pre-assault Air Bombing ?

[AlexSF]

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 ?

[Oberst_Klink]

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

[Mehring]

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.

[AlexSF]

ah ok, disrupting the reserve behind, that makes sense.

[swkuh]

Useful to know this; thanks the Q & A!

[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.

[loki100]

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.

[AlexSF]

Thank you, good to know. Same thing with interdiction, the enemy losses shown seem very weak...

[Bozo_the_Clown]

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.

[SigUp]

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.

[Toidi]

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...

[Bozo_the_Clown]

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

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

[Disgruntled Veteran]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

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.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

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.

[loki100]

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

These are attacks I need for the extended Lvov

sounds like the real issue with what you are trying?

[SigUp]

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.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

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?

[SigUp]

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.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

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.

[SigUp]

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.