Air to Ground Rockets have been nerfed is that WAD?

[Harrybanana]

Prior to the recent patch I found rocket equipped air groups (Hurricanes, Typhoons, Tempests, Mosquitoes and P47D-25s) were absolutely devastating when they ground attacked armour units. When I used 100 such aircraft flying 400 sorties over a 1 week turn I regularly destroyed 50 to 100+ enemy tanks (at least in clear weather, where the armour was in clear or boccage terrain). Personally I found them to be too effective. So I was pleased that recent patch reduced their effectiveness. But now I wonder if this reduction has gone too far. I have found that air rocket attacks which used to destroy 70+ tanks are now only destroying 1 or 2.

An example of one such recent air attack is illustrated below where,as you can see, 352 sorties by rocket equipped air groups against the 2nd SS Panzer in clear terrain (entrenched at only level 1) and clear skies resulted in only 1 destroyed tank.

[Harrybanana]

And in case you think that maybe this is because the 2nd SS Panzer didn't have many tanks to destroy, the fact is it showed up with a lot of tanks in a Reserve move where those tanks were decisive in defeating my attack.

[Harrybanana]

And it still had a lot of tanks left when I eventually attacked the hex it was defending later in the turn. So is this WAD?

[LiquidSky]

Yes...they are nerfed.

They no longer blast all the German tanks into oblivion...but what they do still is disrupt. And cause interdiction.

[Harrybanana]

Well like I said I believe they were way too effective before. But now IMHO they are way too ineffective. There needs to be a balance somewhere in between. But if this is what the designers/developers have decided then I guess I'll have to live with it. But now what is more effective for Air Ground Attacks and Air Support, bombs or rockets? I assume from your comments that you believe rockets are still better for interdiction. If you are not sure let me know and I will run some tests.

[Helpless]

It was "nerfed" with the bug fix, not by the balancing it out.

Current direct AFV casualty rate to rockets is considered to be close to historical. Rockets were very inaccurate. They still cause lots of disruption, which is the way to reduce enemy CV prior the battle.

[Great_Ajax]

Despite the Allied aviators claiming that they destroyed more tanks than the Germans actually on hand, research by the Allies showed that only about 6% of German tank losses were due to aircraft delivered weapons.

Trey

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

It was "nerfed" with the bug fix, not by the balancing it out.

Current direct AFV casualty rate to rockets is considered to be close to historical. Rockets were very inaccurate. They still cause lots of disruption, which is the way to reduce enemy CV prior the battle.

Difficult for me to comment as I'm not sure exactly what the current direct AFV casualty rate to rockets is. But from playing the game it appears to be about 1 tank for every 300 to 500 sorties. If so then, IMHO, that is too low. Yes I am aware that the rockets were inaccurate, but the kill rate was still much higher than that. For example, near La Baleine in Normandy the pilots flew 99 sorties and claimed to have destroyed 17. In fact it could only be "confirmed" that they destroyed 2. But that is still a ratio of 6 tanks destroyed in 300 sorties. Similarly during the 4 days of Operation Goodwood the Typhoon pilots claimed 222 tanks destroyed when in fact only 10 could be "confirmed" as attributable to them. But that is still 10X more tanks then my gaming experience is showing me being destroyed by rockets.

Also you need to keep in mind that just because BOR (British Operational Research) could not "confirm" that a tank was destroyed by a rocket does not mean it was not, it just means that it could not be confirmed. In some cases it was simply impossible to determine how the tank was destroyed. Finally, several tanks that were not "destroyed" by rocket equipped aircraft were abandoned because of them. Which, of course, is just as good as destroying them.

For myself I think the proper kill ratio should be something like 1 tank destroyed for every 25 sorties against unentrenched tanks in clear terrain and then modified from there for entrenchment and other terrain. Just one mans opinion. But I guess it is Gary's opinion (or is it Helpless?) that matters.

One final thing is that I could accept destroying less tanks if I actually believed that the rocket attacks (or regular bombing attacks for that matter) significantly reduced a units morale/organization; but again my gaming experience is that doesn't happen. I'm not saying there is not some disruption happening, but I do not think it is generally significant. And it isn't just air ground attacks, as far as I am aware a panzer division can reserve move into battle through several hexes of interdiction without being affected by that interdiction at all. If I am wrong about this my apologies.

[Q-Ball]

I am harrybananas opponent, and I'll confirm not much happened to 2ss as far as I can tell. I think most of the damage was due to the 3 combats it was in.

[Helpless]

I'm not saying there is not some disruption happening, but I do not think it is generally significant.

It is very significant, but unit is recovering from it quite fast. So attack on the ground should follow.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

I'm not saying there is not some disruption happening, but I do not think it is generally significant.

It is very significant, but unit is recovering from it quite fast. So attack on the ground should follow.

I did attack it on the ground. To be clear this is what happened:
1. I ground attacked the 2nd SS with 352 sorties of FBs.
2. I also interdicted the hex it was in with more FBs and achieved an interdiction level of 7.
3. I also carpet bombed the adjacent hex with 400+ strategic bombers.
4. Despite this the unit was able to Reserve move to aid the defense of the adjacent hex (which had interdiction level of 4 on it) and played a key role in stopping my attack. I am pretty sure that most of the 134 tanks I lost in the first attack were due to the 2nd SS. As you can see my attack was supported by 141 bombers (many of which admittedly were shot down).
5. I attacked the adjacent hex a 2nd time with fresh units and won.
6. I then attacked the hex in which the 2nd SS was located and managed, barely, to win again. But I lost far more tanks and men even though I caused it to retreat out of a hex with 7 interdiction.

So if the 2nd SS was significantly disrupted by the Air ground attacks, the interdiction, and the air support I really didn't see it.

By the way, IMHO I think interdiction is generally too powerful in terms of causing losses during the German ground movement phase. The Germans just learned to move at night. But interdiction is not nearly powerful enough in causing damage to and preventing reserve moves. Indeed, I was surprised to learn that interdiction does not have any effect on this.

[KWG]

Could the 2 AA units attached to 2SS, plus it's own, have something to do with its fighting through Allied aircraft to arrive as reinforcements?

Not sarcasm, As i give my panzers lots of AA and would like to know if it does make a big difference.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: KWG

Could the 2 AA units attached to 2SS, plus it's own, have something to do with its fighting through Allied aircraft to arrive as reinforcements?

Not sarcasm, As i give my panzers lots of AA and would like to know if it does make a big difference.

I am sure those AA had a lot to do with it. QBall is a very good player and he knows how to use his SUs effectively. In hindsight it was also admittedly unfair of me to choose this particular battle to focus on, when all of my other attacks were successful.

Rereading my posts I admit that I sound very sour grapish (is that a word?). That was not my intent. I believe the Air Game generally works very well, but it could use some tweaking. In particular:

1. I still think afv losses to air attack (especially rockets) have been nerfed too much.
2. Interdiction is too effective during the German movement phase.
3. The fact that interdiction has absolutely no effect on reserve moves is a serious flaw in the game. This is exactly where historically interdiction was most effective.
4. The effect of ground attack air directives on German morale/disruption is probably about right (I retract my previous comments).
5. The effect of Ground Support air directives (both attacking and defending) on enemy morale/disruption appears to be way too low. IMHO a Ground Support sortie flown during the ground movement phase should have about 10X more effect than an identical Ground Attack mission flown in the air phase. I am not sure this is the case.

Just my opinions. And probably this is not where I should be posting them.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: KWG

Could the 2 AA units attached to 2SS, plus it's own, have something to do with its fighting through Allied aircraft to arrive as reinforcements?

Not sarcasm, As i give my panzers lots of AA and would like to know if it does make a big difference.

I am sure those AA had a lot to do with it. QBall is a very good player and he knows how to use his SUs effectively. In hindsight it was also admittedly unfair of me to choose this particular battle to focus on, when all of my other attacks were successful.

Rereading my posts I admit that I sound very sour grapish (is that a word?). That was not my intent. I believe the Air Game generally works very well, but it could use some tweaking. In particular:

1. I still think afv losses to air attack (especially rockets) have been nerfed too much.

Actual kills of AFV's were very low, at least during Normandy, which itself is arguably an aberration since extremely heavy concentrations of air power could be brought to bear on a comparatively small and compartmentalized area.

Long thread on the subject.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum ... 00010.html

and

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/rocket.txt

the original;

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... ode=fjss20

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: Helpless

It was "nerfed" with the bug fix, not by the balancing it out.

Current direct AFV casualty rate to rockets is considered to be close to historical. Rockets were very inaccurate. They still cause lots of disruption, which is the way to reduce enemy CV prior the battle.

Difficult for me to comment as I'm not sure exactly what the current direct AFV casualty rate to rockets is. But from playing the game it appears to be about 1 tank for every 300 to 500 sorties. If so then, IMHO, that is too low. Yes I am aware that the rockets were inaccurate, but the kill rate was still much higher than that. For example, near La Baleine in Normandy the pilots flew 99 sorties and claimed to have destroyed 17. In fact it could only be "confirmed" that they destroyed 2. But that is still a ratio of 6 tanks destroyed in 300 sorties. Similarly during the 4 days of Operation Goodwood the Typhoon pilots claimed 222 tanks destroyed when in fact only 10 could be "confirmed" as attributable to them. But that is still 10X more tanks then my gaming experience is showing me being destroyed by rockets.

Also you need to keep in mind that just because BOR (British Operational Research) could not "confirm" that a tank was destroyed by a rocket does not mean it was not, it just means that it could not be confirmed. In some cases it was simply impossible to determine how the tank was destroyed. Finally, several tanks that were not "destroyed" by rocket equipped aircraft were abandoned because of them. Which, of course, is just as good as destroying them.

For myself I think the proper kill ratio should be something like 1 tank destroyed for every 25 sorties against unentrenched tanks in clear terrain and then modified from there for entrenchment and other terrain. Just one mans opinion. But I guess it is Gary's opinion (or is it Helpless?) that matters.

One final thing is that I could accept destroying less tanks if I actually believed that the rocket attacks (or regular bombing attacks for that matter) significantly reduced a units morale/organization; but again my gaming experience is that doesn't happen. I'm not saying there is not some disruption happening, but I do not think it is generally significant. And it isn't just air ground attacks, as far as I am aware a panzer division can reserve move into battle through several hexes of interdiction without being affected by that interdiction at all. If I am wrong about this my apologies.

Your ofc intitled to ur oppinion but with 1 tank per 25 rocket armed sorties historicly the germans should have lost just around 600 tank to rockets alone in the first month of normandy. Thats twice the number of tanks they lost in total for all causes in the first month.
Said in another wat the historical sortie rate to tank kill even if u add undetermained losses and allowance for jabo fear is historicly ridiculously low. Its a law of averages while u can find single cases that has a certain number of losses focusing on those alone gives a misreprensetation of reality. Escpecially as in this case where the game will have tons of these events happening. Law of averages have to of main interrest here.

As to the BOR reports, no but they also make clear which they cant determain what it lost to. Even if u included all of those undetermained the % isnt particular high. The unknown and always will be number is ofc how many tank are abandoned cause of "jabo fear". While one should be some what critial of reports/personal accounts there isnt any thing else to give an idea. If one goes through the reports/AAR that tank crews give, the fear is real, but the its rare that air is given as reason for abandonment. The common reason are damage and no recovery possible/lack of spare parts and running out of fuel. Are some of it misreporting sure but still even with a reasonble allowance for that u simply cant get that high numbers.
Not only that the most reported number are those from normandy but the group contiuned reported during the rest of the west campaign. The numbers are even lower there on average than in normandy. What ever that suggests.

Last but not last recent similar reports have come to light from russian archives. The average loss of tanks during a number of operation from 42 onwards is 3.6% of russian tanks lost can be attribuated to air causes.

If any thing comparing to history air gives far to many tank losses as the game was the last time i played and still is from what i see in AARs.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: MechFO

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: KWG

Could the 2 AA units attached to 2SS, plus it's own, have something to do with its fighting through Allied aircraft to arrive as reinforcements?

Not sarcasm, As i give my panzers lots of AA and would like to know if it does make a big difference.

I am sure those AA had a lot to do with it. QBall is a very good player and he knows how to use his SUs effectively. In hindsight it was also admittedly unfair of me to choose this particular battle to focus on, when all of my other attacks were successful.

Rereading my posts I admit that I sound very sour grapish (is that a word?). That was not my intent. I believe the Air Game generally works very well, but it could use some tweaking. In particular:

1. I still think afv losses to air attack (especially rockets) have been nerfed too much.

Actual kills of AFV's were very low, at least during Normandy, which itself is arguably an aberration since extremely heavy concentrations of air power could be brought to bear on a comparatively small and compartmentalized area.

Long thread on the subject.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum ... 00010.html

and

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/rocket.txt

the original;

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... ode=fjss20

Again, I am not advocating that tank losses to air attacks should be anywhere near as great as they were before they were nerfed. I had seen cases where 100 tanks were destroyed by just 400 sorties; that was ridiculous. Without question far more tanks, on both sides, were destroyed by ground forces than were destroyed by air power. But I am saying that just 1 tank destroyed in 400 sorties (which is what I am experiencing) is way too little. Look at your very first thread on the Mortain Counter Attack. Here in just 4 days (ie 1/2 a turn) the Allies destroyed at least 9 tanks in 441 sorties (with another 4 to multiple causes and 11 abandoned). Even not giving the air force any credit for the tanks destroyed by multiple causes or the abandoned tanks (which by the way I think is unfair) that is still a rate of 1 tank destroyed for every 50 sorties. This is still far better than the 1 tank destroyed for 350+ sorties that I am experiencing.

Now maybe it is just my bad luck, if other people are experiencing 2 to 4 tanks destroyed by air power per 100 sorties than please advise.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana


3. The fact that interdiction has absolutely no effect on reserve moves is a serious flaw in the game. This is exactly where historically interdiction was most effective.

just to stress, this is not the case. Part of the chance for a reserve unit to react is the ratio of movement points/movement costs (this is why armour is more likely to respond and why its best if units don't move in the turn). Interdiction, among other things, raises the MP cost of a hex, so reduces the chance of an interdiction happening.

you can argue the current impact is not enough, or too much, but its there.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana


3. The fact that interdiction has absolutely no effect on reserve moves is a serious flaw in the game. This is exactly where historically interdiction was most effective.

just to stress, this is not the case. Part of the chance for a reserve unit to react is the ratio of movement points/movement costs (this is why armour is more likely to respond and why its best if units don't move in the turn). Interdiction, among other things, raises the MP cost of a hex, so reduces the chance of an interdiction happening.

you can argue the current impact is not enough, or too much, but its there.

You are correct, it may (depending on a number of factors) have an effect on the ability of a motorized unit to reserve activate. But it still has none on it's combat readiness should it reserve activate.

[Harrybanana]

I received QBalls most recent turn and he flew 773 FB sorties against my American tanks and destroyed 53 of them. A ratio of 1 tank destroyed for every 15 sorties. He tells me his airplanes were armed with bombs. So maybe the answer is that bombs are now superior tank killers to rockets. I am really curious as to what everyone else is experiencing.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I received QBalls most recent turn and he flew 773 FB sorties against my American tanks and destroyed 53 of them. A ratio of 1 tank destroyed for every 15 sorties. He tells me his airplanes were armed with bombs. So maybe the answer is that bombs are now superior tank killers to rockets. I am really curious as to what everyone else is experiencing.

To build on that, they were nearly all FW 190F with 2x250lb and 1x500lb loadout. IIRC, those planes also carry a 30mm cannon.