close communication/resupply via ports, not the ports themselves (of course ships in a port were good targets - big and immobile). Once again the problem lies in the binary way the ports are working in WitE - either you have effective (after discounting % of damage) level of 1 or more and you get full supply or you have level below 1 and get no supplies and are isolated. With such great "precision" available I'd say no major port was ever closed completely during WW2 on the eastern front. Damage to installations is scaled by size, so larger ports get less % damage than smaller ports (because the same % of a larger port means more port points are damaged) and thus are very hard to close.

There is a discussion here in the war room about routed units escaping via ports in unlimited numbers and units being supplied via ports (no matter how small) in unlimited numbers also.

It is a very big flaw in the games supply system. It is absurd. Wouldnt it be easy to make it so that only X number of units can be supplied via level 1 port, Y number of units via level 2 and so on?

That system is far from being perfect, as it doesnt take into account the real number of men and matetial in those units or the shipping available (if any) to supply the troops, but it would be better than what we have. And it doesnt seem difficult to do, although I have to say I have no idea about modding.

< Message edited by No idea -- 8/30/2016 3:18:36 PM >

(in reply to morvael)

Post #: 15