Historical accuracy?

[ItBurns]

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

don’t feel its accurate to say that a missed result is a way to abstract this because it never results in the loss of an allied air unit and besides the Wallies were perfectly capable of missing targets all on their own without German interference.

Without having the statistics of bomber losses in front of me I would still guess that no bomber unit was wiped out by AA alone. I would venture to say that AA losses would not amount to anything close to 20% of a bomber force... probably a lot less than that. So how could you justify even an abstracted AA unit that would destroy a bomber unit? This is also where action limits come into play. Action limits make more realistic the historical reality that did not allow for all military units to be active all the time because of fuel limits, exhausted men and machines and the constant need to bring atritted units up to strength with reinforcements. The combat system of WiF does not allow for partial losses. This is something found in more detailed games such as Hearts of Iron.

Cheers

John

Well as to the partial losses problem that's part of the loss of realizm in playing a strategic level game. I can't recall any paticular air raid losing enough aircraft to fighters to justify the loss of a counter either. Oh and I'd agree that they would have a movement of 0 and only a defense of 1 vs ground units.

A further thing strikes me would be the political consequences of strategically bombing citys in conquered nations. Heavily bombing Paris might have brought the Vichy in as full allies to the Germans and would have shocked allied public opinion (i.e - the US entrance chit draw).

These are minor things in an otherwise fun game.

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: ItBurns

Admittidly I've only played WiF with Version 4 rules but the biggest problem for me is the lack of AA in the air campaign against Germany. In total Germany only has 4 AA units to represent the 14,000 heavy guns and 35,000 lighter guns manned by 900,000 air defense personel they had by 1944. Maybe factories in flames remedies this.

Apart from that its seems this version of the rules makes it as realistic as you can get in a strategic level game.

IIRC AA is represented. No it doesn't shoot down bomber units generally but there is a strategic bombing roll that takes intrinsic AA defense into account.

[brian brian]

attritional losses are represented by random results on the combat tables. roll badly, and the steady attrition of combat has caught up to you and a unit is removed from the map.

AA is indeed updated in the Factory in Flames module with new static AA counters.

AA in WiF could take out a bomber counter on occasion, albeit a rare occasion. We discussed this once on the forum and I think it was Steve who suggested stacking two AA units near the Ruhr...I was intrigued and when looking at the combat tables I think I might try that some day. Even better would be to free up the vonLeeb HQ to re-org them after firing at a heavy Allied raid, just as the Allies might be re-organizing the bombers back in England for another go. I think the Germans could possibly pull this off during their 'long retreat' portion of the game.

and also, the true results of the Allied bombing campaign is one of the most debated questions of WWII still today.

[morgil]

22.4.2 Artillery (AsA option 3)
A towed or motorised artillery unit has a combat factor (before modification) of ‘1’ unless it is stacked with a land unit other than an artillery or notional unit (exceptions: anti-aircraft fire by AA units and bombardment by field artillery).

Since it is illegal to use anything bigger than .50 cal on a human, the AA-tanks and stationary AA-guns are built so that they can only fire upwards, and for them to be able to fire at an approching land target, they have to be backed up a ledge or jury rigged in some way to tilt theire base. I think this is reflected in the rule, that if they are alone, they can be overrun that much easily, but stacked, they have the time to "fix" the elevation of the guns.

Anyone that consideres a battery of quadlinked 20mm autocannons a defenceless target against an infantry attack, has overstudied the Geneva convention and underestimated the will to survive of the generic human.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: morgil

22.4.2 Artillery (AsA option 3)
A towed or motorised artillery unit has a combat factor (before modification) of ‘1’ unless it is stacked with a land unit other than an artillery or notional unit (exceptions: anti-aircraft fire by AA units and bombardment by field artillery).

Since it is illegal to use anything bigger than .50 cal on a human, the AA-tanks and stationary AA-guns are built so that they can only fire upwards, and for them to be able to fire at an approching land target, they have to be backed up a ledge or jury rigged in some way to tilt theire base. I think this is reflected in the rule, that if they are alone, they can be overrun that much easily, but stacked, they have the time to "fix" the elevation of the guns.

Anyone that consideres a battery of quadlinked 20mm autocannons a defenceless target against an infantry attack, has overstudied the Geneva convention and underestimated the will to survive of the generic human.

What about the famous german 88mm gun? It was designed as an AA gun, but soon enough the whermacht was using those against enemy tanks with devastating results. The quadlinked 20mm was used against infantry too, at least I am quite sure the germans did.

[Extraneous]

I agree with micheljg.

The Geneva Convention refers to the agreements of 1949.

In which I belive your reference "Since it is illegal to use anything bigger than .50 cal on a human" is in reguards to autocannons.


Guns fire in a direct line, while Howitzers fire in an arch. This defines the mission difference between types of artilery such as 105mm Guns and 105mm Howitzers.

Therefore Anti-aircraft, and Anti-tank Guns fire in a direct line.

I belive this rule is because a towed Artilery unit was not that maneuverable durring WW2. It takes time to change your facing on a 105mm gun and even longer on somthing bigger.

Motorized Anti-aircraft units (trucks, halftracks, and tank chassis mounts) were not made for defense against ground units.




This is a picture of a 20mm Flak.



For micheljg a German 88mm Flak 36 in North Africa at the moment of firing.

[brian brian]

again, WiF is not Squad Leader, despite the fact that you can find the letters 'mm' on some counters.

the artillery units represent Army to Army Group level assets that could be concentrated at a particular point, with no organic infantry component. if these assets found themselves in the line of enemy advance, they were overrun with ease.

[composer99]

This is also important to consider with aircraft. Even though they have pretty pictures and specific names, each air unit represents a mixed bag of different aircraft, with the plurality belonging to the type on the counter.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

again, WiF is not Squad Leader, despite the fact that you can find the letters 'mm' on some counters.

the artillery units represent Army to Army Group level assets that could be concentrated at a particular point, with no organic infantry component. if these assets found themselves in the line of enemy advance, they were overrun with ease.

ORIGINAL: composer99

This is also important to consider with aircraft. Even though they have pretty pictures and specific names, each air unit represents a mixed bag of different aircraft, with the plurality belonging to the type on the counter.

Right on spot.

[Froonp]

I know no WW2 strategic scaled game or computer game that is more Historical accurate than WiF FE.
WiF FE have a very good WW2 taste. Often, it is WiF FE players that spoil your WW2 experience.

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: composer99

This is also important to consider with aircraft. Even though they have pretty pictures and specific names, each air unit represents a mixed bag of different aircraft, with the plurality belonging to the type on the counter.

yeah, like that darn Stuka with the 3 air-to-air rating that took out my French air force recently and is now busy destroying my Hurricanes, all with a machine gun pointing backwards!

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

ORIGINAL: composer99

This is also important to consider with aircraft. Even though they have pretty pictures and specific names, each air unit represents a mixed bag of different aircraft, with the plurality belonging to the type on the counter.

yeah, like that darn Stuka with the 3 air-to-air rating that took out my French air force recently and is now busy destroying my Hurricanes, all with a machine gun pointing backwards!

I think the Stuka did a kind of roll that bringed it upside of the french fighter, then it did drop the bomb directly on the french fighter in flight!

[MajorDude]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
yeah, like that darn Stuka with the 3 air-to-air rating that took out my French air force recently and is now busy destroying my Hurricanes, all with a machine gun pointing backwards!

Lol. Even though air counters are a mixed bag, the JU87 actually did have forward-firing guns:

Ju 87B

Forward guns 2×7.92 mm MG 17 machine gun

Ju 87D

Forward guns 2×7.92 mm MG 17 machine gun

Ju 87G-1

Forward guns 2×7.92 mm MG 17 machine gun
2×37 mm BK 37 (6 rounds per gun) antitank gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87

That being said, they were pretty awful for real aerial dogfights lol. [:D]

[brian brian]

oh. it must have been the desert camouflage whilst flying over the green fields beyond that makes that Ju-87D so deadly then.

meanwhile, the Germans did get good enough at dropping bombs on enemy bombers later in the war that the USAAF had to change their tight flying formations for the B-17.

[Edfactor]

I would say to start with that the production is wrong based on history, Germany's is too high and the US is too low. But the game works very well as a WW-II game. All you need are a good set of fog-of-war rules and you would have a helluva game.

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: Edfactor

I would say to start with that the production is wrong based on history, Germany's is too high and the US is too low. But the game works very well as a WW-II game. All you need are a good set of fog-of-war rules and you would have a helluva game.

And France usually falls in J/A 1940 or later, unless there is a successfull France first.

[Hokum]

And France usually falls in J/A 1940 or later, unless there is a successfull France first.

To be fair, France falling this soon is probably more realistic than having Belgium staying neutral even though the germans are walking in Rotterdam.

[coregames]

ORIGINAL: micheljq

ORIGINAL: Edfactor

I would say to start with that the production is wrong based on history, Germany's is too high and the US is too low. But the game works very well as a WW-II game. All you need are a good set of fog-of-war rules and you would have a helluva game.

And France usually falls in J/A 1940 or later, unless there is a successfull France first.

In WiF 5 and earlier, Italy used to be much more vulnerable early on, and it was clearly worth it if their set-up allowed for an early conquest to go all out, even at the expense of France. Now, with the additional units, it's practically impossible, especially if playing with amphib rules, so France can (and should) hold out at least until Jul/Aug, even with a lucky German offensive. As the notes in the Scenario Book indicate, no Gamelons in this army!