usaaf

[fab4]

in the 41 campaign my german opponant sat a long way back ie no further than minsk-riga.and stock piled his forces so that no allied bombing got through at all,any one think the usaaf is under gunned?

"if there exists anything mightier than destiny,then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly." Geibel

[Jens Heiberg]

Yep, I agree that the USAAF is "undergunned", as a good german player can defeat every raid until '44 with ease. But the main effect of the allied bombings are the withdrawal of fighter units from the front. Anyway, I would like to see some player control of the US bomber units, to train them for a period and then launch a main assault. That way, the german player would have to keep his fighters at high alert but not knowing when or where the next strike would come in.

Jens

[fab4]

you can train them up.just chnage there mission.
my opponent even in 44 shot down all the aircraft.
and his industry was not effected.which puts a strain on my forces.i think the experiance of usaaf,fighter escorts should start at 75 experiance instead of 60.

[Major Tom]

The USAAF should never have a raid with no aircraft getting through. However, if the Luftwaffe expends many aircraft in the defense of Germany (instead of out in the East, then the effects of the bombing should be less.

Yet, the appearance of the USAAF should NOT signal the end of German production. Otherwize, why would one even try to fight if the outcome is decided?

[BrickReid]

I seem to recall from one of my readings (or possibly from watching the History Channel) that the Germans were able to increase production even with all the allied bombing that was going on. Further, I definately know that the Germans were able to put some major hurt on the early allied bombing campaigns. Lastly, if the German player is able to manage his Luftwaffe better than historical (or the Soviet player is not adept at fighting the Luftwaffe) I see no reason the Germans should not be able to kick the crap out of the allied bombers and their escorts. The point of this is not to relive what did happen but to use what they had to achieve a different outcome. IMHO.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by BrickReid:
I seem to recall from one of my readings (or possibly from watching the History Channel) that the Germans were able to increase production even with all the allied bombing that was going on. Further, I definately know that the Germans were able to put some major hurt on the early allied bombing campaigns. Lastly, if the German player is able to manage his Luftwaffe better than historical (or the Soviet player is not adept at fighting the Luftwaffe) I see no reason the Germans should not be able to kick the crap out of the allied bombers and their escorts. The point of this is not to relive what did happen but to use what they had to achieve a different outcome. IMHO.

---

I agree with all this, but for one problem. That is, the Allied Bombing Campaign in WiR *IS* fixed to act as it historically did. This becomes a major problem when the Axis Player does something that deviates substantially from the historical chronology. Those behind the bombing campaign would be bound to change things if Me262 planes arrived in late '43 or something like this and they were faced with airgroups of 262s at 150+ planes per group. The German player can do this, but the game doesn't provide a way for the simulated commander of the western bombing campaign to change tactics or equipment.

We can debate what kind of things the West could have done in response to this. For one thing, both the US and Britian had their own jets in development. The Brits had the "Comet" that actually entered service at the very end of the war. If 262s showed up in numbers, I imagine these experimental aircraft would have made their way to European skies very very quickly. Another obvious change could have simply been to merge air groups to get numbers similar to the Germans. Supposing the Germans had airgroups with 150+ FW190s, the Allies could merge their fighter groups to reach the same numbers, but they don't. Instead, they keep coming with less than 100+ planes per group during '42 and '43 no matter how stupid doing so really is. Thirdly, a larger German air resistance could have prompted the Yanks to use Superfortresses in Europe. They didn't because given the historical German air resistance, B17s and B24s were good enough.

Regardless of the options available, my main point is that in WiR, no response is possible even when a major deviation from history occurs on the Axis side. So I have a "problem" when seeing Western bomber and fighter groups committing suicide by attacking against air groups larger than their own, or German airgroups with masses of 262s, because in real life there certainly would have been a reaction by the West, a change in tactics, strategy, and/or equipment.

[fab4]

well said ed,you put the argument across a lot better than i did and i agree with all you have said

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Well, i think only a game with the whols war (including the pacific) can solve this problem.
Why ? Because every war game is after turn one sifi. If i play the russians and reatreat quick i change history.If the german player station his fighters in germany, the allieds get slaughtered. Also, losses higher than historical could have changed the whole air war... as an example. If the germans had attaked one large raid (500 + bombers) with everything they had (including masses of planes from every front) with lets say 1000 fighters, downing 250 -400 bombers (say in Spring/Summer 43) who had the allieds react ? Even after Schweinfurt they nearly gave up dayraids... Also, like in games as Battle of britain or Twelve o clock high, ahistorical losses by gamers failure has no reaction. In my example, would the allies produce even 10 times more bombers ? Or would they change the strategical bombing to tactical ??? we didn´t know. For WIR, it is bad and good (depending wich side you play), but we allways play with 20/20 (developing me262...)

I think we never can solve that problem (with the example of a total war game) Only matrix or gary can help us - say a game, including TOR, War in pacific, a logistical game... so YOU can decide, do i produce bombers to destroy german industry, tanks to succeed in africa, ships to send troops to britain, or finish of at first the japanese enemy... or for the other side... defeat the russians with all troops, strat producing new submarines in 1941 (if your r&D, wich cost you many tanks is ready for that..) and and and... that would be my favourite game. Complex like tor, with a good interface and better maps, the deep of the never finished road to moskau... and the long time fun of wir and pacwar.... hehe, ask gary, maybe he will develop it ( <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> )

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Adnan Meshuggi:
Well, i think only a game with the whols war (including the pacific) can solve this problem.
Why ? Because every war game is after turn one sifi.

---

There's a nugget of truth there, but what are we suppose to do in this case? Its all just number-crunching after turn 1, so everyone turn off the computer, go into the living room and watch the History Channel? <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> It'll never be perfect, ever, but some games are good enough to give the feeling of a simulation, even if its not 100% accurate. For me this is good enough, since watching the War ... ehhh ... History Channel gets boring real quick given how they repeat so much. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

If i play the russians and reatreat quick i change history.If the german player station his fighters in germany, the allieds get slaughtered. Also, losses higher than historical could have changed the whole air war... as an example. If the germans had attaked one large raid (500 + bombers) with everything they had (including masses of planes from every front) with lets say 1000 fighters, downing 250 -400 bombers (say in Spring/Summer 43) who had the allieds react ? Even after Schweinfurt they nearly gave up dayraids... Also, like in games as Battle of britain or Twelve o clock high, ahistorical losses by gamers failure has no reaction.

---

All of these are other examples of the problem, but the problem is not that different actions can create ahistorical situations. This happens all the time, every time someone shifts an extra panzer army north to the drive on leningrad for example, and it is something we value, otherwise the game would get boring if it all happened the same way every time. No, the problem is that these ahistorical outcomes can't be matched by an ahistorical response. The Soviet player can shift forces of his own north in response to that extra panzer army, thus we have an ahistorical response, but Gary made a big mistake in hardwiring the Allied strategic bombing campaign, and then giving the Soviet player almost no control over it, nor giving it more flexibility to handle the kind of ahistorical stuff we see all the time, like the German player switching every aircraft factory, including some of the bomber factories, to FW190s. Yea, right, like that really could have happened. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

I think we never can solve that problem (with the example of a total war game) Only matrix or gary can help us - say a game, including TOR, War in pacific, a logistical game... so YOU can decide, do i produce bombers to destroy german industry, tanks to succeed in africa, ships to send troops to britain, or finish of at first the japanese enemy... or for the other side... defeat the russians with all troops, strat producing new submarines in 1941 (if your r&D, wich cost you many tanks is ready for that..) and and and... that would be my favourite game.

---

You speak of grand strategy here, and I agree in general, but the problem I raised could be fixed, at least theoretically. Give the Soviet player control over the Western strategic bombing campaign, including control and additional flexibility in production of Western aircraft. In an extreme situation the Soviet player can at least stop the suicide missions and have the Western air groups stand down and rebuild until better opportunities present themselves later on. Those opportunities could be changes in strategy, tactics or equipment, but at least with some human input the stupid stuff would stop. Putting an end to the game always sending sub-100, unescorted bomber groups into the teeth of 200 plane Folkwolfe fighter groups is the kind of mindless stupidity that I'm talking about. That CAN be fixed. Let the Soviet player control the West in WiR!

[BrickReid]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



I agree with all this, but for one problem. That is, the Allied Bombing Campaign in WiR *IS* fixed to act as it historically did. This becomes a major problem when the Axis Player does something that deviates substantially from the historical chronology. Those behind the bombing campaign would be bound to change things if Me262 planes arrived in late '43 or something like this and they were faced with airgroups of 262s at 150+ planes per group. The German player can do this, but the game doesn't provide a way for the simulated commander of the western bombing campaign to change tactics or equipment.

We can debate what kind of things the West could have done in response to this. For one thing, both the US and Britian had their own jets in development. The Brits had the "Comet" that actually entered service at the very end of the war. If 262s showed up in numbers, I imagine these experimental aircraft would have made their way to European skies very very quickly. Another obvious change could have simply been to merge air groups to get numbers similar to the Germans. Supposing the Germans had airgroups with 150+ FW190s, the Allies could merge their fighter groups to reach the same numbers, but they don't. Instead, they keep coming with less than 100+ planes per group during '42 and '43 no matter how stupid doing so really is. Thirdly, a larger German air resistance could have prompted the Yanks to use Superfortresses in Europe. They didn't because given the historical German air resistance, B17s and B24s were good enough.

Regardless of the options available, my main point is that in WiR, no response is possible even when a major deviation from history occurs on the Axis side. So I have a "problem" when seeing Western bomber and fighter groups committing suicide by attacking against air groups larger than their own, or German airgroups with masses of 262s, because in real life there certainly would have been a reaction by the West, a change in tactics, strategy, and/or equipment.

---

Hi Tom,

I get your point. Luckily, in this game, victory points are not associated with losses. Because of that you can simply consider the annihilation of the allied air campaign as a successful defense by the Luftwaffe of their factories from strategic bombing and move on (unfortunately, you still have to watch the stupid computer get smoked every turn instead of just having a cessation of the allied bombing campaign). I do believe the Germans could have shut down the allies strategic bombing campaign if they had behaved a little smarter in their selection of a/c types and tactics (not to mention overall air strategy away from the tactical air support nature of the Luftwaffe that Goering created or Hitler's demand for a fighter-bomber version of the Me-262). Anyway, that may well be the best we can do in this game. Hopefully someone is taking notes of all the suggestions and problems with WIR and plotting a new game that is perfect in all ways (then we can proceed to tear it apart for all of its failings ).

Just know that I don't disagree with you on your points, Ed. I'm just saying that there is not much we can do about it, I bet, so try to view it a little differently. Since I usually play the Germans in my games, I don't have a heck of a lot of sympathy for the Soviet players anyway. <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

[Lokioftheaesir]

Hey!!

You've a history channel?. Bugger, i must have subscribed to the wrong Cable Co, my closest option is National Geographic.

Loki

PS, We have spent years moaning about the lack of a global sim on the division level.(world in flames being the closest)
I bet the pentagon has one(though contemporary)

There is no justice.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Hi Ed,

i think that would help the soviet player, too.
I agreew with everything you said in your post - my idea was, that if we have a simulation of only a part of the war, we never can solve such problem....

Why ? If the allieds bomb german cities, this hurt the german side, but if the german draw most fighters to germany, killing 2000 bombers in 4 weeks, the allied side will (after all we know today) stop that bombing because it is useless.

But i agree strongly that the way you offer (soviet control over production and targets) could help to balance that great game....

Do you have some informations about a wargame with everything into ? The combinied Sea/land/air campaing, with production and resources, with r&d and and and, the pac-wir-btr-(non existing navy war on strategic level) game ?, detailed like btr, with subs and battleships, with sea recons, maybe like the old game about gudalcanar... tf42... or so.

[Mist]

Originally posted by Adnan Meshuggi:

But i agree strongly that the way you offer (soviet control over production and targets) could help to balance that great game....

---

according to the latest resolutions of party and government one should say "accurate game" instead of "balanced game"...We need not balanced game, we need ACCURATE one. Am I right Ed? <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Actualy, I am reading this thread with much of interest. Its contents made me to browse through the available litterature about Allied strategic bombings. The main differences I've noticed between WiR and historical reallity are

1) Not all bombing raids were tried to be intercepted because of surprise effect. Germans could not predict the correct place of air invasion, Allies used a lot of confusing effects. Such as dropping a lot of alluminuim foils to disrupt German radars, used their own radars to avoid interceptors etc etc so the fact interception was already success independendly of Allied losses.

2) A lot of german planes were lost due to bad weather conditions for example during only one month(February'44) 1300 planes were lost <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> without enemy intervention becasue of mistakes of pilots etc.

3) After analyzing German production growth data (it was nearly exponential until mid'44 and then started to slow down and finaly decrease) I've made a conclusion that the effect of strategic bombing was not that high in end1942-mid-43, very mediocre in mid43-mid44 and greatly damaging at the end of war. But the last period concidences with a time when Germany had started to lose most important of its last resources so its hard to say about exact effect of bomgings on industry, but it was high anyway.

4) And finaly, according to Germans own evidences, Reich air defense slowly turned to great mauling mill of Luftwaffe requiring more and more fighters and airgroups to defend territory of the whole Reich. It then became evident that air defense can not be created by means of fighters only against so much active opponent.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Mist ]</p>

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:
Hey!!

You've a history channel?. Bugger, i must have subscribed to the wrong Cable Co, my closest option is National Geographic.

---

Well, as I made a reference too, the "history" part is suspect. It is almost exclusively war related programming, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, although occasionally something good comes along, like a series on the Roman empire a few weeks back. Then again, that was mainly "war related" too. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

PS, We have spent years moaning about the lack of a global sim on the division level.(world in flames being the closest)
I bet the pentagon has one(though contemporary)

There is no justice.

---

It doesn't look like we're ever going to get a European sim from Gary, he keeps making remakes of War in Russia instead. World In Flames is the only real chance of a comprehensive computer grand strategy war sim in the forseeable future. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Adnan Meshuggi:
Do you have some informations about a wargame with everything into ? The combinied Sea/land/air campaing, with production and resources, with r&d and and and, the pac-wir-btr-(non existing navy war on strategic level) game ?, detailed like btr, with subs and battleships, with sea recons, maybe like the old game about gudalcanar... tf42... or so.

---

Hi Adnan,

The only thing I'm interested in right now, still doesn't officially exist yet. Its World In Flames, a division level game of the ENTIRETY of World War II played on a map of the whole world. A compouter implementation of a board game. Initially, it won't even have an AI, but who cares? The WHOLE world! Here's where your argument about not simulating everything comes into play. By simulating the whole war, the US player has to decide how to split up resources between the Pacific and Europe.


For those interested, you can get the unofficial, unsupported beta of WIF here:

http://www.marinacci.com/Chris/

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mist:
according to the latest resolutions of party and government one should say "accurate game" instead of "balanced game"...We need not balanced game, we need ACCURATE one. Am I right Ed? <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

---

The pary and the state are one in the same, and *I* *AM* the party! So sayeth Ed the Magnificent! <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">


Ok, ok, just messin' around. <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> Balance is important, I recognize that, I just don't like the idea of putting balance ahead of historical accuracy, that's all.

[VictorH]

The obvious point and one which many of us wargamers forget is: It Is Just a Game.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by VictorH:
The obvious point and one which many of us wargamers forget is: It Is Just a Game.

---

BLASPHEMY!!! Be gone heathen!

<img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[Lokioftheaesir]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



Hi Adnan,

The only thing I'm interested in right now, still doesn't officially exist yet. Its World In Flames, a division level game of the ENTIRETY of World War II played on a map of the whole world. A compouter implementation of a board game. Initially, it won't even have an AI, but who cares? The WHOLE world! Here's where your argument about not simulating everything comes into play. By simulating the whole war, the US player has to decide how to split up resources between the Pacific and Europe.


For those interested, you can get the unofficial, unsupported beta of WIF here:

http://www.marinacci.com/Chris/

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

---

Ed

I've been playing with the beta for a few months now. If any want to fiddle with it start the game then go , file,,new,, and pick the world in flames tag, and remember it is only a demo with 8 turns only before it stops working.
(and it has a steep learning curve)

It 'can' be played PBEM as is.

The map is a thing of beauty by itself.....

Loki

[VictorH]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



BLASPHEMY!!! Be gone heathen!

<img src="smile.gif" border="0">

---

Sorry Ed, it was a moment of weakness. It won't happen again!