Ground bombing is borked, part II

[rader]

ORIGINAL: bigred

I think we got the ground bombing correct.
http://www.historynet.com/operation-cob ... pocket.htm

WWII: Now that you unexpectedly found yourself in command of this ad hoc force, what did you do? Langanke: After the first couple of attacks, the radio sets on the back of my Panther caught fire. I quickly opened the back hatch of the turret, leaned out and pushed the ignited stuff off the vehicle. I burned one hand, but it wasn't too bad. What was real bad was that the planes had seen one tank left down there, seemingly still operable and with the crew in it. They now concentrated on us. It was finally a considerable number that dealt exclusively with us. The continuous rattle of the bullets on all sides of the turret drove you crazy. Then a big bang! In the turret roof there was a hole, where a discharger for smoke grenades should be installed. When that piece of equipment was not available, this opening was covered with a round plate fastened with four bolts. We had such a lid. The enormous number of bullet impacts had broken the bolts and flung the lid away. Daylight in the turret! The loader and myself had the same reaction. We grabbed our blankets, turned them together into a kind of cone and wedged them into the hole so it served as a backstop. Twice, the impact of so many projectiles threw our contraption down, but luckily we had it in again before more bullets rained down on us. WWII: Can you describe the scene around your tank? Langanke: Some 20 to 30 meters in front of us a group of paratroopers had been mowed down by the first air attack. Among those pilots must have been some extremely queer characters. Time and again they buzzed this group and fired into the dead bodies. They flew just above the treetops, so they must have seen all the details. Slowly the limbs were torn off, the intestines were spilled. It's one of the most terrible impressions I remember from the war. The gunner had a view out of the tank with his sighting telescope and its narrow field of vision. That, unfortunately, was pointed at this group of dead soldiers. In this tremendous stress we all had to suffer, the horrible sight tipped the scale, and he cracked up. Hollering and swearing, he wanted to get out. He was for a short while out of his mind. I drew my pistol and stuck the barrel in his neck, hollered back at him and told him to stop playing the crazy idiot. He immediately got back to normal. This man was one of the finest comrades we had, absolutely reliable, sturdy and imperturbable. But I am sure every man exposed long enough to really extreme pressure will have a weak moment. WWII: Clearly the pressure was mounting. How did you keep your group together?

Interesting story, but all this shows is that it's scary to be bombed. And note that these are fighter bomber attacks he's describing, which were much more effective at ground attack than the big bombers, and yet in WITP they are much less effective. Can you show me any evidence that you can destroy entire divisons in a matter of days, entirely from the air, repeatedly and at will, provided they are located in "clear" terrain?

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: rader

Here's an example of borked ground bombing (see attached). This is an air attack vs. a single division. 3 days of this, and no more division. And it is no problem to do this day after day, indefinitely. If it was so easy to do this, why did the allies bother invading France? Why not just kill all the German land units from the air?

Incidentally, on the diminishing return thing, we do already sort of have it in a couple of places: aircraft losses on the ground, and ships in port. The more "stacked" airfields are, the more planes are killed from ground bombing. The more ships in port, the more ships are hit. I believe that this should also occur with ground bombing to some extent; the more LCU devices in a hex, the more that get hit (and I also submit that the high end is way too high in clear terrain (and maybe not high enough in rough terrain).

EDIT: Ran off without adding the attachment...

Ok, while I agree that some game extremes may be a bit beyond what was historically achievable, just
a couple of observations:

170+ B-29s
Open terrain
No AA
No Air cover

Thats about the only thing recognisable from the screenshot.
So every visible factor is against the IJA to the extreme. The rest is not (weather, number of units
in the hex, status of those units, available support, attack alt, DL, exp/skill of attacking air
units,...) but the above is already enough for stating something obvious:

*) You hang out in open terrain without at least marginal AAA and/or air cover.
This situation cannot get any worse.

*) You got less than 1% of troops destroyed by the attack, so the issue is not only the
strenght of the attack but the lack of ground support or supplies to repair the damaged devices
before the next attack hits you.

*) You are under attack by ground troops as well so this may enhance the above point, and makes your
position untenable anyway (although this admittedly might not even be needed).


I don´t know what you see as borked about that result. It may be on the far end of the scale, but so
is your tactical position. If the allies had used 170 B-29s to bomb Div. Lehr sticking out in the open
fields of France without AAA for a whole week, it would have very probably ceased to exist as a fighting force.

Which is the equivalent of a destroyed unit in WitP AE.

[herwin]

The Allies used about ten times as many bombers against the PzLehr concentrated in about 10% of the area of this attack and produced about 30% casualties. I think the diminishing returns are not treated realistically. Of course, see my sig..

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: herwin

The Allies used about ten times as many bombers against the PzLehr concentrated in about 10% of the area of this attack and produced about 30% casualties. I think the diminishing returns are not treated realistically. Of course, see my sig..

I think your observation is a bit unfair Harry. A B-29 has 2.5 times the bombload as a B-17..., and the game provides no information as to how large a portion of a hex is actually occupied (or bombed) by a unit. And Lehr only had about 2500 men left when Cobra was launched, so they were pretty thin on the ground.

To me the real question in the above example is how well dug-in were the defenders? Caught unprepared in open terrain, I wouldn't call the results excessive. Against the well-entrenched garrison of Iwo Jima, such results would be historical nonsense. They were bombed daily for more than a month with no significant losses. I'd say we need a lot more information than is provided in the "example" above to form a legitimate conclusion.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: herwin

The Allies used about ten times as many bombers against the PzLehr concentrated in about 10% of the area of this attack and produced about 30% casualties. I think the diminishing returns are not treated realistically. Of course, see my sig..

You do notice that the percentage of permanent casualties in the above CR is less than 1%?

[SoliInvictus202]

looking at this result posted by rader, and a bombardment mission posted by someone ages ago (with artillery) - both of them got ridiculous results...

let's just agree (and yes, I know some people defend every bit of the game no matter whether it has any "common sense" involved or not) that the engine can't cope with a few possible scenarios that one can create if one exploits the engine.... - that 20,000 Japanese get killed in a artillery bombardment is equally, shall we say, "surprising" as is this bombing result.... - but B-29s never saw this mission type executed! and anyone who now quotes the Panzer-Lehr should mention the number of bombers involved in this attack and should tell me that the game engine was specifically modeled to reproduce this mission (just like the Doolittle raid eh?)

so I believe as long as you don't "overdo" the engine and its capabilities the game will provide you with somewhat realistic results....
but all rader-games are far from reality.... - so if both players agree to a "away from any sort of reality" game then they must expect odd outcomes....
-just like the bombardment mission with arty in the jungle hex - it involved 100,000 troops and some 1500 guns or so on either side...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: rader

Here's an example of borked ground bombing (see attached). This is an air attack vs. a single division. 3 days of this, and no more division. And it is no problem to do this day after day, indefinitely. If it was so easy to do this, why did the allies bother invading France? Why not just kill all the German land units from the air?

Incidentally, on the diminishing return thing, we do already sort of have it in a couple of places: aircraft losses on the ground, and ships in port. The more "stacked" airfields are, the more planes are killed from ground bombing. The more ships in port, the more ships are hit. I believe that this should also occur with ground bombing to some extent; the more LCU devices in a hex, the more that get hit (and I also submit that the high end is way too high in clear terrain (and maybe not high enough in rough terrain).

EDIT: Ran off without adding the attachment...

Ok, while I agree that some game extremes may be a bit beyond what was historically achievable, just
a couple of observations:

170+ B-29s
Open terrain
No AA
No Air cover

Thats about the only thing recognisable from the screenshot.
So every visible factor is against the IJA to the extreme. The rest is not (weather, number of units
in the hex, status of those units, available support, attack alt, DL, exp/skill of attacking air
units,...) but the above is already enough for stating something obvious:

*) You hang out in open terrain without at least marginal AAA and/or air cover.
This situation cannot get any worse.

*) You got less than 1% of troops destroyed by the attack, so the issue is not only the
strenght of the attack but the lack of ground support or supplies to repair the damaged devices
before the next attack hits you.

*) You are under attack by ground troops as well so this may enhance the above point, and makes your
position untenable anyway (although this admittedly might not even be needed).


I don´t know what you see as borked about that result. It may be on the far end of the scale, but so
is your tactical position. If the allies had used 170 B-29s to bomb Div. Lehr sticking out in the open
fields of France without AAA for a whole week, it would have very probably ceased to exist as a fighting force.

Which is the equivalent of a destroyed unit in WitP AE.

In addition to your points, rader only provided part of that combat report - no altitude info, etc.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: herwin

The Allies used about ten times as many bombers against the PzLehr concentrated in about 10% of the area of this attack and produced about 30% casualties. I think the diminishing returns are not treated realistically. Of course, see my sig..

You do notice that the percentage of permanent casualties in the above CR is less than 1%?

It takes weeks or even months to recover 270 disabled squads, even if they are sitting in a big base full of supplies. Like rader said, 3-4 days of bombing and that division is gone; IJA infantry divisions have 320-400 squads (infantry, MG, cavalry), so one bombing disabled most of the division. Next day disabled squads get killed.

IRL preparation of this kind of bombing would take days at least, or a few weeks, just to get all necessary recon etc. It would be impossible to do this daily. Luckily HRs can take care of this kind of exploits.

BTW, chinese or any kind of agriculture landscape is not "open" as sand desert or steppe are open.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Puhis
IRL preparation of this kind of bombing would take days at least, or a few weeks, just to get all necessary recon etc. It would be impossible to do this daily.

Definitely, I think DL handling and too high air op tempo are open issues, but difficult to impossible to adress.

Luckily HRs can take care of this kind of exploits.

Agree, thats why some, including me, wonder what the fuss is all about.
(more so when knowing that a change implemented on one side often just borks the other end...)

Diminshing return is not really the solution IMO. I´d just artificially uncoordinate
the strikes.
And nerfing ground bombing or changing open terrain fort levels would render light bombers even
more useless than they already are.


The "common sense" SoliInvictus202 refers to should mean understanding things like that. [:'(]

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Puhis
IRL preparation of this kind of bombing would take days at least, or a few weeks, just to get all necessary recon etc. It would be impossible to do this daily.

Definitely, I think DL handling and too high air op tempo are open issues, but difficult to impossible to adress.

Luckily HRs can take care of this kind of exploits.

Agree, thats why some, including me, wonder what the fuss is all about.
[:'(]

Once again we see a PBEM only mentality at work.
The AI won't play by house rules. House rules only fix things for PBEM.

As long as the AI will bomb divisions into oblivion there exists a problem that needs to be fixed.

[LoBaron]

You mean, you are bombed into oblivion by the AI and have not found a way around that? [&:]
Sorry, but thats rather funny.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Puhis
IRL preparation of this kind of bombing would take days at least, or a few weeks, just to get all necessary recon etc. It would be impossible to do this daily.

Definitely, I think DL handling and too high air op tempo are open issues, but difficult to impossible to adress.

Luckily HRs can take care of this kind of exploits.

Agree, thats why some, including me, wonder what the fuss is all about.
[:'(]

Once again we see a PBEM only mentality at work.
The AI won't play by house rules. House rules only fix things for PBEM.

As long as the AI will bomb divisions into oblivion there exists a problem that needs to be fixed.

Does AI do that? If it does, then there's definitely problem.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: SoliInvictus202

looking at this result posted by rader, and a bombardment mission posted by someone ages ago (with artillery) - both of them got ridiculous results...

let's just agree (and yes, I know some people defend every bit of the game no matter whether it has any "common sense" involved or not) that the engine can't cope with a few possible scenarios that one can create if one exploits the engine.... - that 20,000 Japanese get killed in a artillery bombardment is equally, shall we say, "surprising" as is this bombing result.... - but B-29s never saw this mission type executed! and anyone who now quotes the Panzer-Lehr should mention the number of bombers involved in this attack and should tell me that the game engine was specifically modeled to reproduce this mission (just like the Doolittle raid eh?)

so I believe as long as you don't "overdo" the engine and its capabilities the game will provide you with somewhat realistic results....
but all rader-games are far from reality.... - so if both players agree to a "away from any sort of reality" game then they must expect odd outcomes....
-just like the bombardment mission with arty in the jungle hex - it involved 100,000 troops and some 1500 guns or so on either side...

I generally agree, but your last comment about arty in a jungle hex--arty wasn't much used in the jungle... In the OCS Burma game, Allied artillery is consolidated into brigades, for a couple of reasons--to limit their fire based on supply availability, and to remove them from direct support of the battalions and brigades. For similar reasons, Japanese artillery is essentially weak infantry.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Does AI do that? If it does, then there's definitely problem.

In two complete GCs as Allies I have not seen the AI do this. I'm not going to say it never bombs in open terrain, but the ratio of these attacks versus ones on base hexes or naval atttacks is very, very small. I bomb LCUs in non-base hexes on at least a 20:1 or better ratio versus the AI's efforts. I also strafe in open terrain once I have P-47s. I can't recall the AI doing this at all.

Nothing needs to be "fixed" to protect AI players from aerial hordes.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: LoBaron



Definitely, I think DL handling and too high air op tempo are open issues, but difficult to impossible to adress.




Agree, thats why some, including me, wonder what the fuss is all about.
[:'(]

Once again we see a PBEM only mentality at work.
The AI won't play by house rules. House rules only fix things for PBEM.

As long as the AI will bomb divisions into oblivion there exists a problem that needs to be fixed.

Does AI do that? If it does, then there's definitely problem.

Yes, it does indeed. Despite the claims of others. While I cannot claim to have played any games to completion. I have played the Ironman scenario to the beginning of 1943 8 times. The AI in Ironman routinely pummels the Chinese, completely destroying whole divisions just as illustrated above.

And in respionse to the PBEMer above who chose to poke fun at me for my inability to prevent the AI from destroying my divisions, while the Chinese have no airforce capable of standing up to the Japanese and preventing the wholesale destruction of divisions, the losses still don't prevent me from reconquering most of China from the AI. It isn't about whether or not I'm capable of besting the AI and deserve to be belittled because I can't, it's about whether, or not the AI exploits the problem in a way that cannot be controlled with house rules.

And, by the way, games against the AI aren't about winning ro losing, because it's almost impossible NOT to beat the AI, games against the AI are about enjoying the fight and the fight is more enjoyable if it is more realistic.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Yes, it does indeed. Despite the claims of others. While I cannot claim to have played any games to completion. I have played the Ironman scenario to the beginning of 1943 8 times. The AI in Ironman routinely pummels the Chinese, completely destroying whole divisions just as illustrated above.

And in respionse to the PBEMer above who chose to poke fun at me for my inability to prevent the AI from destroying my divisions, while the Chinese have no airforce capable of standing up to the Japanese and preventing the wholesale destruction of divisions, the losses still don't prevent me from reconquering most of China from the AI. It isn't about whether or not I'm capable of besting the AI and deserve to be belittled because I can't, it's about whether, or not the AI exploits the problem in a way that cannot be controlled with house rules.

And, by the way, games against the AI aren't about winning ro losing, because it's almost impossible NOT to beat the AI, games against the AI are about enjoying the fight and the fight is more enjoyable if it is more realistic.

Youre already using "ironman" and "historical" in the same sentence.
THINK before you write please.

That also applies to your other statement. I love playing WitP AE, whether PBEM or AI does not matter much,
I just don´t have time for both and have the luck of good opponents.

Noone says the game is perfect, all agree that you have to implement HRs on certain aspects to prevent
a human player from exploiting extremes, everybody is aware that you have to be careful not to game the
AI to enjoy a fun game.

But thats it, not more not less. There are extremely few bugs left, those that are are either bearable or
easy to avoid. This is because of people who love the game, and work on it without expecting money in return.

I have not a whimp of patience for whiners who try to sell the same BS over and over again
without understanding even the basic concepts. [:@]

[USSAmerica]

Keep LCU's out of open terrain when they are in range of enemy bombers!  It's a dangerous place.  Use the cover provided by other types of terrain for protection and know you are taking a big risk when you run them out into the open.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Yes, it does indeed. Despite the claims of others. While I cannot claim to have played any games to completion. I have played the Ironman scenario to the beginning of 1943 8 times. The AI in Ironman routinely pummels the Chinese, completely destroying whole divisions just as illustrated above.

And in respionse to the PBEMer above who chose to poke fun at me for my inability to prevent the AI from destroying my divisions, while the Chinese have no airforce capable of standing up to the Japanese and preventing the wholesale destruction of divisions, the losses still don't prevent me from reconquering most of China from the AI. It isn't about whether or not I'm capable of besting the AI and deserve to be belittled because I can't, it's about whether, or not the AI exploits the problem in a way that cannot be controlled with house rules.

And, by the way, games against the AI aren't about winning ro losing, because it's almost impossible NOT to beat the AI, games against the AI are about enjoying the fight and the fight is more enjoyable if it is more realistic.

Youre already using "ironman" and "historical" in the same sentence.
THINK before you write please.

That also applies to your other statement. I love playing WitP AE, whether PBEM or AI does not matter much,
I just don´t have time for both and have the luck of good opponents.

Noone says the game is perfect, all agree that you have to implement HRs on certain aspects to prevent
a human player from exploiting extremes, everybody is aware that you have to be careful not to game the
AI to enjoy a fun game.

But thats it, not more not less. There are extremely few bugs left, those that are are either bearable or
easy to avoid. This is because of people who love the game, and work on it without expecting money in return.

I have not a whimp of patience for whiners who try to sell the same BS over and over again
without understanding even the basic concepts. [:@]

My, My.....let the personal attacks begin! [:-]

Where exactly did I mention the word 'historical'?

Why is it "me" whining when all I did was add content to a thread started by another?

You really need to work on keeping that temper in check. Try counting to ten before hitting the 'post" button.

Also, try pursuing your personal agenda against me in private rather than polluting the thread.

ie...grow up!

[LoBaron]

You were using ironman as an example to point out ahistorical
AI behaviour. If you dont notice anything weird about this I cannot
help you.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

You were using ironman as an example to point out ahistorical
AI behaviour. If you dont notice anything weird about this I cannot
help you.

No, I was using Ironman to point out yet another iteration, in addition to the others listed herein, of IMPLAUSIBLE behaviour.

Obviously, ahistorical behaviour doesn't bother me a bit, or I wouldn't be playing Ironman.

Thank you, by the way, for taking a deep breath and responding without vitriol.