Pelton vs Hoooper Grinding it out turn 70+

[delatbabel]

This comes from Second Front/War in Russia. Bombing airfields was the best way to win the air war, and other than the first turn it's much more effective than history would seem to indicate. Now there were particular planes that were great at strafing airfields and causing buckets of damage, the US P-47 comes to mind, but for the most case flying level bombers over airfields is a very hit and miss affair, mostly miss.

Even then, in most of the well documented effective P-47 raids, there was a lot of airfield damage and not a lot of plane damage. The real destruction of the Luftwaffe occurred when the disabled airfields were overrun by advancing allied armour, and the planes on the ground couldn't get away due to the airfield damage and lack of fuel (fuel depots having exploded in the prior attack). The real telling blow was allied bombing of the production facilities though, the ball bearing factory at Regensburg being the most well documented case although not the single most effective one. Once the Germans couldn't produce the planes to replace their air to air losses the war was over for the Luftwaffe.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

This comes from Second Front/War in Russia. Bombing airfields was the best way to win the air war, and other than the first turn it's much more effective than history would seem to indicate. Now there were particular planes that were great at strafing airfields and causing buckets of damage, the US P-47 comes to mind, but for the most case flying level bombers over airfields is a very hit and miss affair, mostly miss.

Even then, in most of the well documented effective P-47 raids, there was a lot of airfield damage and not a lot of plane damage. The real destruction of the Luftwaffe occurred when the disabled airfields were overrun by advancing allied armour, and the planes on the ground couldn't get away due to the airfield damage and lack of fuel (fuel depots having exploded in the prior attack). The real telling blow was allied bombing of the production facilities though, the ball bearing factory at Regensburg being the most well documented case although not the single most effective one. Once the Germans couldn't produce the planes to replace their air to air losses the war was over for the Luftwaffe.

Hmmm, the fuel thing yes, but the Luftwaffe had more planes than they could use in late war. The really scarce items were trained pilots and fuel.

[Peltonx]

Hoooper it is part of the game I don't expect you to stop. If the shoe was on the other foot I would be doing the same thing.

As far as the Allied bombing goes, it really had no effect on German production or moral.

Germany's most productive months of the war were late 44. It did cause the Germans to expend resourses changing production locations and AA guns ect. So it did hope in that respect, but the bombing was a watse of resourse on our part also. So overall it probably had litte or no positive effect on the over all war effort.

The main effect air power had on WW2 was on ground combat in a support roll and supply withen a 50 miles of the front.

Only during the last 20 yrs has air power truely become the end all to be all that Generals dreamed of during WW1.

Pelton

[hfarrish]

As far as the Allied bombing goes, it really had no effect on German production or moral.

Germany's most productive months of the war were late 44. It did cause the Germans to expend resourses changing production locations and AA guns ect. So it did hope in that respect, but the bombing was a watse of resourse on our part also. So overall it probably had litte or no positive effect on the over all war effort.

I think that this has been revisited as of late; obviously it doesn't prove or disprove whether airpower had a meaningful impact by saying Germany's war production was maxed in late 44, you would need to know what its production was relative to its capacity. I think the impact of drawing massive German air resources alone away from the front can't be overlooked.

[Peltonx]

One bad thing for me going on is that when Hooper attacks me even in lvl 4 forts the loses are even, plus I lose allot more art or tanks because of retreating.

Instead of past turns where he was only winning 60% of battles hes winning 86%.

Not sure if thats normal.

[Michael T]

Hmmm, the fuel thing yes, but the Luftwaffe had more planes than they could use in late war. The really scarce items were trained pilots and fuel.

+1

That's in line with everything I have read on the matter.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

One bad thing for me going on is that when Hooper attacks me even in lvl 4 forts the loses are even, plus I lose allot more art or tanks because of retreating.

Instead of past turns where he was only winning 60% of battles hes winning 86%.

Not sure if thats normal.

What year is this now?

[Peltonx]

November 42. I will post when we hit turn 80. Loses from 70 to 80 and pictures averge losses of men and hexes same as turn 60 to 70.

He is pushing hard near Kharkov, he pushed a nice 9 hexes bubble and a 4 hex bubble just north or Kharkov. I had to commit my southern front reservers of 5 inf and 6 panzer divisions to counter attack and take back 6 hexes routing 9 Russian Armored divisions. I also moved up my diggers to try an make sure I have at least 2 to 3 rows of lvl 3 and lvl 4 forts. I have nice little mass of It and Rum digging away heheh.

The mud turns were dead, but the snow turns are averaging 18 attacks by him and 10 by me per turn. He is gaining about 10 hexs a turn. I will get a big boost in production on Jan 1 43 so that should really help me for a while.

Defencive tactics are basicly where he is pushing the most shift my lines north/south to double stack and send panzers. This generally stops the push and he push in the weaker spot. Its basicly keeping the lines short for me and hopefully my troop numbers will stay around 25k rifle squads for a while.

Pelton

[Baelfiin]

ORIGINAL: Hoooper

Now I'm feeling a bit guilty about all the airbase bombing I've been doing [8|]. I have no idea how much airfield bombing the Soviets did in the war, or how much damage it caused, but I agree with Mr Pelton that it does seem a bit over-effective in the game. And it's not like it's superb strategy - you just keep cycling air units with fewer than 50% planes ready to the national reserve and bring them back when they've been reinforced. The rest is just lots and lots of clicking. I guess there are tactics the Germans can use - bases with no planes and lots of flak attached to the HQ for example. Also, I wonder if putting the bases in cities and boosting the German flak support is any use?

Its all good man, I'm trying some things to see if I can come up with a counter strategy 8)
From my end the FLaK doesnt seem to do too much.

[Hoooper]

Ha ha, well if you don't mind too much, I'll carry on [;)]
In response to Pelton's question about the increase in successful attacks, I think that's partly explained by the big jump in Soviet corps when the Don and Stalingrad fronts are formed (about 10 can be built that turn), which triples Soviet firepower in breakthrough sectors, but mostly I think it's just because the line is getting increasingly wavy, so there are lots of three-hex attacks to be had. You might be helped by the latest beta patch though (when it's debugged) - I think there's a penalty for attacking with lots of units. I'm also starting to see some 2 fort hexes ...
On the earlier subject of Allied air power, the economist Adam Tooze sez that strategic bombing had negligible effect until the battle of the Ruhr and the destruction of Hamburg in March-July 1943, which "halted assembly lines across Germany". He's got a graph that shows that total armaments went up by 5.5% a month until then, after which the average growth rate was zero (it's in a book called Wages of Destruction if you're interested). On the other hand, you could argue that the cost of building and operating the RAF bomber fleet wrecked the British economy as well .. As far as I know we're still paying off the money we spent on it.

[Peltonx]

That patch seems to have done nothing at all, seems it was all BS.

[Speedysteve]

Is it now?[8|] do you have any data to support your BS claim?

[Peltonx]

Hoooper and I have had .28 installed the day it came out and I nor Hoooper have seen any difference. As a matter of fact hes been making more attacks the last 5 turns.

Devs always ask the sillyist of questions, so I ask you a silly question also;

Do you have any data to support your BS claim, that its working?


Heheh I guess they call that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

I am just going off the RW data and what I been seesing, there is no difference. Hes winning a higher % of battles now then before. And I am adding up the data every 10 turns. Nothing too amazing about it, before patch he won 66% of attacks now hes winning 85% of attacks, so if its working its helping the Russian not hurting.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

Here is some data sweet pea, but it means nothing with out Hooopers input to see how many arts are firing ect ect.

But, hes attacking lvl 4 to 2 forts which have 30 to 50 CVs and he has won 86.5%. Your 1v1 = 2v1 for the Russian player is a huge joke and needs to be adressed at some point. The losses the russian player takes should not be equal to the german losses when defending in lvl 4 forts. Thats a freaking JOKE!!!! Another exploit that needs fixing at some point.

Attacks Retreats Held

SHC 134 96 18 86.5% are wins 11-12/42

Also my losses seem high and his low. By which I mean even when he attacks a level 4 fort with 40 CV I take more loses then he does. Which is totally not historical at all. Guys fix the dam win/lose engine and stop with the lazy ass +1 for the Russian stuff.

If you need more data, I just love to give you more. Simply ask.

I await your reply of which I expect none.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

Look at the first battle as an example a blob of 96k attack 12k, I have more art. Attackers losses are 2% and defenders are almost 10%. Can you honestly tell me thats historical and not just a joke?

You have got to be kidding me [:-]

Come on there sweet pea your telling me that attacking the russians were taking 1/5 the losses the Germans were?

Thats just a dam shame really that you think poeple will not see this as a joke.

Pelton

[hfarrish]

Looks to me like the Soviet at Lodynoe Pole attacked with a 9:1 advantage in men, a nearly 20:1 advantage in guns, and a 109 to 0 advantage in AFV, and pushed you back with a roughly 1.5:1 casualty ratio. Am I missing something or looking at the wrong attack? Surely with those kinds of odds the Soviets could cause some serious havoc to German defenders...

[krupp_88mm]

afaik even when the soviets had 10 to 1 adv attacking fortified positions they still took much greater losses look at sealow heights, and there are dozens more examples

[Peltonx]

Yes the % of dead and wounded is not historical at all.

Do some reading and stop day dreaming, this is a historical game an not a fairytale.

Pelton

[karonagames]

And where you got a hold result you caused 4000+ casualties for the loss of 74. Try to get more hold results.

[Encircled]

 Unless you are being very selective with your data, whenever the Soviets don't win, they take roughly 10% casualties (or 10 x times more casualties than the German). Thats pretty consistent in my game, going from the very first patch to the latest patch.

 Even when they do win, they still appear to take 2 to 3 times more casualties