Why is bombardment so weak?

[Uncle_Joe]

That's true. The assumption being that all the advanced strike aircraft are using the advanced munitions. This assumption may not always be correct. Of course, designers could take this into account when setting the PGM settings. Nonetheless, when the database editor is built, designers can add their own modifications.

To me, that is a cop-out. The game should work as designed, not be requiring the scenario designers to manipulate the data.

The PGM modifier is a crucial part of modern warfare scenarios. Else why give most of these aircraft the same AT rating of 4? Designers need to use all the force settings to get the scenario they want.

Thats a fantastic question why DO these aircraft have an AT rating of 4(!). And again, we are back to only aircraft with PGM getting the modifier and the rest being utterly worthless. I guess airpower did nothing in 67, 73, or 82 (before widespread PGMs).

There is another setting called the "attrition divider". Look it up.

Unfortunately I dont believe its possible to separate ground/air combat for this purpose. GROUND combat results are fine. Its the air that is lacking.

How can you call 27.2% losses for the T-80s in exchange for only 1.8% A-10s in a few hours "pathetic results"? I think the U.S. Army would be happy with those results over a couple of days.

Sure, with 500%(!!) increase in firepower and then only on select aircraft. Doesnt that tell you that perhaps something is wrong when what is arguable the world's premier tank busting aircraft needs a 6x increase in the standard effect to accomplish that, especially when the ratio of planes to tanks is 1 to 1?!?! I cant even believe this is being debated. If 100 planes (insane) attacking 100 tanks at 6x effectiveness in ideal conditions is inflicting 27% losses and you dont see that as a problem, then I cant see what you ever WOULD conceive of as a problem.

Like I said, we could use the nuclear modifier too. But we shouldnt NEED too.

I just cant believe anyone can not see this is a problem. Tell me, what do you think a 'realistic' scenario for airpower should result in:

For example, lets take a general battlefield situation where perhaps a realistic attack group of 24 A-10s and 24 F-15Es supported by a high cover of perhaps 15 F-15s are attacking a moving Soviet tank Division in the open (road only). The Soviets have moved so they are down a little bit of supply and readiness and some road attrition on the AA batteries. They have a squadron of MiG-23s nearby.

Now to my mind, the air attack should expect to inflict some losses. The Sov armor is moving, not dispersed and dug in. Now try this with the stock (no 6x modifier) data and see what the results are. If you need to have PGM at 6x then the data is wrong for those aircraft. Or more likely, the formula is off. Because even non-PGM aircraft should be able to inflict losses on at least the artillery and soft targets in that situation and in the game, they will not.

Other examples would be 100s of B52s attacking units in the open, moving...results...neglible....

Israeli F4s and F5s attacking moving Egyptian T55s, BTR50s, and TRUCKS in the esert...results neglible.

Soviet SU-20 attack aircraft bombing moving HALFTRACKS in the open...results neglible.

None of those results are going to change regardless of what you set the PGM level to because they dont have them. Its an engine flaw that you are covering with a super high modifier to certain aircraft...nothing more.

[Uncle_Joe]

And in cases like this, interdiction missions are best suited. If you've ever played a scenario where there is heavy interdiction, I'm guessing you would change your tune in a heartbeat, and be complaining about how air units are way overpowered.

I've seen INTERDICTION to be quite effective. That is not the problem. The problem is strikes...ie assigned, by the player attacks.

Why are the results so incredibly different? What magically makes the planes able to hit when they interdict, but they require 6x PGM to to accomplish the same thing when the player picks the target.

I would also submit that 6x PGM required to make strikes worthwhile is going to result is a horrid slaughter when used for interdiction.

That should be an even BIGGER indicator that the formula for strikes/bombardment is buggered...the same planes, with the same stats are inflicting losses on enemy units when used for Interdiction, but cannot repeat that feat if used for direct strike OR ground attack.

[Industrial]

As I see many 'should's floating around, I think its time to back this 'air-power is too weak' argument up with some facts, shall I?

OK, lets take Operation Desert Storm, which had a 44 Day long dedicated air campaign, with total air supremacy and theather recon values a WW2 commander could only dream of.

First, the starting figures: The american forces alone had about 2700 planes available, opposed by about about 4,500 tanks, 4,000 armored vehicles and 3,000 artillery pieces in the Iraqi Army.

Here is a nice little chart from the "Gulf War Air Power Survey" (downloadable from the USAF website or from FAS.org), showing how effective the 44-day air campaign really was. In my opinion it is quite clear now that Air Power is not as mighty as Uncle_Joe wants it to be, it is a factor to recon with, but the real killer is the ground force.

Additional Informations:

2765 aircraft
Total sorties flown = 111,500
40,900 air interdiction (AI)
5,150 close air support (CAS)
8,000 offensive counter air (OCA)
9,600 defensive counter air (DCA)
4,850 suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD)
43,000 support
824 million US gallons of jet fuel consumed (including 398 million during build-up)
140 million pounds of air-to-ground munitions

[Chuck2]

Thanks Industrial, some good facts for this discussion. Can you please clarify exactly how many of the 111,500 sorties were directed toward enemy ground units? Overall, though, it looks like the Coalition aircraft didn't do that complete of a job at destroying enemy ground units before the ground war began.

[Industrial]

I'd recon that all air interdiction, close air support and probably the support missons were directed against ground targets, thats roughly 89.000 sorties.

I have the complete "Gulf War Air Power Survey" on my computer, but as all graphics are missing from it (probably to reduce filesize) I'd had to dig the exact numbers from the 1150 pages... uh, maybe later

If somebody has a link to the "Gulf War Air Power Survey" with all pictures included, please post it.

EDIT: This is the link to the power point presentation I took the screenshot from:

http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/Outline ... cs-7pp.ppt

[Uncle_Joe]

Read the posts please....Just read them....
 
THE GULF WAR IS NOT AN INDICATOR OF FORCE DENSITY IN A GENERAL WAR IN EUROPE CIRCA 1990!!
 
Good lord, its like looking at how many men the Americans lost digging the Japanese out of the islands in the Pacific and trying to make that the norm for all US WW2 combat casualties! You are looking at a specific case of one side trying desperately to hide from air and dispersing for the maximum defense and then declaring that the norm.
 
Plus, all of that aside, can you please tell me why Interdiction seems to work, but strikes dont. Dont tell me its because of moving units vs non moving units because its a turn based game. Units that are 'mobile' should be considered moving units the same as for interdiction strikes (or else you introduce ugly P1/P2 problems that shouldnt exist).
 
So again, random interdiction can hit and effect units, but a player ordered bombardment does not. This does not add up. It should indicate that the latter formula may not be up to snuff or that something else is not being factored in correctly.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Plus, all of that aside, can you please tell me why Interdiction seems to work, but strikes dont. Dont tell me its because of moving units vs non moving units because its a turn based game. Units that are 'mobile' should be considered moving units the same as for interdiction strikes (or else you introduce ugly P1/P2 problems that shouldnt exist).

I believe that this here, is the crux of your problem in understanding how the game models air vs ground combat. It is an incorrect assumption on your part that "'mobile' should be considered moving units".

[Uncle_Joe]

And under ideal conditions, do you seriously believe that 100 A-10s (or any other strike aircraft) could not destroy 100 T80s (or T72s or whatever) with no flak, no SAMs, no air cover, no terrain, and no defensive dispersal or digging in.
 
Because this is the EXACT test being run and they can barely dent said armor.
 
100 planes to 100 tanks is a ridiculously unrealistic attack too. NO ONE would commit 100 planes to hit 100 tanks in the open because it would be gross overkill. But the game does not reflect that.

[Uncle_Joe]

I believe that this here, is the crux of your problem in understanding how the game models air vs ground combat. It is an incorrect assumption on your part that "'mobile' should be considered moving units".

Well then in a turn-based game you are conceding that the system is hosed. How can a player order attacks on enemy units in a static turn sequence and ever catch them 'moving'? This is especially true for P1 because P2 units will ALWAYS have full movement points since they havent had their turn yet.

If this is the argument, then I'll concede that the system does a very poor job of modeling combat at this level and leave it at that.

[Industrial]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Read the posts please....Just read them....

THE GULF WAR IS NOT AN INDICATOR OF FORCE DENSITY IN A GENERAL WAR IN EUROPE CIRCA 1990!!

The Iraqi army was the 4th largest in the word at that time, I think it is a pretty GOOD indicator for a dense european theather. This army was to a large part concentrated in Kuwait and along the Saudi Arabia border, which again gives us a densly packed concentration of forces.

Also, the desert is a pretty BAD spot to hide your tank armies, unlike europe, where you'll find plenty of woods or urban to conceal your forces.

And the Iraquis had a very poor air defence and pretty poor tactics, i can hardly think of any more ideal scenario to kill ground forces with air power.

[Uncle_Joe]

Fine, you are right. Airpower should not be able to kill opposing equipment. 100s of aircraft attacking over a week should be satisfied killing 10 tanks, 10-12 APCs, a few squads and handful of trucks.
 
Its a good thing the Russians didnt know how worthless airpower would have been in the 80s and wasted all that time and money trying to develop counters to Western airpower. If they had just sunk that time and money into more ground forces, NATO might really have been in trouble.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Well then in a turn-based game you are conceding that the system is hosed.

I'm not conceding anything of the sort.[:-]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
How can a player order attacks on enemy units in a static turn sequence and ever catch them 'moving'?

If you want to catch them moving, then assign units to interdiction, and take your chances of being in the right spot, at the right time...much like real-life...[;)]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
This is especially true for P1 because P2 units will ALWAYS have full movement points since they havent had their turn yet.

This is both an incorrect statement, as well as completely irrelevent. There are many instances where P2 units do not have their full movement points, because of P1 actions infringing on them, as well as reserve movement by P2 units during P1's turn. In any event, the number of movement points does not directly affect whether a unit is struck by interdiction. It happens semi-randomly during movement, and at the start of each cycle of battles. The former to recreate attacks on units moving in the open, and the latter, at convenient "targets of opportunity", including those which are not actively moving.

Dedicated airstrikes work at a lower efficiency since they do not have the luxury of hitting only those convenient targets of opportunity that may be in less well deployed circumstances, and rather, are forced to attack where the enemy is, whether he's cooperating by being overly exposed, or not.

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
If this is the argument, then I'll concede that the system does a very poor job of modeling combat at this level and leave it at that.

That, above, was the argument. Whether you are convinced it is a reasonable abstraction is up to you, and likewise, whether you feel it mirrors your view of the true efficacy of air-ground combat is up to you. However, that is the way it is, in TOAW III.

As mentioned before, we are dialing back down the AAA fire, and this will swing the results more favorably toward the air units than they are now. Try it after the next patch, and see how you feel about it then. Or, play scenarios with less of an air component to get frustrated with...[;)]

[Industrial]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Fine, you are right. Airpower should not be able to kill opposing equipment. 100s of aircraft attacking over a week should be satisfied killing 10 tanks, 10-12 APCs, a few squads and handful of trucks.

Its a good thing the Russians didnt know how worthless airpower would have been in the 80s and wasted all that time and money trying to develop counters to Western airpower. If they had just sunk that time and money into more ground forces, NATO might really have been in trouble.

Looking at the facts I just posted... 89.000 sorties, resulting in roughly (lets be generous) 1500 kills of hard targets over 6 weeks... yes, I think 100s of aircraft attacking over a week should be satisfied killing 10 tanks, 10-12 APCs, a few squads and handful of trucks.

TOAW tries to model real life, and not what what you apparently think the air force should be able to accomplish.

Maybe you should take a look at the ppt presentation I linked, and take a look at the results from the air campaign in the Kosovo, here they are:

Lethality: Only 52 (<5%) Serbian combat systems destroyed during the 78-day air campaign
14 Tanks destroyed
18 APCs destroyed
20 Artillery/Mortars destroyed

Other Factors: 6766 Sorties planned
3766 (56%) sorties were aborted due to weather
990 of 3000 (33%) executed sorties were adversely affected by weather
Less than 50% ATO targets were effectively engaged2

Maybe you should research a few fact for yourself and than use them to back up your statements of how leathal the air force should be, hm?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Time scale is another bug-a-boo. In larger scenarios, an air attack is supposed to represent up to a WEEK'S worth of attacks.

No- each round is 10% of the turn. So if you attack on "ignore losses" then it's about two day's worth of attacks.

[Uncle_Joe]

Oh please. Dont try using stat manipulation. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can twist the stats.
&nbsp;
Just off the top, of those "89000" sorties WELL over half were counter air or air interception...ie Fighter sweeps and airfield strikes. Plenty more were dedicated anti-air defense. Look how many were close support....about 5000.
&nbsp;
Its impossible to know how a general air war in Europe would look...there ARE no stats for such a thing (thank god!). But using 'bug hunting' statistics as the norm probably isnt the best idea for recreating general warfare IMO. Obviously you think otherwise. I'm not going to get into massaging stat numbers with you. Its pointless since there is little data either way.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

To me, that is a cop-out. The game should work as designed, not be requiring the scenario designers to manipulate the data.

.... that's a peculiar statement. Scenario design is a very involved process. Changing one or two additional variables is not exactly what I'd call an overwhelming burden.

If you need to have PGM at 6x then the data is wrong for those aircraft.

Not if those aircraft are using PGMs.

Other examples would be 100s of B52s attacking units in the open, moving...results...neglible....

Yeah, sounds about right. Carpet bombing doesn't really work. Of course, it'll really tear up prepared positions. If said unit was entrenched before, it won't be now.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Read the posts please....Just read them....

THE GULF WAR IS NOT AN INDICATOR OF FORCE DENSITY IN A GENERAL WAR IN EUROPE CIRCA 1990!!

Stop using caps. Kuwait is about half the size of Belgium. I'd say the force density is in the same ballpark.

Units that are 'mobile' should be considered moving units

This won't work. It'll just force the player to go through every damned unit setting it to dig-in.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Its a good thing the Russians didnt know how worthless airpower would have been in the 80s and wasted all that time and money trying to develop counters to Western airpower. If they had just sunk that time and money into more ground forces, NATO might really have been in trouble.

You know, NATO decided fairly on during the Cold War that it would never be able to match the Pact's conventional strength. That is why NATO doctrine called for a full nuclear release in the event of a general war in Europe.

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Other examples would be 100s of B52s attacking units in the open, moving...results...neglible....

Yeah, sounds about right. Carpet bombing doesn't really work. Of course, it'll really tear up prepared positions. If said unit was entrenched before, it won't be now.

Do you think so ? Ask the Germans after Cobra opening : sure they weren't "killed", but they were badly mauled and stunned, not just "detrenched" [:D]

[Industrial]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Oh please. Dont try using stat manipulation. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can twist the stats.

Just off the top, of those "89000" sorties WELL over half were counter air or air interception...ie Fighter sweeps and airfield strikes. Plenty more were dedicated anti-air defense. Look how many were close support....about 5000.

Look at my original post again, there the 111.000 sorties were broken down into several categories. The airfield and air superiority attacks were quite clearly the: offensive counter air, defensive counter air and suppression of enemy air defenses mission, and I've already susbstarcted those from the total flown missions, leaving me with 89.000 ground attack sorties. (after all, the Iraqi air force and air defence was defeated after days, during most of the campaign the coalition had air supremicy)

Total sorties flown = 111,500
40,900 air interdiction (AI)
5,150 close air support (CAS)
8,000 offensive counter air (OCA)
9,600 defensive counter air (DCA)
4,850 suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD)
43,000 support

Than, Close Air Support are missions requested by ground troops to help in ongoing battles, so that would be during the 96h ground war. Leaving the 41000 air interdiction missions and 43000 support missions.

Maybe you should stop twisting the stats? Or better, start to read and understand them?