Strategic air war analysis

[generalfdog]

I recently performed a hot seat analysis of strategic bomber viability and relative losses, my first analysis was of strategic bombing of UK after fall of France, using 4 German tac bombers and each side having 4 fighters should be a good battle of Britain! the first battle has 9 bomber points lost 8 fighters on German side to 12 fighters 9 factories damaged and 4 production points lost on UK side. UK only had starting AA guns of 2 in London. End result after 4 turns was 376 total production lost by Germany and 494 by UK.
The Blitz is over now we move on to 42 and Allied strategic bombing of Germany and occupied France. MAy 42 forces are 3 allied fighters, 2 German 4 Strategic and 2 tac allied bombers, the Ruhr and Lille are bristling with 6 aa guns. After a brutal 6 months it became clear that a 42 bombing campaign with 42 and 43 bomber tech against 6 aa gun hexes is not viable Allies lost 2257 production points to Axis 1237, 42 should be tough for Allied bombers but one trend I am seeing that I think should be addressed is that aa guns do most of the damage, most of the time fighter interception seems to do more damage to the interceptor then the intercepted because bombers damage fighters quite a bit as well maybe too much? AA definitely seems too effective, I would say more disrupting and less destroying bombers, maybe give bombers a chance of destroying aa as well?
43 going in to 44 was a bit better but same basic issues. about a wash 2011 vs 1986 production with 6 bombers and 3 fighters apiece, but Germany would have been ahead never intercepting which given fairly even fighter strength shouldn't be the case. I would say hopefully we can get a little tweaking on this for next patch

[Nirosi]

Hi,

Just to be sure, did you take into account the production multiplier for loses? Bombing do not destroy PPs (or only some as extra) but ressources (which are then multiplied by the yearly bonus) and also taking into account the lingering effect (A flattened city will reduce its production for a few turns).

Also, I believe that a wash (2011 vs 1986 in your example) is actually a very good result for the Allies. Because of the production ratio (Allies make much more over the war), such a result seems to me a clear win and much more sustainable for Allies than Axis.

[generalfdog]

Agreed, yes I did take production multiple in to account. my Issue is more How it happened fighters being almost useless and aa being king. I think I should be flipped for a more interesting air war and to encourage Germany to leave fighters at home thus weaking other fronts, as is there is no reason for them to do that, except to protect areas where allied fighter cant reach, they are effective against un-escorted bombers

[stjeand]

Intercepting bombers normally does not go all that well with fighters...unless they are worn bombers.
Seem a bit overpowering for fighters.
Strategic bombers often seem to kill more fighters than they lose.
TAC less so...I normally see the fighters win BUT efficiency and experience is king here.

Sometimes I see AA do crazy damage other times...6 AA 0 hits. I think that is just luck.


There is a bug at the moment where you attack and do not destroy PP, which you are supposed too.
You will notice when you strike you may see that you did 4 hits...but only 1 damage to the factory. That is supposed to be 3 PP lost, which at this moment in time does not occur. Al has fixed this for the next release.

[Nirosi]

Thinking about it, I am also wondering now what effect the protective fighters do have on their own AA? In other words, when a fighter fires at a bomber it should normally reduce its efficiency (and hopefully kill steps), meaning that the bomber should therefore be more vulnerable to AA I would believe (as defense seems readiness dependent like all stats).

But I wonder how significant that effect (the air-to-air just before the ground-to-air) actually is?

[stjeand]

In theory is should wear the bombers down prior to AA attacks...

In the game I can't say for sure since I don't write the code.

[generalfdog]

not sure about the aa after fighter but you do best when you hit high aa areas on first round and lower aa areas on second, seems like first round losses are usually tolerable but your bombers are more worn out by the second round and they don't fare so well on second especially if there is 6 aa guns

[generalfdog]

the big issue I would say is aa being too effective and defending fighters taking too many losses vs bombers seems like defenders should do a little better since the big issue in the air war was pilots and when defending over friendly territory your pilots had a better chance of survival. In the game it's pretty hard to win the battle of Britain as RAF always gets beat up trying to shoot down bombers

[stjeand]

To be honest...I am playing my first game actually making use of Strategic bombing.


The Battle of Britain is a losing battle for the Germans. They just lose TAC bombers which barely damage industry.
So I would never do that UNLESS I was trying to destroy enemy fighters. But then I bomb infantry with no AA support to hopefully avoid more losses.

As it is for the Germans...

Experience only goes one way for their starting air units...DOWN.
I try my best to make them last as LONG as possible.


ALSO keep in mind you appear to be testing with TAC bombers...they are not good for strat bombing.

I suspect the strat bombers have a better defense so maybe losses are less as they should be?

[generalfdog]

I tested battle of Britian with German tac because that's all they have, with allies I used strategic bombers. actually battle of Britian works out for Germany unless UK builds more aa or fighters

[ncc1701e]

Did someone tried Escort Fighter just after fall of France for the Germans fighters?

[AlvaroSousa]

Strategic bombing is a negative PP ratio for the Allies as it should be. Otherwise it would be the best strategy for the Allies sacrificing the US and UK economies to bring Germany to zero PPs.

The impact of strategic bombing is attrition ratio and delicately balancing being an annoying turd to German industry or building land forces.

If you build no strategic bombers the Axis have free reign in the USSR. But once you build 2-4 bombers now they have to commit fighter and AA forces to defend their cities. That is a cost in itself over the long run mathematically.

AA guns were more deadly than fighters. Although if the Germans committed a mountain of fighter to the sky they could have shut down strategic bombing in 1943 costing the Allies too much. There isn't exact data that I could find on the ratio of AA gun kills to fighter kills against the US/UK strategic air force. To quantify that would also be difficult due to accurately reflecting the ratio cost of fighter to AA kills comparing experience in the mix as well.

The game mimics best I can the combat of strategic bombing in the war.

If the ratio is 2:1 in Allies to Axis losses then it is about right as the Allies out produce the Axis about 2:1.

[CHINCHIN]

I've kept track of strategic bombing results on both PBEMs and Hotseat, and overall the result is slightly beneficial to allies. With a good Axis player defending their factories well, the Allied losses are probably greater than the damage to the Axis, but I still think it's good for the Allies, as the Axis has to divert resources from the East to defend against bombing. allies, AA, fighters...

To get good results for the allies, you have to choose a target with few AA, and without nearby fighters, there are many targets to choose from, it is also important to target the same city until it reaches zero, and not bomb it again until it is at 100% new. If you leave a city from 10 to 0, in reality the axis loses 30PP x its economic factor, and for a city from 15 to 0, it is 64PP x its economic factor. Apart from the direct PP lost.

[stjeand]

Chinchin is mostly correct expect for a few things...

1) PP loss is much higher. For example the Germans have 1.5x multiplier, a 10 city lost is 15 points lost...next turn 8 and now 12 points lost...So a 10 city works out to 45 points lost.
2) Bombing the same target and keeping it at 0 is better than spreading out. Since each city repairs 2...when you bombe 1 city only 2 points gets repaired...if you bomb 2 cities 4 points get repaired each turn and so on...ONCE the city hits 0 surely hit another...

Also IF you bombers are in good shape hitting a city that only have 1 point left to damage is not as good as hitting a newer city. Once your bombers are worn you can keep the damaged cities down as they will only repair 2 and a worn bombers should be able to keep up with that.

[CHINCHIN]

Well, that's what I said, a city of 10 => 0.30 x its economic factor, if it is 1.5 = 45PP

[stjeand]

Well, that's what I said, a city of 10 => 0.30 x its economic factor, if it is 1.5 = 45PP

Sorry Chinchin...my eyes missed that multiplier.