Air power

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Let's do some math. Real example from 1942 scenario attacking hex 195,65 with the 3 units next to it.

4-5, 11,10, 9-5
vs
7-5

4+11+9 = 24
24 * 80% due to 2 entrenchment levels something generals can see = 19.2
19.2 * 90% due to forest (if I remember that 17.28

17.28 vs 7 = 2.46 rounded down 2:1 which displays on the hover.

Say both sides has a GS unit with an 8 modified tactical.... This figure is taken from the unit at 201,50 in the 1942 scenario stuka

If ONLY the defender adds his GS it is twice as effective mathematically on the odds.

17.28 vs 7 + 8 = 1.15:1 = 1:1 displayed

If ONLY the attacker adds his GS

25.28 vs 7 = 3.6:1 = 3:1 displayed

If BOTH add their GS value

25.28 vs 15 = 1.6:1 = 1:1 because it rounds down.

Defender GS is always twice as effective as attacker in terms of odds.

They both add equal damage to the attack though.

It only impacts odds and retreats.

Alvaro, in your example above you say that each of the Attacker GS and the Defender GS are added to their respective sides. I understand that this is what is supposed to happen, BUT IT IS NOT HAPPENING!! NEITHER THE ATTACKER'S GS NOR THE DEFENDER'S GS IS BEING ADDED TO AFFECT THE COMBAT ODDS. This is broken and needs to be fixed. I will post this in the Bugs Forum.

I have made several tests using hex 195, 65 in Europe 1942 and I agree with Harrybanana. Ground support is not reflected in the combat odds results. There or not there, the combat odds are always the same.

The step losses are slightly bigger with ground support in average.

[Nirosi]

I thing that during Harrybanana tests, step loses were slightly higher on the defender (with attacker GS), but with defender GS, step loses were much much higher (for the attacker in this case of course). At least this part seems working.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

I have made several tests using hex 195, 65 in Europe 1942 and I agree with Harrybanana. Ground support is not reflected in the combat odds results. There or not there, the combat odds are always the same.

The step losses are slightly bigger with ground support in average.

What Alvaro is saying is that GS is reflected in the Combat Odds, but that for some reason this is not displaying in the Combat Report Logs. In other words, if you have a 6 strength ground unit and a 6 tactical strength bomber attacking a 3 strength Defender the Combat Odds will be displayed as 2:1 in the Combat Log, even though the odds are really 4:1.

What I am saying is that Alvaro is wrong and that the 6 tactical strength bomber is not being taken into account in determining the combat odds. My proof for this is that I have made multiple tests where I have made Attacks with and without GS. If GS was affecting the combat odds than one would expect that in the cases where Offensive GS was used (and Defensive GS was not used) there would be more "Retreat" Results than when it wasn't. One would also expect that where Defensive GS is used (and Offensive GS is not used) there would be fewer Retreat Results. But the Results were identical. In other words:

1. Offensive GS used and Defensive GS not used: Retreats occurred 25% of the time.
2. Defensive GS used and Offensive GS not used: Retreats occurred 25% of the time.

I know I am repeating myself, but I really think I have to.

[ncc1701e]

I agree with your conclusion.

[Nirosi]

Harrybanana put it in the bug report. I can only imagine that Alvaro will now have to check it then, since the request became "official".

[AlvaroSousa]

I just ran the sim myself adding in debug logs to track the damage.

It is working. You want to argue it is too little that is another matter.
But the air power is being added to the combat

1st # is the attacking land units
2nd # GS is the ground support for the attacker

[ncc1701e]

Is it still attacking hex 195, 65 as per your initial example?

[AlvaroSousa]

I did several attacks.

But I did find a slight flaw. The air power was being reduced by the attacker 40% reduction... so I fixed that. It is not supposed to be.

[*Lava*]

All of this discussion and tests and it seems to leave airpower in the same situation where it is not worth the cost.

My personal impression is that A air unit attacking A ground unit, is going to take a lot of casualties and not do much damage. On the ground we can attack A ground unit with multiple ground units. And by doing so, we can smash that unit.

What I would like to see is the ability to select multiple air units and attack A single ground unit at the same time... just like how land warfare works.

That is what happens in real war, and that would change the equation completely.

Its a simple fix.

[redrum68]

My impression so far is that air does help but just isn't very cost effective and disbanding is too generous. The simplest fixes I would propose are:
1. Make air units a bit cheaper (say each type cost something like 50 less)
2. Disbanding should only give back like 25% or 33% of cost rather than 50%

The other more drastic change that I think would be interesting is making it so bombers are more effective if there is no enemy fighter intercept and less effective if there is. This would force players to try to at least have more fighter defenses to protect their ground units.

[*Lava*]

You see, you have an even bigger problem here and that is the ability to construct gazzilions of tanks.

As the US found, the Sherman wasn't really up to the task of facing Panzers, so what they did was bomb the snot out of them.

Airpower is severely underpowered in this game.

Allow multiple air units to attack the same ground unit at the same time and do some real damage, and believe me, folks will not be disbanding their air force.

[redrum68]

You would have to completely change how the air system works and the balance if you allowed multiple units to bomb at once. Otherwise, a handful of bombers could just destroy a unit and they'd become crazy strong flying artillery. There is a reason that currently you can only damage each ground unit once per turn with a bomber.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: redrum68

Otherwise, a handful of bombers could just destroy a unit and they'd become crazy strong flying artillery.

Exactly.

So you better have fighters.

Which is, IMO, a far better simulation than 20 Panzer Corps. [:-]

[AlvaroSousa]

You need to read about the 1944 bombing of the Panzer division Lehr. The Allies through hundreds of bombers on it. Very few physical losses. The pilots exaggerated kills.

Air power is not as effective in WW2 as many believe.

The Air system in WarPlan does work well but in not an obvious way over time. 1 unit can support any unit within 6-8 hexes with effectively 1/2 a full corp in combat power. They can now seriously slow the enemy. They can lower their effectiveness.

With this patch we will see the impact the changes have.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa
Air power is not as effective in WW2 as many believe.

Panzer Lehr lost 200 vehicles in one day to fighter bombers and reduced to moving and fighting at night during the Normandy invasion.

Rommel was almost killed by air attack.

At the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans once again, had to attack at night and in poor weather.

In gaming terms that means that Nazi armor moves are reduced by 50%.

Sounds pretty effective to me.

[AlvaroSousa]

I think we are talking about 2 different things. Direct ground support vs air strike. In my example this was a simple air strike. Direct ground support is different.

[AlvaroSousa]

My source is Brute Force by Ellis on the effectiveness of simply sending waves of aircraft alone to bomb units.

[scout1]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

I think we are talking about 2 different things. Direct ground support vs air strike. In my example this was a simple air strike. Direct ground support is different.

I recently finished a book on the battle of the bulge and have read alot of WWII books .... I agree the flyboys grossly overclaimed physical ground kills (aka tanks, troops) ....
However there is a gap in the game as to their impact on supply interdiction and movement impact on enemy troops. An air unit on full support will automatically get sucked into the first two land combats which occur and are effectively done for the remainder of the turn (at least to my understanding which could be wrong) .... It would be nice to target air units on full support to focus on supply interdiction or movement interdiction rather than to be "gamed" into defensive support for ground units ....

Or do I not understand how interdiction works ?

[ncc1701e]

There is no interdiction in the game. See this thread:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5084182

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

My source is Brute Force by Ellis on the effectiveness of simply sending waves of aircraft alone to bomb units.

I would agree with that, when applied to strategic bombers.

Tactical bombers and fighter bombers are quite another thing. The difference of course being that these aircraft would visually identify a target and then dive down to attack it.

From a German POV, once they sorted out their air land coordination problems in supporting troops during Barbarossa, they could never get enough of close air support.

In the Western Front, after the catastrophe in Sicily, all Nazi units were ordered to remain off roads during the day, to avoid attack by air and to dig in to avoid casualties due to artillery and air attack.

Here is a nice video which sums up the situation quite nicely:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mElnH-U9Q0w
Why the German Army failed in the West 43-44

Note, that you have 2 different situations here. In the second part of the war, on the Eastern Front there was still plenty of space to maneuver, yet, the Nazis did not have general air superiority. They were, however, able to achieve local air superiority.

Meanwhile on the Western Front, the Allies had complete air superiority and while folks tend to focus on the strategic bombing campaign, their tactical bombers were destroying everything in sight.