Victory Conditions in BoB

[otisabuser2]

Hi all,

anyone have views on the victory conditions for BoB ?

The current ones, based on the Air Superiority levels strike me as a little inappropriate. This is because the AS level is weighted heavily by damage to Sector bases. I feel that putting holes in Sector airfields alone would not have defeated the RAF.

I think the AS level should be replaced by something closer to a Total Servicable RAF Aircraft level.

This would encourage the LW to seek out and destroy the RAF wherever they are, rather than just crater 10 selected airfields to win.

I would also like the LW to score extra points by knocking out key Royal Navy bases. This would represent the LW getting nearer to their Sealion objectives. Thinking of targets like Portsmouth, Plymouth, Harwich, Humber, Rosyth etc and particularly the biggie at Scapa Flow.

regards Otisabuser

[Hard Sarge]

Hi OB
well, I got a hassle with the number of planes Idea, as in my current game, the AI has just pulled most of his planes back, and is not fighting, by the 3rd day, I had the so called AS (not the points, but the fact)

I put 2500-3000 planes over England and FC responds with 150, I have AS

I think if we use Sector fields, the damage has to be better worked out, right now, you can knock out field after field and outside of points gained, it does not hurt the GB

(again, I think we may have different views based on what side we are looking at)

(which I still say, we got to have the damage/combat for both sides, not a AI bonus)

[Greyshaft]

I think the number of planes/airfields the RAF can hold ready in 11 Group is the key... that's where the invasion was going to happen. Even if the RAF could fly off 2,000 planes from 10, 12 and 13 Groups they don't have the range to get to the invasion beaches

[Hard Sarge]

you know, the hassle is, it is a abstact system to start with

to be honest, FC didn't mean a thing, the GE needed AS over the landing areas, which if they had it, they could stop the GB bombers from coming though, and let there bombers work over the GB navy when it tried to stop the landing

FC by itself, would not of stopped the landings, but it stopped the GE bombers from having freedom of action to protect the landings, and bring in supplies

[otisabuser2]

Hi all,

the problem we have with deciding victory conditions, is that even the LW had little idea of what it objectives were. They had no idea of how to acheive victory and thus show us the way. [:D]

If the RAF player withdraws his units North, the he exposes other targets to a LW free hand.

I was not initially objecting to other points such as Terror or Industry bombing from counting towards a victory. Just thought the current AS level was a little too acheivable and temporary in real life.

regards Otisabuser

[palmdogg]

Some emerging conventional wisdom is that if the Luftwaffe had managed to achieve air superiority by destroying/neutralizing 11 Group, and put the Germans in a position where they COULD launch Sea Lion, the British government would have sued for peace rather than risk invasion and occupation.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030008 ... oding=UTF8

[otisabuser2]

Hi palmdogg,

whether or not the destruction of 11 Group and Fighter Command would had resulted in a sucessful Sealion or not, or indeed surrender, is a topic well worthy of debate.

The game does not end with Sealion, but ends earlier, at the point that Fighter Command are considered defeated.

The issue I was trying to highlight was that in the game Fighter Command are defeated ( ie LW gains victory ), simply by putting enough bomb craters on Primary Sector Airfields in SE England.

In reality, the situation was rather more involved that that. The RAF was capable of enduring serious damage to places like Biggen Hill, Kenley etc. Serious sustained damage would have resulted in the squadrons being relocated to fly from elsewhere. Each needed little more than a runway, places to sleep, work and some phones.

Where serious damage was inflicted to Sector fields, Fighter Command demonstrated this kind of flexibility.

We need to develop a way of calculating the level of Fighter Command defeat, which can not lead to over "gamey" victories.

What these conditions to be are the issue.

regards Otisabuser

[HMSWarspite]

The real question for 1940 is not whether BC would have been able to stop the invasion, but whether the government would have had the will to use (possibly risk sacrificing) the RN to stop it. It FC is capable of providing a half decent fighter umbrella over the invasion beaches, the RN light forces (destroyers) would have eaten the invasion flotillas (only got one load of shipping, so 24-36 hours with say 20 RN destroyers attacking and bye bye invasion and the land battle becomes irrelevant). If FC is destroyed, the risk to RN becomes immense (possibly so big they couldn't have sustained a fleet in the channel area even with the invasion on), and thus the chance that Churchill is persuaded that a government in exile with a (mostly) intact RN is the better long term option becomes rather more plausible (he would have to be persuaded - can't see him giving up on his own!)

In the game, the 3 current parameters make this hard to model. AS is OK, and needs to reflect BOTH aircraft and bases (not sure the weighting is quite right at present). Loss of the sector airfields should mostly slow the response down, hinder a/c repair etc, but not stop flying (I forget which, but one sector a/f tracking room was knocked out and it did slow things for a few days until they got the replacement set up). Industry is (almost) irrelevant for the 1940 campaign (too short to affect the RAF, and as described above, doesn't affect the invasion defense much). Terror is a reflection of will, and hence OK, but I doubt any ammount of bombing of cities (if RAF and RN are OK) would cause surrender, or alter defence of invasion.

So, we have a modified AS, more a/c numbers biased?, terror as is, but maybe you shouldn't be able to win more than half points on terror. Or even better, make it a log scale, not linear (10 points urban damge for 1st point, 100 for second, etc, so 12 points to win on terror only would need 1E12 points of terror! (needs tweaking that idea!)

Finally, replace Ind with some sort of political will damage. This would be affected by daily loss ratio (killing lots of LW stiffens the will and vice versa), daily sortie ratio maybe, some factories and rail yards (not urban, since already in terror) which reperesnts disruption to life/morale, some ports (abilty to support RN), and so on. In fact, to simulate the GE uncertainty, you could have say 1/2 doz parameters, and randomise the weightings on each, so the LW would not know how best to weaken political will in each game (then you have the possibilty of finding the magic bullet, or mismanaging the battle etc).

For 1941, Industry becomes more relevant, but depends on the explanation for the campaign (no Russia - more like 1940, Russia happened, and LW got expanded or something - you are not looking for immediate invasion, rather preventing growth in UK strength, so Ind far more important)

Needs more thought, but what do you think?

[otisabuser2]

Hi HMS Warspite,

Some interesting points.

Curiosly your list for Political Will Damage reads rather like the Industry total. Except the sortie rate idea. How would that work ? This may be worth elaborating on.

To be clear my main beef against the AS total in the game is that it is many players are boasting that they are able to win the 3 month game in one turn just by going for AS ( ie Sector Airfields ).

Victory, I think, needs to be based on 2 aspects.

Firstly, some measure of the defeat of Fighter Command. Some re-think of the AS level ?

Secondly by a measure of General damage done to UK. Call this political damage, morale damage or whatever. It seems to me that the current aspects of Terror and Industry points seem to reflect this in a fair but slightly abstract way. The guys playing BTR use this and have never, to my knowledge complained of this method.

The thing I admire about having Terror and Ind levels is that they encourage the attacking player to go for a broader spectrum of targets. This makes better use of all the places in the game, and helps keep the target list varied and the defending player guessing.

What about simply halving the points the LW get for causing Airfield Damage ?

Anybody fancy a seperate thread on Sealion ? Anyone like to see some UK land units in the game, like in BTR format. ?

regards Otisabuser

[Hard Sarge]

one thing, and I don't want to come across as saying people are wrong, but I have never seen that kind of damage in BoB, where the Human player can knock every sector/enough sector AF's to win in one day

that game I was running, I think I could win it shortly, and I have/had most of the main 11 group fields crippled,and I am only around 4-5 AS (it changes as the day goes by (plus the 150 GB planes lost in the last 3 days are adding more to the AS then the fields are)

Terror, Wow, how do you plan or intend to gain 12 points of Terror (240,000 Terror points would be needed)

Victory is odd, but how would you score it ?

AS means the GE can land the troops, the GE lands the troops, they win, if they knock the RAF out of the skies, they can land there troops, if they force the RAF to pull back out of range of the LW, they are out of range of the beaches, the troops can land and the GE wins

if Terror gets to high, then the people force the Goverment to give up

in my current game, I think it is going to be Terror that ends up pushing the battle into a win for me, I have the RAF hurt, I have the Industry hurt, but it is HARD to push either one of them much higher, a point of Terror at the right time, is going to push them over the edge

you want a new thread, start one, no hassle, lets debate away

[seydlitz_slith]

ORIGINAL: otisabuser2

Anybody fancy a seperate thread on Sealion ? Anyone like to see some UK land units in the game, like in BTR format. ?

regards Otisabuser

What if, instead of ending the game basd on AS, Sealion happened instead. You could do it in the same manner as BTR, where the amount of disruption modifies the results. In this case, you could add the british units so the germans would be able to attack and disrupt them. They could be further disrupted by bombing of railand road junctions. German disruption would take the form of AS level. The assumption being that the lower the AS level, the greater the supply disruption (barges being sunk crossing the channel). The game could end if London was captured, or if the invasion force was successfully pushed back into the sea.

[otisabuser2]

one thing, and I don't want to come across as saying people are wrong, but I have never seen that kind of damage in BoB, where the Human player can knock every sector/enough sector AF's to win in one day

There is a thread over on the BTR forum. Majames says he did it. Waynno said he came close.

How would I score it ?

Well I do not think the win conditions are too bad. It's the early AS only victory that I would state needs changing. I think it was up'd in one of the patches ?

regards Rob

[Hard Sarge]

I think trying to add the landings is a little too much for right now

plus you are asking for things that are not even in the data bank right now (would like to get some of them added down the road though)

OB
lets bring Waynno into this and see what he thinks (maybe I just have bad luck bombing, or I won't do suicide attacks)

(which the Power explot is the same, you have to waste your force to get it (if I remember the posts right)

I not sure how we could change the scores for the first turn, with out doing it for the rest of the game

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: otisabuser2

Hi HMS Warspite,

Some interesting points.

Curiosly your list for Political Will Damage reads rather like the Industry total. Except the sortie rate idea. How would that work ? This may be worth elaborating on.

It would differ from current Ind, because you would not get points for just any factory, or at least not full points. I think that say ARM would get say a 0.5 weighting (inhibits the re-arming of the BEF). A/c would be say 0.3 (affects defense, but the effect shouldn't override the number of available a/c in RAF). But other factories might score on a 0.1 weighting (i.e. do not have much effect on short term will at all). Meanwhile, ports may be factored by 1.0, rail by 1.5, etc. These could be 'base' factors and explain what I am trying to change from the old IND. Sortie rate I would suggest should be a ratio. If LW:RAF sortie rate> (say)5 this turn lose 10 points (arbitrary), and so on down the scale, until if LW:RAF <2, you would actually gain points. Thus the government political will is influenced by the RAF still being in existance. A refinement of this (to prevent a gamey outbreak of patrols in Scotland), would be to use the ratio of LW a/c that reach the target (prime) vs RAF sorties that get within 5 miles of an enemy.

To be clear my main beef against the AS total in the game is that it is many players are boasting that they are able to win the 3 month game in one turn just by going for AS ( ie Sector Airfields ).

Victory, I think, needs to be based on 2 aspects.

Firstly, some measure of the defeat of Fighter Command. Some re-think of the AS level ?

Secondly by a measure of General damage done to UK. Call this political damage, morale damage or whatever. It seems to me that the current aspects of Terror and Industry points seem to reflect this in a fair but slightly abstract way. The guys playing BTR use this and have never, to my knowledge complained of this method.

I have nothing against the BTR method in a long game (as in BTR, or maybe a 1941 long scenario where the hypothetical story is not to prepare an invasion). The point I was trying to make is that in the 1940 'enable an invasion' scenario, the long term damage is (almost) not relevant. I know that knocking UK industry back in to the stone age would have had a some impact on the shape of the war, but as BTR/the bombing of Germany shows, it would not have won it for GE without an invasion. In order to capture the 'finest hour' element, I was trying to rationalise the victory conditions against 'would be invasion be possible/work?'. In actual fact, there is a school of thought that the Norway campaign crippled any hope of an invasion in 1940. However, for the game, we should ignore that, and in effect focus the Victory Conditions on the two part question: would the government think the risk to the navy was reasonable enough to risk a part of the light forces (that is cruisers and below) against the invasion fleet (i.e. how good aircover could the RAF give), and was there the will to risk it?

The thing I admire about having Terror and Ind levels is that they encourage the attacking player to go for a broader spectrum of targets. This makes better use of all the places in the game, and helps keep the target list varied and the defending player guessing.

What about simply halving the points the LW get for causing Airfield Damage ?

Anybody fancy a seperate thread on Sealion ? Anyone like to see some UK land units in the game, like in BTR format. ?

regards Otisabuser

I am still trying to keep the options open, as you say. I hinted at a refinement of my idea on 'will'. Above, I gave fixed weightings for various target types. If we attempt to simulate the indecision in LW hight command about the best way to knock out the UK, we would give a random variation to the weightings (maybe vary by +/- 50%. This would mean that from game to game what you have to do will vary slightly, creating doubt, and enforcing a broad range of targets.

As I said before, I think the split on sector stations:aircraft in AS does need looking at. The loss of sector staions is not significant for the runways (loads of them around), but the maintenance, command and control, and possibly morale. Knocking out a sector station should wear off over time (even if kept KO'ed), because improvised arrangements should kick in. A quick 'win' based on 3 days damage to Sector staions keeping the RAF on the ground would only count if the invasion could be launched in the few days before improvised back ups could be arranged. Shooting all the RAF sqds to 3 servicable aircraft, and exp 20 pilots is a more lasting invasion window!

[USSMaine]

Ok - I had totally forgotten about that one gents but went back and reread some of my comments and it brought it back to mind. IIRC - I had a string of great weather and was able to put a lot of pressure on over a several day period (this was also the 41 campaign I think). I am of the opinion that this will happen occasionally but not all the time - I got great results on some of those days that let me really pile it on. And like my original message (http://p081.ezboard.com/fbtrbombingther ... D=24.topic)
I was quite surprised at the end of that day with the victory screen.

[matchwood]

Hi GeordieStewart here from the BTR forum. Fantastic news to hear that BOB is going to be updated. For some reason it always was my favourite.

A few comments on BOB that I made at the BTR forum ages ago which I couldn't find when I last visited.

1 The 1940 campaign should be all about pilots: basically replacement numbers and fatigue. I have tried several campaigns concentrating from the German side to create British pilot shortages and have been unsucessful in recreating historical events. For instance I repeatedly strafe and bomb airfields to kill / injure as many pilots as possible and plot missions so that dogfighting takes place over ocean as much as possible to increase British MIA's. At the end of the campaigns however there was no pilot shortage in the British squadrons. If anything, some of them were brimming over with 40+ pilots through some kind of bug.

2 Once a plane is damaged I don't think it is possible for the Axis player to destroy it (and also have another chance at killing or wounding pilots based at the airfield) through further bombing or strafing. Given that when a airfield is damaged it reapirs planes slower this means it is better to strafe rather than bomb. This goes back to game balance in #1 above.

3 The Germans should get credit for any damaged airfield (Primary or Secondary) with fighter squadrons based there. Too often the computer or a human player simply moves squadrons to coastal/bomber command airfields to limit axis scoring. Even my little 12 year old brother came up with that one.

4 Stab's are hopeless. Even in favourable engagements aces and veterans in stabs get routinely beaten by tired British squadrons. Should they be abolished and just added to the first part of the Gruppe to make 40/36/36 planes?

5 Automatic upgrade of squadrons is a major handicap for both British and Germans. German players should be able to swap 110s for 109s and same for bombers. Historic squadron types were just a response to pilot numbers and plane availablity. If a different set of tactical decisions are made in the air war (which is the scope of the game) this will produce a different set of pilot and plane availability. Just because the morpine addict transfered all his best pilots to 110's doesn't mean that we should.

6 Multiple recons should improve target knowledge. Each additional recon against a target should have a chance to increase the accuracy of the description.

7 Baloons should not be destroyed 100% of the time that they contact a plane. Normally just a chain that would take a wing off.

8 Combat sizes - if there is an advantage for a large group of fighters to attack a smaller group (see #4 above) then does this mean that the Germans are at a disadvantage? When a German group of 36 fighters meet a British squadron of 12 planes it seems to be 12 on 12 with the most German planes ever bouncing or attacking showing as 12.

9 Perhaps figher vs bomber results need to be tuned. Does anyone have some stats on how many fighters were lost to bomber defensive fire?

If I can think of any others I will post.

Cheers
G

[wernerpruckner]

Hi Geordie,

that are some very interesting and good ideas

Cheers
Werner

[otisabuser2]

Hi Geordie,

welcome in and thanks for your thoughts.

1) yes, pilots are a problem. Some units seem to get none while others get huge numbers. My solution to this would be to make the database as near to 100% historical accurate as possible. Give real pilots meaningful exp numbers and reduce the numbers of botched computer generated ones.

Icing on the cake, would be to be able to transfer pilots between units. Reduce unwanted ones to cadre strength and have the option of picking elite units. RAF did have category A, B and C Squadrons after all.

2) Good point. There was some kind of bug re follow-up raids? Did they do no damage at all ? Forget now.

3) Damaged airfields are just holes in grass fields. There were lots of alternative airfields available in UK. It was damage to industry, homes and loss of planes that would win or loose the battle.

4) Are Stabs hopeless ? I use them as the highest top cover or late in the day as elite fighter killers.

5) Auto upgrades hinder the RAF because Spit I changes to Spit Ib, which is portrayed as a flying brick. Hoping we can get the Ib substiuted by the Spit II, which ought to be a shade better. The only other upgrade I am aware of is German bombers going to Ju88, which ought to be an upgrade for them.

As for an option to swap plane types manually, this would be cool. [:)] There is a school of thought that says as no units did convert in real-life, then should we be allowed this facility. All Gladiators and Defiants would go to Hurris and Spits on turn one. In RL this would have been a major headache as there was a considerable investment necessary in spares, tools and training to maintain aircraft. After the Battle of France, both were in short supply.

Of course all swaps should take in allowance of the number of planes available in the pool. This would be a real block on upgrading Bf110 to Bf109. But, as you hint, it may be nice to swap the elite 110 pilots into flagging 109 units.

6) Good point re multiple recons. Should work in both games. A month old photo may not be so bad either.

7) Balloons, yes, we have asked for changes re balloons in both games.

8) Smaller units would be a nice option. They may also multiply other problems, such as pilot placements. To avoid having too many units, it may be nice to split up a couple of JGruppes into Staffels. Have say III/JG1 split into 7/JG1, 8/JG1 and 9/JG1, then later have these convert to Jabos !

Some of the US fighter groups in BTR are split into Sqns.

9) Are you thinking defensive fire is not effective enough ? ALL German bombers in the game are carrying the MAX number or mgs rather than the norm.

Thanks again for the points. More ideas and opinions welcome !

regards Otisabuser

[matchwood]

Hi otisabuser2

3) Good point. What is the point of Air Superiority though? To attack German landing craft or troops if there was an invasion right? So, to do that British planes have to be A) Serviceable and B) in range - therefore the AS scoring should be based on Serviceable planes in range of the South Coast. A damaged plane at Biggin Hill or a refit squadron based in Scotland shouldn't count...

4) I often use Stabs late in the day as return leg escorts - they still suffer high losses. I think this is because often it is 12 planes vs 4 - see point 8.

8) Not sure I explained this one very well. If each side meets in combat at full strength it is a maximum of 12 on 12 - it should be 12 on 36. Because of this the German player is handicapped. On many days of fighting the Germans enjoyed numerical superiority and this is not reflected.

9) Not sure on this one - just wondering if some research was needed. We would need to look up more examples of unescorted bombers being intercepted. Perhaps the number of damaged fighters could be slightly increased...

[otisabuser2]

3) Good point. What is the point of Air Superiority though? To attack German landing craft or troops if there was an invasion right? So, to do that British planes have to be A) Serviceable and B) in range - therefore the AS scoring should be based on Serviceable planes in range of the South Coast. A damaged plane at Biggin Hill or a refit squadron based in Scotland shouldn't count...

I think we are generally in agreement on this. In the BTR Italy Campaign, points are indeed scored for Axis aircraft ready below a certain line ( near Rome ? ). This could work for RAF in BoB too. The line should perhaps be North of London, but South of Birmingham ?

Will look again at bomber defensive fire. I am seeing the opposite to you ( or rather , the opposite that I feel should happen ). Bomber defensive fire in BoB should be much less effective than that in BTR, where there are heavier weapons, multiple guns and turrets with wide arcs of fire.

In the LW bombers, the defensive mgs did have very limited arcs of fire. Though there are many instances of RAF pilots acknowledging being shot down by bomber fire, they generally put these down to lucky hits or good enemy shooting, rather than high volume defensive fire.

8) Not sure I explained this one very well. If each side meets in combat at full strength it is a maximum of 12 on 12 - it should be 12 on 36. Because of this the German player is handicapped. On many days of fighting the Germans enjoyed numerical superiority and this is not reflected.

This is a double-edge sword. If you had 33 Bf109 acting as high escort to a bomber formation, and they spotted 6 Spitfires coming towards them, do you really want all 33 to go off chasing these interceptors, leaving the bombers undefended ?

There is another issue, in that when the number of combatants actually rose, the number of kills did not increase in proportion.