Moderators: Joel Billings, RedLancer
3. Fort levels/terrain has no effect- liquadsky-AAR
ORIGINAL: SigUp
Not modeled for the German side either. There's no Hitler making stupid decisions behind your back.ORIGINAL: Pelton
1. Polotics- el hefe
You are opening a can of worms if you restrict Allied bombing based on this.
Sorry but you have to throw the hole game out as it models politics, aka beachhead requirements garrison requirements to name a few. Come on stop cherry picking.
el haha is simply pointing out the game (which models politics alrdy) does not model the politics inside the Allied army when it
came to frieldly fire. Almost every game models politics, soory to burst your bubble but WItW is no different.
What's so hard for you to understand Pelton? Your comparisons mean NOTHING since KWG isn't bombing according to history.4. unhistorical ratios/unhistorical loses caused by bombing % /workaround the VP system-Pelton
You have proven absolutely nothing with your numbers. The only way to verify whether the engine does its job
in this regard is to do what Red Lancer did. Set up the exact conditions and run tests - again and again.
That's the scientific method. Your "methods" aren't empiric at all.
And where in the world is the workaround the VP? He is losing VP with this method since he is gaining no strategic bombing VP. If he is to benefit in terms of VPs from this massive bombing KWG needs to collapse your defenses on an enormours scale through this bombing.
Terrain and forts have zero effect on loses, no friendly fire in model, no politics in model.And possible ammo bug
Which is why loses and ratios are unhistorical. Red Lancers tests simply prove that the model is working as designed but the design is poor.
ORIGINAL: Seminole
3. Fort levels/terrain has no effect- liquadsky-AAR
I don't believe this is true with respect to terrain, and would like clarification with regard to fort levels.
I see differences when bombing a battalion in the mountains/rough/clear terrain when fiddling around in the Rommel Attacks scenario. The unhappiest are the guys the clear terrain...
ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
The repeated assertion that because Cobra carpet bombing was partially inaccurate, hence all carpet bombing must be is completely silly. In early war BC could not get bombs within 5 miles of the target most of the time. Doesn't this mean they never got any better? Fighter command largely flew fighting area tactics at the start of the Battle of Britain. Do they have to do this all war? Close air support in 1940 was a joke. By 1944 there were RAF ground controllers embedded in the army. You don't think that the air forces would have learnt from their mistakes?
ORIGINAL: Ralzakark
ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
The repeated assertion that because Cobra carpet bombing was partially inaccurate, hence all carpet bombing must be is completely silly. In early war BC could not get bombs within 5 miles of the target most of the time. Doesn't this mean they never got any better? Fighter command largely flew fighting area tactics at the start of the Battle of Britain. Do they have to do this all war? Close air support in 1940 was a joke. By 1944 there were RAF ground controllers embedded in the army. You don't think that the air forces would have learnt from their mistakes?
As usual Warspite makes good points.
For COBRA there was no direct communication between the bombers and the soldiers on the ground waiting to follow on from their attack. Afterwards the 8AF developed elaborate systems to minimize the risk of short bombing. For example, for operation QUEEN on 16 November 1944 1,204 bombers attacked two fortified German towns in the way of ground forces.
- Most of the bombers were equipped to receive signals from a vertical SCS-51 localiser transmitter beacon placed a short distance behind the front line and two other marker beacons, giving a precise location relative to the front line and the bomb release point.
- A ground crew was in direct communication with the aircraft.
- Aircrews were extensively briefed.
- Large panels on the ground indicated the front line.
- A line of barrage balloons flew at 2,000 ft at 600 ft intervals 4,000 yards behind the front line.
- Four batteries of 90mm AA guns fired red smoke shells on the same line as the balloons but above them. Shells burst every 15 seconds at 2,000 feet below the bombers. Timings were co-ordinated by direct link between the batteries and the air controller.
No bombs fell on American troops even though the bombers attacked from 18,600 – 24,000 feet through cloud.
All targets received a high proportion of hits and the German units being attacked suffered heavy casualties,
up to 30% for one company; the advancing American units initially met little opposition.
ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
Pelton
It appears that you have decided to ignore my post and instead raise every other element of the game you are unhappy with. Nobody has claimed that every element of history covered by the scope of this game is perfect. This is beginning to sound like trolling. Please stop.
Quote Joel Billings:ORIGINAL: Pelton
Sorry but you have to throw the hole game out as it models politics, aka beachhead requirements garrison requirements to name a few. Come on stop cherry picking.
el haha is simply pointing out the game (which models politics alrdy) does not model the politics inside the Allied army when it
came to frieldly fire. Almost every game models politics, soory to burst your bubble but WItW is no different.
Pelton, are you saying that your units are losing 60-70% of their TOE because of bombing? If so, that's not what your "data" has shown.Also as per your data German units suffered 30% loses not 60-70% for 10 weeks.
ORIGINAL: Red Lancer
Post #93. Furthermore as your signature block proudly states that you are part of the WitW Beta Dev Team if you are not happy then you do have a modicum of responsibility.
ORIGINAL: Ralzakark
ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
The repeated assertion that because Cobra carpet bombing was partially inaccurate, hence all carpet bombing must be is completely silly. In early war BC could not get bombs within 5 miles of the target most of the time. Doesn't this mean they never got any better? Fighter command largely flew fighting area tactics at the start of the Battle of Britain. Do they have to do this all war? Close air support in 1940 was a joke. By 1944 there were RAF ground controllers embedded in the army. You don't think that the air forces would have learnt from their mistakes?
As usual Warspite makes good points.
For COBRA there was no direct communication between the bombers and the soldiers on the ground waiting to follow on from their attack. Afterwards the 8AF developed elaborate systems to minimize the risk of short bombing. For example, for operation QUEEN on 16 November 1944 1,204 bombers attacked two fortified German towns in the way of ground forces.
- Most of the bombers were equipped to receive signals from a vertical SCS-51 localiser transmitter beacon placed a short distance behind the front line and two other marker beacons, giving a precise location relative to the front line and the bomb release point.
- A ground crew was in direct communication with the aircraft.
- Aircrews were extensively briefed.
- Large panels on the ground indicated the front line.
- A line of barrage balloons flew at 2,000 ft at 600 ft intervals 4,000 yards behind the front line.
- Four batteries of 90mm AA guns fired red smoke shells on the same line as the balloons but above them. Shells burst every 15 seconds at 2,000 feet below the bombers. Timings were co-ordinated by direct link between the batteries and the air controller.
No bombs fell on American troops even though the bombers attacked from 18,600 – 24,000 feet through cloud. All targets received a high proportion of hits and the German units being attacked suffered heavy casualties, up to 30% for one company; the advancing American units initially met little opposition.
By 1945 15AF added even more measures. For BUCKLAND on 9 April 1945 these included:
- A pre-defined cancellation signal - a huge ‘X’ fired by AA guns into the air.
- Bombadiers and navigators of the leading planes flew over the target beforehand, guided by recce pilots familiar with the terrain who pointed out notable geographical features. Some 175 flight of over an hours duration were made.
In this case short bombing still occurred (my sources do not say why), though the main attack by 825 B-17 and B-24s was so well aimed that German resistance was minimal.
ORIGINAL: Pelton
....
I have to run people over for dinner, ...
ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
Pelton, you are the one who is cherry picking. You select one historical statistic (casualty rates/causes) and then apply it to the game irrespective of what is happening. As for your remark on politics, I just do not begin to understand what you are talking about. You want politics? I will role play Hitler for you and give you orders every turn.
...
Why don't you just accept that someone has come up with a counter to your tactic and get on with he AAR? Try a new tactic.
ORIGINAL: DicedT
ORIGINAL: Ralzakark
ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
The repeated assertion that because Cobra carpet bombing was partially inaccurate, hence all carpet bombing must be is completely silly. In early war BC could not get bombs within 5 miles of the target most of the time. Doesn't this mean they never got any better? Fighter command largely flew fighting area tactics at the start of the Battle of Britain. Do they have to do this all war? Close air support in 1940 was a joke. By 1944 there were RAF ground controllers embedded in the army. You don't think that the air forces would have learnt from their mistakes?
As usual Warspite makes good points.
For COBRA there was no direct communication between the bombers and the soldiers on the ground waiting to follow on from their attack. Afterwards the 8AF developed elaborate systems to minimize the risk of short bombing. For example, for operation QUEEN on 16 November 1944 1,204 bombers attacked two fortified German towns in the way of ground forces.
- Most of the bombers were equipped to receive signals from a vertical SCS-51 localiser transmitter beacon placed a short distance behind the front line and two other marker beacons, giving a precise location relative to the front line and the bomb release point.
- A ground crew was in direct communication with the aircraft.
- Aircrews were extensively briefed.
- Large panels on the ground indicated the front line.
- A line of barrage balloons flew at 2,000 ft at 600 ft intervals 4,000 yards behind the front line.
- Four batteries of 90mm AA guns fired red smoke shells on the same line as the balloons but above them. Shells burst every 15 seconds at 2,000 feet below the bombers. Timings were co-ordinated by direct link between the batteries and the air controller.
No bombs fell on American troops even though the bombers attacked from 18,600 – 24,000 feet through cloud. All targets received a high proportion of hits and the German units being attacked suffered heavy casualties, up to 30% for one company; the advancing American units initially met little opposition.
By 1945 15AF added even more measures. For BUCKLAND on 9 April 1945 these included:
- A pre-defined cancellation signal - a huge ‘X’ fired by AA guns into the air.
- Bombadiers and navigators of the leading planes flew over the target beforehand, guided by recce pilots familiar with the terrain who pointed out notable geographical features. Some 175 flight of over an hours duration were made.
In this case short bombing still occurred (my sources do not say why), though the main attack by 825 B-17 and B-24s was so well aimed that German resistance was minimal.
Now we're making the same mistake as Pelton. We're taking a limited number of carpet bombing raids and extrapolating that they could have been safely and effectively on a routine basis.
So, for example, let's assume that carpet bombing had been perfected by November 1944. We know that in July 1944, the bombs struck friendly troops. Does this mean that the game should be coded so that carpet bombing causes friendly casualties in July 1944, and doesn't in November?
Confronting Liquid Sky's defenses in France, I used carpet bombing every turn, including bad weather turns. Whether this was the best move I don't know. But do we know enough to be able to say that carpet bombing could be safely used even in bad weather?
Remember that first and foremost, WITW is a game as well as history. If you give people an option that was only used sporadically in real life, they're probably going to do it all the time.
Look at Paris it has allot of AA and in a urban hex but takes most damage.
ORIGINAL: Pelton
The ammo issue works like this.
by 10+ or 20+ or 30+ bombing runs + recon runs (size does not matter could be very small attacks)
all the ammo in hex is used up by AA. Because if 100 planes fly over all 500 guns fire, if ten planes fly over all 500 guns fire.
So if you have a hard hex to crack you fly over 30 small attacks and use up most of the ammo or all the ammo the ground units need.
So then you attack the hex and it falls easly because they have zero ammo.
WitE people would attack with 1 unit vs a large stack 5 to 10 times (using several units 1 at a time) then do the large attack, the hex falls every time.
A fix was used so that not many guns would fire vs soaking attacks (low odd), now its not possible to use this tactic.
Like I said I have not taken the time to figure out for sure if this is happing, but it sure looks like it on the surface.
ORIGINAL: Pelton
Lots of stuff posted above
Another great point, how many weeks did this require to prepare the operation?
ORIGINAL: DicedT
Now we're making the same mistake as Pelton. We're taking a limited number of carpet bombing raids and extrapolating that they could have been safely and effectively on a routine basis.
So, for example, let's assume that carpet bombing had been perfected by November 1944. We know that in July 1944, the bombs struck friendly troops. Does this mean that the game should be coded so that carpet bombing causes friendly casualties in July 1944, and doesn't in November?
ORIGINAL: SigUp
It's a complete myth that the delay to the 262 was caused by the decision to build it as a fast bomber. The Germans had immense problems with developing and building the engine. The chaos with the bomber decision contributed next to nothing to the delay.ORIGINAL: DicedT
If it's okay for the Allies to carpet bomb every turn, then why isn't it okay to assume that Hitler never ordered the Me-262 to become a bomber, and the Germans deployed jet fighters six months earlier than they did? At some point, an historical game has to stick to history.
ORIGINAL: Pelton
ORIGINAL: Ralzakark
ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite
The repeated assertion that because Cobra carpet bombing was partially inaccurate, hence all carpet bombing must be is completely silly. In early war BC could not get bombs within 5 miles of the target most of the time. Doesn't this mean they never got any better? Fighter command largely flew fighting area tactics at the start of the Battle of Britain. Do they have to do this all war? Close air support in 1940 was a joke. By 1944 there were RAF ground controllers embedded in the army. You don't think that the air forces would have learnt from their mistakes?
As usual Warspite makes good points.
For COBRA there was no direct communication between the bombers and the soldiers on the ground waiting to follow on from their attack. Afterwards the 8AF developed elaborate systems to minimize the risk of short bombing. For example, for operation QUEEN on 16 November 1944 1,204 bombers attacked two fortified German towns in the way of ground forces.
- Most of the bombers were equipped to receive signals from a vertical SCS-51 localiser transmitter beacon placed a short distance behind the front line and two other marker beacons, giving a precise location relative to the front line and the bomb release point.
- A ground crew was in direct communication with the aircraft.
- Aircrews were extensively briefed.
- Large panels on the ground indicated the front line.
- A line of barrage balloons flew at 2,000 ft at 600 ft intervals 4,000 yards behind the front line.
- Four batteries of 90mm AA guns fired red smoke shells on the same line as the balloons but above them. Shells burst every 15 seconds at 2,000 feet below the bombers. Timings were co-ordinated by direct link between the batteries and the air controller.
No bombs fell on American troops even though the bombers attacked from 18,600 – 24,000 feet through cloud.
All targets received a high proportion of hits and the German units being attacked suffered heavy casualties,
up to 30% for one company; the advancing American units initially met little opposition.
Another great point, how many weeks did this require to prepare the operation?
Its being done in game every week for 10 weeks over different hexes.
Also as per your data German units suffered 30% loses not 60-70% for 10 weeks.
Great data thank you.
