pre-assault Air Bombing ?

[mktours]

I have the same impression as you, I turn off the ground support completely and reserve all bombers to interdiction, which is more effective.
But I am a new player；maybe others have figure out how to use it effectively, to me it is very frustrating. Bombing before attacking is also not effective, according to my impression, and the casualty of bombers are very high due to flak fire.

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

Bombing the stack you are going to attack also causes disruption and fatigue to the defenders, which lowers their actual CV. Don't be fooled by the killed 10 men and 1 art result, well worth doing on tough hexes.

Is this actually quantifiable or just a subjective statement. Because in my experience it makes absolutely no difference to have ground support on or off. And pre-assault bombing also seems to make absolutely no difference.

In one of my games my lousy 1 CV cavalry was attacked by a 90 moral German division with 100 bombers in support and that attack was a Held. Just one of many examples.

[SigUp]

I have provided numbers that show that ground support does matter, as it can turn unwinnable battles into even affairs. So unless people provide numbers that refute mine, or point out flaws in my testing I don't see the reason why you continue to say that ground support has no effect. Once again, my conclusion is, due to the nature of the combat system, the better your odds of success are, the less ground support is going to affect the battle. I wonder, however, why you think interdiction is more effective. I have very rarely encountered cases of interdiction successfully reducing the MP of an unit and for the purpose of driving up fatigue of units moving / retreating beyond my reach the losses (and morale losses) just not worth it to me. I'd rather have bombers driving up the odds from 20% to 60%, then have them bomb somewhere in the vast expanses of Russia. That said, if your playstyle goes for the sure thing instead of also launching 50-50 battles, then ground support is indeed something you can ignore for the most cases.

[mktours]

I am just giving my own impression, which is certainly not a scientific result, [:)]
I seldom went for a 50-50 battle, mostly I only tried highly successful battles. That is why I need to strip the flank protection to get enough power to break through, and that is very risky.

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I have provided numbers that show that ground support does matter, as it can turn unwinnable battles into even affairs. So unless people provide numbers that refute mine, or point out flaws in my testing I don't see the reason why you continue to say that ground support has no effect. Once again, my conclusion is, due to the nature of the combat system, the better your odds of success are, the less ground support is going to affect the battle. I wonder, however, why you think interdiction is more effective. I have very rarely encountered cases of interdiction successfully reducing the MP of an unit and for the purpose of driving up fatigue of units moving / retreating beyond my reach the losses (and morale losses) just not worth it to me. I'd rather have bombers driving up the odds from 20% to 60%, then have them bomb somewhere in the vast expanses of Russia. That said, if your playstyle goes for the sure thing instead of also launching 50-50 battles, then ground support is indeed something you can ignore for the most cases.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: mktours
I am just giving my own impression, which is certainly not a scientific result, [:)]
I seldom went for a 50-50 battle, mostly I only tried highly successful battles. That is why I need to strip the flank protection to get enough power to break through, and that is very risky.

This is the key, if you are aiming at say 80% likelihood in the first case, ground support will make little obvious difference.

If we assume that a given allocation of airpower reduces your chances of losing by 10% (pick a value to your tastes but this makes the example simple), then:

- if the base odds are 50/50, airpower shifts it to 55/45
- if the base odds are 80/20, airpower shifts it to 82/18

In other words if you have already stacked the combat odds by the allocation of ground units you will see very little gain for the application of airpower. So GS is key, if you are operating on the margins and may make a major difference in terms of success, but is optional if you already have battlefield dominance

[mktours]

I am just giving my own impression, and what I really did in my games. I am not against you here, [:)]
I seldom went for 50-50 battles, mostly I only try battles which are very likely to succeed, that is why I always need to strip the flank protection to ensure I have enough power to break through. This tactic is very risky.

ORIGINAL: SigUp

I have provided numbers that show that ground support does matter, as it can turn unwinnable battles into even affairs. So unless people provide numbers that refute mine, or point out flaws in my testing I don't see the reason why you continue to say that ground support has no effect. Once again, my conclusion is, due to the nature of the combat system, the better your odds of success are, the less ground support is going to affect the battle. I wonder, however, why you think interdiction is more effective. I have very rarely encountered cases of interdiction successfully reducing the MP of an unit and for the purpose of driving up fatigue of units moving / retreating beyond my reach the losses (and morale losses) just not worth it to me. I'd rather have bombers driving up the odds from 20% to 60%, then have them bomb somewhere in the vast expanses of Russia. That said, if your playstyle goes for the sure thing instead of also launching 50-50 battles, then ground support is indeed something you can ignore for the most cases.

[mktours]

yes, I suppose so.
Thanks for the reply, [:)]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: mktours
I am just giving my own impression, which is certainly not a scientific result, [:)]
I seldom went for a 50-50 battle, mostly I only tried highly successful battles. That is why I need to strip the flank protection to get enough power to break through, and that is very risky.

This is the key, if you are aiming at say 80% likelihood in the first case, ground support will make little obvious difference.

If we assume that a given allocation of airpower reduces your chances of losing by 10% (pick a value to your tastes but this makes the example simple), then:

- if the base odds are 50/50, airpower shifts it to 55/45
- if the base odds are 80/20, airpower shifts it to 82/18

In other words if you have already stacked the combat odds by the allocation of ground units you will see very little gain for the application of airpower. So GS is key, if you are operating on the margins and may make a major difference in terms of success, but is optional if you already have battlefield dominance

[Bozo_the_Clown]

If we assume that a given allocation of airpower reduces your chances of losing by 10% (pick a value to your tastes but this makes the example simple), then:

- if the base odds are 50/50, airpower shifts it to 55/45
- if the base odds are 80/20, airpower shifts it to 82/18

But what's the point since you can't calculate the odds in advance. It's nothing but Russian Roulette. I agree with mktours on this point. The price is just too high. Also, many times I have noticed absolutely absurd interdiction attacks with the Axis losing dozens of bombers.