Airfield bombing or Ground?

[jay102]

Which is the fastest way to burn enemy supply?

[EUBanana]

Pretty sure airfield bombing is best. You don't get supply hits from ground bombing. Ground targets under attack do burn up supply quicker but I don't think it's as quick as supply hits on airfields. I'm not aware of any actual tests on this subject though. It perhaps depends on how many ground units are there? If there aren't many then presumably "not many" using combat supply levels still amounts to not much.

It likely also depends on how much supply is actually at the base as I believe supply hits knock off a percentage of the total supply present, so if you have a massive stockpile each supply hit will blow away a pretty hefty chunk of supply.

[crsutton]

You bomb the airfield to kill supply, planes and close the field.
 
Use ground bombardment before attacks to disrupt the enemy and possibly give you a shift in odds. From my experience, bombing ground units in good terrain or cities will not be worth it. (except for free training) However, if you catch units moving in the open you might do pretty well if you lay into them.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Pretty sure airfield bombing is best.

Has anyone ever tested airfield bombing versus port bombing for burning up supplies?

[CapAndGown]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

Pretty sure airfield bombing is best.

Has anyone ever tested airfield bombing versus port bombing for burning up supplies?

Port bombing has the possibility of hitting fuel as well as supply.

Overall it is way too easy to hit supply, whether through bombing or bombardments.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

Port bombing has the possibility of hitting fuel as well as supply.

Overall it is way too easy to hit supply, whether through bombing or bombardments.

But does port bombing burn up MORE than airfield, on average?

I think it's too hard to hit supply, myself. I think fire is under appreciated. Looking at photos of WWII supply dumps, they were usually huge piles under tarps, for security and easy issue. Permanent underground or in-mountain magazines were also pretty rare in the Pacific until post-war. I've been in the magazines on Guam, and they are pretty immune to air attack, even with smart weapons. But that's today, not WWII. After Tinian the USN and USAAF used a LOT of napalm and WP as well. Supplies--food, ammo, rubberized parts and gear--burn Real Good.

[CapAndGown]

These are 40 NM hexes. Don't you think they could spread the supply around a bit so it doesn't all go up in flames?

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

You bomb the airfield to kill supply, planes and close the field.

Use ground bombardment before attacks to disrupt the enemy and possibly give you a shift in odds. From my experience, bombing ground units in good terrain or cities will not be worth it. (except for free training) However, if you catch units moving in the open you might do pretty well if you lay into them.

You won't kill or disable much in good terrain/cities with Ground bombing, true. But doesn't it still cause DISRUPTION ahead of an attack? For this reason I always bomb ahead of attacks, just to disrupt the troops.

Ground bombing also slows movement; the units will go to Combat mode out of Move mode

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

These are 40 NM hexes. Don't you think they could spread the supply around a bit so it doesn't all go up in flames?

They could, but they didn't. Do you think it would be convenient to stock all the spare aircraft tires 40 miles from the airfield? The food 40 miles from the mess tents? On many islands, that wouldn't even be geographically possible.

[topeverest]

I have more success and been hurt more with port bombings than airfield bombings. I have never expereinced a supply hit from a air-ground attack.

[Misconduct]

You have to bomb AF and Ports till neither "repair" anymore, when that happens the units are out of supply, then you can ground bomb with any real success.

Bombardment groups work wonders when troops are out of supply, or using them to give the base a quick shut down before planes go overhead.

Right now I tend to keep Dive bombers working ground attacks till I start seeing casualities then I bring in 4e's at 4k which I've had some nuke successes.

[michaelm75au]

27. Gameplay Change: Changed supply loss due to AF/Port hits to be relative to the
effectiveness of the device hitting the base.

This will change how much supply gets wiped out.
The original method was a fixed amount (+ some random value) per device hit.

[aprezto]

Hi Mike, can you elaborate on this a bit?

[michaelm75au]

Basically, the bigger the bomb, the more supply destroyed. In reverse, small bomb, less supply.
I have based it on the device's anti-soft value as the key factor.

[Misconduct]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Basically, the bigger the bomb, the more supply destroyed. In reverse, small bomb, less supply.
I have based it on the device's anti-soft value as the key factor.

So basically nothing changes?

[Misconduct]

My only problem with the idea of "Bigger the bomb, more supplies destroyed" is fact we can't load out 2E's or 4E's with a specific bombload, if this is the case,
why can't my B-24's fly with 4x 2,000lb bombs or 8x1000's rather then typical load of 8x500's?

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

ORIGINAL: michaelm

Basically, the bigger the bomb, the more supply destroyed. In reverse, small bomb, less supply.
I have based it on the device's anti-soft value as the key factor.

So basically nothing changes?

The original code treated all supply hits as if they were by the equivalent of 250lb GP bombs based on the new calculations.
So smaller bombs will do less damage, and bigger ones more.

[michaelm75au]

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

My only problem with the idea of "Bigger the bomb, more supplies destroyed" is fact we can't load out 2E's or 4E's with a specific bombload, if this is the case,
why can't my B-24's fly with 4x 2,000lb bombs or 8x1000's rather then typical load of 8x500's?

Well if the plane carries less bombs, then there is less chance of actually hitting something in order to make a bigger crater.

[Rob Brennan UK]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

My only problem with the idea of "Bigger the bomb, more supplies destroyed" is fact we can't load out 2E's or 4E's with a specific bombload, if this is the case,
why can't my B-24's fly with 4x 2,000lb bombs or 8x1000's rather then typical load of 8x500's?

Well if the plane carries less bombs, then there is less chance of actually hitting something in order to make a bigger crater.

all depends on what % more damage a 500lb bmb does compared to a base 250Lb one. I'm hazarding a guess here but it would make diminishing returns as your only still hitting one spot with any given bomb (albeit with larger blast radius).

Personally i would prefer to hit a 'supply dump' with 100 20Lb mixed frag/he bomblets than one 2000lb monster. assuming theres not much in bunkers (AE doesnt model this anyway(think sevastapol)).

Just my 2p on this , and i like the idea of mixing up damage based on bomb/shell size anyway.

Actually , Michael , does AE comsider fort size in the calculations on supply hits at all ?

[michaelm75au]

Yes, fort and terrain affect both port and af supply hits.