Luftwaffe Strategic Bombings

MagnusOlsson · Post by **MagnusOlsson** » Sat Jul 14, 2001 6:02 pm

In a game against Lorenzo I've been trying to use the Luftwaffe for strategic bombings as discussed earlier here. It does not work well, at least not for me against Lorenzo. It can be that I'm too bad at it and he's too good handling it...
Anyway, the effects so far is that I've been able to inflict minor damages to oil supplies and some artillery factories. My bombers travel alone and gets shot down by flak or fighters faster than I can build them. The Luftwaffe fighters does not gain experience in the same pace as I'm used to since they cannot follow the bombers.
The russian air force, meanwhile, is growing stronger than what's healthy for me. Lorenzo is using them expertly and making it harder for me to attack with my PzDiv's.
I'll probably switch back to more traditional use of the Luftwaffe soon; either the strategy bombing is a bad use of the air force or I'm not able to structure it winningly.
We are playing the 1941 scenario.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Sat Jul 14, 2001 7:46 pm

Originally posted by MagnusOlsson:
In a game against Lorenzo I've been trying to use the Luftwaffe for strategic bombings as discussed earlier here. It does not work well, at least not for me against Lorenzo. It can be that I'm too bad at it and he's too good handling it...
Anyway, the effects so far is that I've been able to inflict minor damages to oil supplies and some artillery factories. My bombers travel alone and gets shot down by flak or fighters faster than I can build them. The Luftwaffe fighters does not gain experience in the same pace as I'm used to since they cannot follow the bombers.
The russian air force, meanwhile, is growing stronger than what's healthy for me. Lorenzo is using them expertly and making it harder for me to attack with my PzDiv's.
I'll probably switch back to more traditional use of the Luftwaffe soon; either the strategy bombing is a bad use of the air force or I'm not able to structure it winningly.
We are playing the 1941 scenario.

The strategic bombing was weakened from earlier versions, where it was fairly easy over the first winter for the Axis to knock out most Soviet on map factories, except the most eastern. Now it is very difficult to make it useful, since it takes a huge amount of bombs to cause more than light damage, which repairs so fast. The allied bombing is reduced also until sometime in 1943.

SoleSurvivor · Post by **SoleSurvivor** » Sat Jul 14, 2001 8:22 pm

Strategic bombing did only occur very half-hearted on the eastern front. A few air raids on moscow.... that's it.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 1:56 am

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor:
Strategic bombing did only occur very half-hearted on the eastern front. A few air raids on Moscow.... that's it.

Well.. it depends on what you name 'strategic bombing'. Stalingrad was largely destroyed by air raids. Leningrad was also bombed throughout all the siege. Oil fields of Caucasus were also bombed during 1942 campaign.

SoleSurvivor · Post by **SoleSurvivor** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 5:00 am

I don't call stalingrad / leningrad "strategic" since they weren't meant to cripple war economy but to help with an actual siege/assault comparable to sevastopol.

matt.buttsworth · Post by **matt.buttsworth** » Tue Jul 17, 2001 6:54 pm

I suffered some devastating attacks on Baku, only two attacks both massive destruction. Is that normal or are oil attacks also weakened in version 3.0?
And, like factories, do oil fields recover from bombing raids or not?
If not, they should.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Tue Jul 17, 2001 7:56 pm

Originally posted by Matthew Buttsworth:
I suffered some devastating attacks on Baku, only two attacks both massive destruction. Is that normal or are oil attacks also weakened in version 3.0?
And, like factories, do oil fields recover from bombing raids or not?
If not, they should.

Oil industry does recover faster than heavy indistry. Once I've spent all spring'42 busy by bombing of Caucasus oilfields. I had no He177 by that time and bombing effect was from very light to moderate damage. Though weather was bad. It could be better in good weather I think.

kisslove · Post by **kisslove** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 2:14 am

Originally posted by MagnusOlsson:
In a game against Lorenzo I've been trying to use the Luftwaffe for strategic bombings as discussed earlier here. It does not work well, at least not for me against Lorenzo. It can be that I'm too bad at it and he's too good handling it...
Anyway, the effects so far is that I've been able to inflict minor damages to oil supplies and some artillery factories. My bombers travel alone and gets shot down by flak or fighters faster than I can build them. The Luftwaffe fighters does not gain experience in the same pace as I'm used to since they cannot follow the bombers.
The russian air force, meanwhile, is growing stronger than what's healthy for me. Lorenzo is using them expertly and making it harder for me to attack with my PzDiv's.
I'll probably switch back to more traditional use of the Luftwaffe soon; either the strategy bombing is a bad use of the air force or I'm not able to structure it winningly.
We are playing the 1941 scenario.

Did he covered all the main cities with aviation? Then what is left on the first line?
I usually have a chance to destroy part of Leningrad factories(mostly Heavy,Art and(or) Recon)and to do some damage to Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Stalino, Voronezh, plus some hits on the Moscow and Gorky (in 41st) and also Maikop oilfields...

2All
PS: My IMHO that Ju88 gets hit by flack less often then He111 is it truth or not?

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 11:50 am

I don't really see the point. Neither side has long range fighter escorts and neither side has anything like a B17, never mind the Superforts. On both sides, the purpose of the Air Forces were too provide tactical, close air support to the Army. Neither side accepted the idea of strategic bombardment and a strategic role for the Air Force the way the Western Allies did (US especially).

If your opponent puts fighters in the right places, then that largely puts an end to your bombing campaign. If you get close enough that your fighters can escort, you're much better off using your air power to assist your Army in taking the objective you've been bombing. The exception being the Soviets in '41, who are in a state of anarchy trying to resurrect the Army and put up *some* kind of resistence in the air using grossly obsolete aircraft. Once the Soviets can deploy 150-200+ air groups for strategic defense, you might as well send your JU88s back to the Army.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 7:26 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
I don't really see the point. Neither side has long range fighter escorts and neither side has anything like a B17, never mind the Superforts. On both sides, the purpose of the Air Forces were too provide tactical, close air support to the Army. Neither side accepted the idea of strategic bombardment and a strategic role for the Air Force the way the Western Allies did (US especially).

If your opponent puts fighters in the right places, then that largely puts an end to your bombing campaign. If you get close enough that your fighters can escort, you're much better off using your air power to assist your Army in taking the objective you've been bombing. The exception being the Soviets in '41, who are in a state of anarchy trying to resurrect the Army and put up *some* kind of resistence in the air using grossly obsolete aircraft. Once the Soviets can deploy 150-200+ air groups for strategic defense, you might as well send your JU88s back to the Army.

The problem in the game, though, is the He177 is as good as the B17, or very close to it. Even in 1944 against most of the Soviet fighters it will shoot down droves of them, while losing few. Don did this to me in some of our hth games in the past. Only high cannon rating fighters have a chance. Since the game allows the Axis to convert most of their bomber factories to He177s, as someone else has pointed out awhile ago, they can dominate the Soviets almost throughout the war. I am hoping Arnaud will change the cost to 99 for the plane so only a designated factory will produce them and not grow, rather than the huge numbers that can be produced. Much more historical. Even without converting other factories to them, there will way too many of them in the east.

Don Shafer · Post by **Don Shafer** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 8:45 pm

I'm in agreement with Rick and Ed on this issue. While in earlier versions, strategic bombing could be useful, if the Soviet player placed his fighters properly, the German would suffer huge losses with unescorted bombers. The same is true in this version, but the German bomber force could not carry a big enough payload to effectively carry out a true strategic bombing campaign, hence the reduction in it's effectiveness. Even the Western Allies were not effective in their strategic bombing campaign until huge numbers of B-17's could be placed over the target (Schweinfurt being a prime example), which accounts for the reduction in effectiveness of the USAAF bombing effort until late 43.

Originally posted by MagnusOlsson:
In a game against Lorenzo I've been trying to use the Luftwaffe for strategic bombings as discussed earlier here. It does not work well, at least not for me against Lorenzo. It can be that I'm too bad at it and he's too good handling it...
Anyway, the effects so far is that I've been able to inflict minor damages to oil supplies and some artillery factories. My bombers travel alone and gets shot down by flak or fighters faster than I can build them. The Luftwaffe fighters does not gain experience in the same pace as I'm used to since they cannot follow the bombers.
The russian air force, meanwhile, is growing stronger than what's healthy for me. Lorenzo is using them expertly and making it harder for me to attack with my PzDiv's.
I'll probably switch back to more traditional use of the Luftwaffe soon; either the strategy bombing is a bad use of the air force or I'm not able to structure it winningly.
We are playing the 1941 scenario.

Don Shafer · Post by **Don Shafer** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 8:55 pm

Which in reality, the Grief was close to equal to the B-17 in defensive firepower. The Red Air Force made some substantial gains during WW 2, but even later type aircraft were generally inferior to the German aircraft. Only later in the war, could they be effective, because of numerical superiority. The air battle over Kursk is a prime example of where the Germans could hold their own, when allowed to mass their aircraft over one battlefield. Point being, given sufficient numbers, the Luftwaffe could dominate the Red Air Force throughout the war. Once again, I'm not in favor of limiting the game to numbers that correspond with what historically happened. The He-177 was in production during WW 2 and if a player wants to build this type aircraft over other types, then that decision should be left to the player's discretion.

Originally posted by RickyB:

The problem in the game, though, is the He177 is as good as the B17, or very close to it. Even in 1944 against most of the Soviet fighters it will shoot down droves of them, while losing few. Don did this to me in some of our hth games in the past. Only high cannon rating fighters have a chance. Since the game allows the Axis to convert most of their bomber factories to He177s, as someone else has pointed out awhile ago, they can dominate the Soviets almost throughout the war. I am hoping Arnaud will change the cost to 99 for the plane so only a designated factory will produce them and not grow, rather than the huge numbers that can be produced. Much more historical. Even without converting other factories to them, there will way too many of them in the east.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 11:12 pm

Originally posted by Don Shafer:
Which in reality, the Grief was close to equal to the B-17 in defensive firepower. The Red Air Force made some substantial gains during WW 2, but even later type aircraft were generally inferior to the German aircraft. Only later in the war, could they be effective, because of numerical superiority. The air battle over Kursk is a prime example of where the Germans could hold their own, when allowed to mass their aircraft over one battlefield. Point being, given sufficient numbers, the Luftwaffe could dominate the Red Air Force throughout the war. Once again, I'm not in favor of limiting the game to numbers that correspond with what historically happened. The He-177 was in production during WW 2 and if a player wants to build this type aircraft over other types, then that decision should be left to the player's discretion.

That makes sense except that the production engine does not limit the production of the He177 to realistic numbers, even if the Germans tried to make more of them. The "cost" is 25% higher for the He177 than the other German bombers, but I believe this is an understatement of both actual cost differences, and the key issue of the fairly fast growth up to size 15, so that the German can churn out nearly as many He177s as he could Ju88s/He111s/Do17s over the same period. It is this part that needs to be fixed, and the only fix I can think of is to keep the plane from being built in such huge numbers, without the whole production system being "fixed".

I agree that the player should be able to make his decisions, but the result needs to be realistic and switching all production to the He177 results in severely unrealistic production levels. Even a cost factor of 9 for the bomber would not be enough to reduce the production to a more expected level.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 11:41 am

Originally posted by RickyB:

The "cost" is 25% higher for the He177 than the other German bombers, but I believe this is an understatement of both actual cost differences, and the key issue of the fairly fast growth up to size 15, so that the German can churn out nearly as many He177s as he could Ju88s/He111s/Do17s over the same period.

What the problem is here is the formula for production/cost. For an 8 or 9 cost item the factory should take *quite* a long time building up. And your idea for a cost of 99 makes sense. There was a reason why not too many of these planes were made, but this is not reflected in the game's production system. I'd also like to see a level 10 cost where the factory rises very slowly and never goes higher than 2/3 of production of other items (10 instead of 15). Several items might deserve this cost level.

It is this part that needs to be fixed, and the only fix I can think of is to keep the plane from being built in such huge numbers, without the whole production system being "fixed".

I agree that the player should be able to make his decisions, but the result needs to be realistic and switching all production to the He177 results in severely unrealistic production levels. Even a cost factor of 9 for the bomber would not be enough to reduce the production to a more expected level.

We could apply this to many examples. Germans turning all production to Fw190 planes and Pz-III tanks. The Soviet player shifting all tank production to T34 tanks, and Yak fighters. Yes, its unrealistic, but Gary allows players to play with the production system, so what are we to say about it? Personally, I don't mess much with the production, because I want a pseudo-realistic simulation, but even I have some weaknesses (like a slight shift from Bf109 to Fw190 planes, and shifting some production from Stug assault guns to tanks later on).

Nevertheless, I believe another look at the cost system, and its formula for factory production, is warranted. We should slow down factory production increases by 25%, and try to get Arnaud to give us some alternative to the 99 cost, such as the 10 cost idea above.

matt.buttsworth · Post by **matt.buttsworth** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 2:08 pm

what about change the conversion time for factories from 4 to six weeks, or 4 to seven weeks. that would make it harder.
But personally I like playing with factories so I would not like it too hard to convert.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Fri Jul 20, 2001 6:36 pm

What would probably represent reality the best, but actually coding a workable method is different, is to have the incremental cost of equipment rise as production rises. Thus, you can build 4 He177s a week for a cost of 4 units of something, 8 would cost 9, 12 would cost 15, etc. Thus, everything could theoretically be switched to produce this item, but you would start making fewer for the effort. This is pure economic theory related to supply and demand, and would apply fairly closely to this situation. However, complete rework of the production would be required here. Since there is no real cost right now to produce things, there is not even a basis for a start point.

I will have to remember this for the game I am working on, if it ever gets to the point of production. :p

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sat Jul 21, 2001 11:29 am

Originally posted by RickyB:
I will have to remember this for the game I am working on, if it ever gets to the point of production.

Ok, I'll bite, what are you up to?

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Sat Jul 21, 2001 6:13 pm

Just a hobby for the last couple of years. I don't have an overall plan yet, but I have created the map and unit drawing parts, basic combat and supply, and that is about it. Right now it is based on the old boardgames Fire in the East and Scorched Earth by GDW, but mainly just to get classes created for things. Then I want to use this stuff to create a game that takes advantage of computer strengths. The AI is a killer (look at World in Flames

) that I haven't even looked at. Don't know if I will ever come close to finishing even the conversion though, as I like playing games as much as programming this one. Hard telling.

g00dd0ggy · Post by **g00dd0ggy** » Sat Jul 21, 2001 7:19 pm

Loved those GDW games - but just putting the counters on the map took days!

Shame they never converted it to PC - I know the AI would be tough to do, but if you just left it out entirely it would be a great game. WIR is next to pointless against the AI, but great hth.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Sat Jul 21, 2001 9:10 pm

Originally posted by g00dd0ggy:
Loved those GDW games - but just putting the counters on the map took days!

Shame they never converted it to PC - I know the AI would be tough to do, but if you just left it out entirely it would be a great game. WIR is next to pointless against the AI, but great hth.

They were my favorites. There are gamesets using Aide de Camp 2 for a number of the GDW games, but you have to buy them. There is also an engine called JET that enforces the rules for the game, but it is ugly. I want to give it a try sometime, as there are sets for many of the Europa series.