Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Gary Grigsby's World At War gives you the chance to really run a world war. History is yours to write and things may turn out differently. The Western Allies may be conquered by Germany, or Japan may defeat China. With you at the controls, leading the fates of nations and alliances. Take command in this dynamic turn-based game and test strategies that long-past generals and world leaders could only dream of. Now anything is possible in this new strategic offering from Matrix Games and 2 by 3 Games.

Moderators: Joel Billings, JanSorensen

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 1319
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:17 pm

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by Pocus »

ORIGINAL: Dalwin

Also, early on, it may have been possible for you to take the bombers out on the ground in England. A sizeable attack against the airfields by your tactical and heavy bombers may have been able to destroy his heavies. This of course assumes that he is not able to maintain air superiority with his fighters.

if I'm not mistaken, you will fall on the same weak spot that I encountered when dealing with subs in ports: the strat bombers will still have their full evasion value to avoid not being bombed on the ground. Same thing for subs, you still have to use ASW when they are in ports (an oversight to the design I think).
AGEOD Team
User avatar
DrewMatrix
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:49 pm

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by DrewMatrix »

Re bomber armor:

Well, Allied A/C did have armor and did have self sealing fuel tanks, but more to the point the late war allied bombers had enormous durablity (ability to be hit by bullets and still keep flying).

I am not sure what the tech levels mentioned mean in terms of which real-life A/C models but remember the US does not end the war with B-17s (which are very hard to bring down) but with B-29s.

Further, the Allies developed a way for bombers to be more deadly to fighters (flying in huge numbers in tight formation) and ways to integrate fighter defense (you say the fighters are a big part of your problem).

Get a good flight simulator (the old European Air War was pretty accurate) and try to fly a late war German fighter against a large number of Allied B-17s (let alone B-29s). I doubt you can bring one down. I doubt you will survive more than a single, head on pass through the formation either. Those things are lethal to interceptors, and a few bullets in engine won't effect it noticeably
Image
Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.
Dalwin
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:28 pm

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by Dalwin »

ORIGINAL: Pocus
ORIGINAL: Dalwin

Also, early on, it may have been possible for you to take the bombers out on the ground in England. A sizeable attack against the airfields by your tactical and heavy bombers may have been able to destroy his heavies. This of course assumes that he is not able to maintain air superiority with his fighters.

if I'm not mistaken, you will fall on the same weak spot that I encountered when dealing with subs in ports: the strat bombers will still have their full evasion value to avoid not being bombed on the ground. Same thing for subs, you still have to use ASW when they are in ports (an oversight to the design I think).

Even though the subs still use their evasion rating, I thought the advantage to a port attack was that the attackers would get to use their ground attack rating rather than their ASW rating. Perhaps I am mistaken.
pyrhic
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:27 pm

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by pyrhic »

The other thing to consider is how effective they are in game vs reality. Arguably, heavy bombing had the most pronounced effect on rail and road lines - against factories they had a more dubious record. Time and time again, munitions and weapons factories would be hit and within a short period of time they'd be rebuilt(moved or not) and functioning at or near peak levels again. Also, frequently bombers missed their targets completely. It's often noted that german industry actually increased during the heavy bombing campaigns of 44 (though not on pace with the WA). If everything was equal, you could say that the difference was attributable to the effectiveness in bombers...

However, in game, taking out a factory effectively takes out it's multiplier too, so if you're at x3, losing 3 factories would mean losing 9 production points, not 3 (is this a correct assumption? i hadnt looked into it before). If it is the case, maybe their effect is too pronounced in game - perhaps industry needs to be strengthened to make it harder to hit

User avatar
ratprince
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 1:12 am
Location: Indiana

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by ratprince »

It does take out the multiplier, yes, but they are quite easy to have back in operation. You simply use supplies to rebuild. That is MUCH better than actually "rebuilding" through the production spiral.

I think infrastructure attacks are perfect. Not TOO damaging, but nonetheless annoying and a hassle if succesful.

later

Mike
"Yeah that I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil...because I am."
Dalwin
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 4:28 pm

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by Dalwin »

ORIGINAL: pyrhic

The other thing to consider is how effective they are in game vs reality. Arguably, heavy bombing had the most pronounced effect on rail and road lines - against factories they had a more dubious record. Time and time again, munitions and weapons factories would be hit and within a short period of time they'd be rebuilt(moved or not) and functioning at or near peak levels again. Also, frequently bombers missed their targets completely. It's often noted that german industry actually increased during the heavy bombing campaigns of 44 (though not on pace with the WA). If everything was equal, you could say that the difference was attributable to the effectiveness in bombers...

However, in game, taking out a factory effectively takes out it's multiplier too, so if you're at x3, losing 3 factories would mean losing 9 production points, not 3 (is this a correct assumption? i hadnt looked into it before). If it is the case, maybe their effect is too pronounced in game - perhaps industry needs to be strengthened to make it harder to hit

I agree for the most part. There was, however, another big effect to the Allied bombing campaign. Germany diverted significant assets to counter this, both in aircraft and in AAA, that could have been used elsewhere.

Even though the hits to the transportation network probably had the greatest effect. The efforts against the petroleum industry in its various forms also had an impact.
Scott_WAR
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by Scott_WAR »

There is a problem with research, and its going to have to be fixed before too long. I am already seeing the russians research tanks exclusively and bombers as WA excluxively in a game I am playing, and as germany I can not keep up tech wise, not witout falling behind in military units and supplies. When russia enters the war I cant hit their tanks at all, and they carve through my units like butter. The WA bombers ruin both the german economy and destroys any german air within range.

YesI have been researchng too, but as I said earlier, its just not possible to keep up with the allies in tech, and its becoming painfully obvious that alone will decide the game.

The axis can choose to have equal numbers but with stats that cant compete with the allies units, or units that can compete, but that are outnumbered 2 to 1. Nice choice. Which way do I want to lose?


Thtat may be historically accurate, blah, blah, blah, but it SUCKS in a game.
Just as in sim games, realistic is not always better, being fun is more important. If the axis truly has no way to compete in the late game, I can see this game getting shelved real fast. Who is going to want to play a side, where in the last 1/3 of the game you get slaughtered?
User avatar
Espejo
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:14 am

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by Espejo »

[:-] Germany lost in the end through numbers but the Allies for the most part hadn´t a real tech advantage. The number of fighters , bombers, tanks, infantry etc the USA and Rusia produced were to overwelming. My two cents is that it seems to me that it to easy to research way above world standart. You get two much punch for the money because neither the unit costs increase and all units are fitted with the newest tech. A wargame should be about nicely executed military moves and not "only " who has the best research strategy.

En conclusion my wish list after only playing a few games:

Raise cost to research above world standart, establish a catch up system as in industry research a fast follower strategy should be viable, perhaps remove amor from bombers and perhaps increase research cost for evasion
MrQuiet
Posts: 791
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by MrQuiet »

This is just a suggestion:

But if these 'unkillable' super weapons are wrecking the game you could impose a rule that evasion maxes out at one over world standard. No max on any other attributes.

This way 'offensive' super weapons can still be developed but they are not 'unkillable'

Just a suggestion

-MrQuiet
User avatar
Warfare1
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:56 pm

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by Warfare1 »

Here is a basic over view of the Allied bombing offensive in Europe.

Note that Allied bombers suffered high attrition rates until the introduction of escorts. Even then, bomber crews suffered a 10% rate of losses.


Allied Strategic Bombing Campaign over Europe


Without Fighter Escorts:

On August 17, 1943, the Eighth Air Force launched its deepest raid against the ball bearing factories at Schweinfurt and aircraft production factories at Regensburg. The bombs destroyed some of the factory complexes, but the Luftwaffe destroyed or damaged much of the bomber force. The raids cost the Eighth Air Force 60 out of 315 bombers and usually the 10 crewmen in each bomber. After more raids against Luftwaffe airfields, the Eighth Air Force made another massive effort the next month. On September 6, Eaker sent 262 bombers against Stuttgart. Of those, 45 fell to fighters and flak. Although the Americans had proved that, weather permitting, they could put some of their bombs on target, their losses in unescorted raids suggested that the Eighth Air Force might not find planes and crews to replace its losses and maintain efficiency and morale.

On October 14, 1943, the air war over Europe reached a critical turning point. On that Thursday, the United States Eighth Air Force mounted Mission No. 115 against the city of Schweinfurt, the center of the German ball bearing industry.

Out of 291 bombers dispatched, 257 actually entered German airspace. Sixty were shot down, just over 20 percent of the total number. Two hundred twenty-nine B-17s reached Schweinfurt and dropped their bombs. Only 197 returned to England. Of those, five planes were abandoned or crashed on landing, while 17 others landed so damaged that they had to be written off. Altogether, 82 of the 291 original bombers that left England were lost, more than 28 percent of the entire force assigned to the raid.

Moreover, the Schweinfurt raid was the climax of a week of strikes against German industrial targets. Between October 8 and 14, 1943, the Eighth Air Force flew 1,342 heavy bomber sorties, losing a total of 152 bombers (11.3 percent), with another 6 percent receiving heavy damage. During the entire month of October, the Eighth lost a total of 214 heavy bombers, almost 10 percent of the total number dispatched. Lost and damaged planes constituted more than half the sorties flown during the month. At that rate of attrition, an entirely new bomber force would be required every three months in order to maintain the Allied bomber offensive.

Throughout the summer and fall, Eighth Air Force bomber crews were experiencing a monthly attrition rate of 30 percent, while Luftwaffe pilots died at a rate less than half that of the Americans. Of the 35 aircrews that arrived in England with the 100th Bomb Group at the end of May 1943, only 14 percent of the men made it through the 25 missions required for rotation. The rest were dead, wounded, missing, psychological cases or prisoners of war. The message was clear: Bombers could not survive beyond the range of fighter escort. After Black Week, Eaker called off further penetrations and pondered his dilemma. The American daylight bombing campaign against Germany had reached a crisis point.


Allied Fighter Escorts Established:

By early 1944, the newly formed U.S. Strategic Air Forces was hastening the destruction of the Luftwaffe in the air and on the ground, as well as carrying out the selective destruction of German industrial power. Spaatz abandoned his predecessor's belief that the heavy bombers would always get through and championed the use of fighter escorts for bombers attacking deep into German territory.

The U.S. Strategic Air Forces, coordinating Eighth and Fifteenth air forces' raids, resulted in a new peak in the American bombing effort. Testing all its reforms in early February 1944, the Eighth Air Force mounted a third Schweinfurt raid and lost only 11 out of 231 bombers, while three other raids sent 600 bombers against Germany with minimal losses. The USAAF mounted some 3,800 daylight sorties over the Reich during the so-called Big Week of February 22-25, while more than 2,300 night sorties were flown by RAF Bomber Command. Although Big Week cost the Eighth 300 planes (mostly bombers) lost or written off, nearly 10,000 tons of bombs were dropped on the German aircraft industry and ball bearing plants, a greater tonnage than the Eighth had dropped on all targets in 1943. As many as 1,000 complete or nearly complete German aircraft had been destroyed.

With fighters that could fly beyond the Rhine, protect bomber formations and sweep ahead to engage the Luftwaffe interceptors, the Eighth Air Force formations reversed the loss ratio with the German fighter force. American bomber losses fell below 10 percent of each raiding force, while German pilot losses mounted. In February 1944 alone, the Luftwaffe lost 33 percent of its single-engine fighters and 20 percent of its fighter pilots, including several fliers who were credited with more than 100 victories. In the first four months of 1944 it had lost 1,684 fighter pilots. Their replacements would be unskilled youths thrust into combat against experienced American pilots.

By the time Operation Pointblank ended, it had achieved its primary objective, securing air superiority over the cities, factories and battlefields of Western Europe in preparation for Overlord. Operation Pointblank had succeeded, but not in the way Allied planners had initially intended or expected. Round-the-clock bombing had not smashed the Luftwaffe into oblivion, nor had it destroyed German aircraft production. Instead, by simultaneously striking at aircraft factories and bombing industrial and military targets deep inside Germany, the combined bomber offensive forced the Luftwaffe to send its fighters to meet the ever-increasing flow of bombers over the Reich. Once in the air, they were assailed by Allied fighter escorts. In this war of attrition, the Luftwaffe lost its greatest asset--its experienced pilots. Without skilled pilots to meet the Allied threat, the rise in German aircraft production meant nothing.


http://historynet.com/wwii/bloperation_ ... index.html
Drinking a cool brew; thinking about playing my next wargame....
User avatar
DrewMatrix
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:49 pm

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by DrewMatrix »

Nice summary. I read an even bleaker assesment. The book is at home but it is one of the official US Post War Airforce analyses. What the bombing effort did was force the Luftwaffe to fly. Just that was apparently enough. by flying they consumed fuel (POL) that was in desperately short supply.

Fly and no fuel for tanks on the East Front. Don't fly and the allied bombers _will_ blow up every factory, rail road engine and bridge in Europe.

So the US losses were OK, because they forced the Germans to burn gasoline.

While reading that I thought "How many gallons of German Gasoline would I be willing to burn up at the cost of my own life as an aircrewman?" And I was really glad I wasn't in a bomber crew in WWII.
Image
Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.
User avatar
Warfare1
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:56 pm

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by Warfare1 »

So if some one was to tweak the game based on the information above, then we might have the following numbers:

1) With all other things being equal, for every 10 UNESCORTED bombers there should a loss of 30%-40% (or 3-4 bombers lost) on each bombing mission.

2) With all other things being equal, for every 10 ESCORTED bombers there should be a loss of approximately 10% (or 1 bomber lost) on each bombing mission.
Drinking a cool brew; thinking about playing my next wargame....
User avatar
Warfare1
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:56 pm

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by Warfare1 »

ORIGINAL: Beezle

Nice summary. I read an even bleaker assesment. The book is at home but it is one of the official US Post War Airforce analyses. What the bombing effort did was force the Luftwaffe to fly. Just that was apparently enough. by flying they consumed fuel (POL) that was in desperately short supply.

Fly and no fuel for tanks on the East Front. Don't fly and the allied bombers _will_ blow up every factory, rail road engine and bridge in Europe.

So the US losses were OK, because they forced the Germans to burn gasoline.

While reading that I thought "How many gallons of German Gasoline would I be willing to burn up at the cost of my own life as an aircrewman?" And I was really glad I wasn't in a bomber crew in WWII.

I agree.

I have read that the staggering losses of Allied bomber crews in WW2 was any where between 50,000 to 100,000 men.
Drinking a cool brew; thinking about playing my next wargame....
User avatar
sveint
Posts: 3837
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Glorious Europe

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by sveint »

Oh no they have heavy bombers? One more year and they will have atomic bombs, bet you think that's unfair!!

Seriously, research more anti-air next game then, instead of those super tanks or super submarines and...

Research is fine as it is.
User avatar
aletoledo
Posts: 827
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 6:51 pm
Contact:

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by aletoledo »

I think it may be too late to dig yourself out of the hole you are in in this particular game.

There are two things that I think needed to be done to avoid this problem.

I believe that you must keep the initiative in the Battle of the Atlantic. If the WA is forced to rebuild many tranports and to commit major resources to countering the efforts of your subs, fleets, and air units against their shipping, they will be less able to launch this killer air assault.

Also, early on, it may have been possible for you to take the bombers out on the ground in England. A sizeable attack against the airfields by your tactical and heavy bombers may have been able to destroy his heavies. This of course assumes that he is not able to maintain air superiority with his fighters.

On the subject of research in general, I think increasing the cost for going above the world standard would make things worse for the Axis rather than better. If going above the standard were too expensive, only the WA player would be able to afford to do so.

From your current situation, I think it best to stop using fighters to defend W. Germany. Send them all to the Russian front or put them on coastal areas where they can harrass Allied shipping. Focus all your AA in Germany. If he continues to attack your infrastructure, your AA should apply some attrition without you having huge air losses of your own to replace. If he diverts to bombing the AA, your factories get a breather.
I believe he said despite the heavy tech disadvantage, he still won the game. so he might be losing some tech battles, but he won the war.

I agree with you that raising the cost isn't going to help the axis, only hurt them. I think uncle joe is the perfect example of a good semihistorical ending. he was clearly losing the war due to tech and numbers of soldiers, but he won the game because he did better than historical. after all they did design this game with a bias against the axis.

I also agree with your comment that fighters seem like a waste against bombers. all it takes is an airfield attack and those fighters will be toast on the ground. I agree that they'd serve better against the russians who would clearly lose any air tech race against the germans.

The only problem I truely see with the strat bombers right now is that they can do antisub and antiship operations. perhaps it represents a different kind of heavy bomber going after these targets, but personally there is no reason for me as any country to buy tac bombers. everything a tac bomber does, a heavy bomber does better.
User avatar
Espejo
Posts: 128
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:14 am

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by Espejo »

ORIGINAL: sveint

Oh no they have heavy bombers? One more year and they will have atomic bombs, bet you think that's unfair!!

Seriously, research more anti-air next game then, instead of those super tanks or super submarines and...

Research is fine as it is.

Sorry, when most of the fact go the way to develop "Superweapons" you should rethink/balance the research system a little bit. IMHO at least.
User avatar
Grotius
Posts: 5842
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 5:34 pm
Location: The Imperial Palace.

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by Grotius »

Warfare, I wish you'd repost your stats over at the WITP forum. :) In that game, which I generally think is terrific, heavy bombers don't suffer nearly as many losses as you describe. Heck, in night-bombing raids, I lose 2 or 3 Zeroes to every B-17 I damage.

Back on-topic: did bomber-crew losses stay that high, or did they decline over time? They weren't as high in the Pacific theater, were they?
Image
User avatar
Uncle_Joe
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by Uncle_Joe »

Bomber losses in the Pacific were considerably lower. I believe they ended up losing almost as many planes due to snafu'ed landings and take-offs on smaller fields than to enemy action towards the end. Once they switch to night bombing and incendiaries rather than HE, it was pretty much over for Japan. The A-bombs were icing on the cake and more of a wakeup call than actually more effective. I believe more Japanese were killed in the fire-bombing of Tokyo than in the A-bomb on Hiroshima.

But back to the game, I think research SHOULD be important. But it shouldnt be AS important as it seems now. In some way, shape, or form, there should be a chance of hitting any unit. I dont like the feelings of immunity that higher level units can get and it really discourages using combined arms late in the war (when it should be MORE important). I find I dont even bother with Tac Air towards the war's end because the defenses on Tanks (and even Infantry) has outpaced their Land Attack. You cant research everything up, so it behooves you to pick a few units to upgrade and then more or less ignore the rest. What good are Guns or Planes that cant hit the enemy? Not much...Sure, they can reduce the evasion by 1 for the next shot, but in large battles, I'd much rather just have more of my 'good' unit.

I'm going to watch this more closely in my next human vs human games. But I just dont see what else the WAllies are going to be doing with their productions? Even if you slaughter their units whole-sale, they can still only replace so much due to population so the rest of their huge production advantage will go to tech. I just dont think that feels correct when the WAllies are winning with super tanks and planes rather than with overwhelming numbers.

Perhaps that game was an aberration. I'm hoping so. But given the math of the combat system, it seems pretty evident that the best way to maximize your advantage is to specialize rather than diversify.
Scott_WAR
Posts: 1020
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by Scott_WAR »

It wasnt. I just surrendered in another game as axis. Germany and Japan both researched as much as they possibly could, more actually. By 1943 and the entrance of russia and USA into the game, russian tanks were 2 levels above german tanks, WA bombers were so researched that when I attacked 1 heavy bomber, and 1 tac bomber, with an aa gun present in an airfield raid, with 5 fighters, 3 tac bombers and 3 heavy bombers, I damaged the tac bomber and lost a fighter, 2 heavy bombers , and a tac bomber.

I am finished with the game until something is done to balance it. It is no fun to play a game, knowing before you start that there is no way you can win as axis, if the allies research heavy.


Attacking early and letting russia or the US into the war is not a solution either. The axis are not ready production wise, and will just find themselves in an deeper hole even sooner.
User avatar
Uncle_Joe
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: Ok, so how DO you stop Heavy Bombers?

Post by Uncle_Joe »

Well, FWIW, I'm convinced that the Axis cant allow the US AND Russia to sit it out until 1943. They have nothing else to do with their points BUT research at that point. And there is obviously strong incentive for them to do so...

No, I think their may be a problem with research, but you cant contribute to the problem by letting the Allies have unlimited time. Even at the start of the game, the Axis is at a severe production handicap. They MUST go to war to take resources to power the factories AND to deny those same resources to the Allies. They also have to force the Allies to be constantly rebuilding units. Of course you are losing units too, but in the early game, the Axis tends to have larger (and better) forces available to them. The longer you wait, the more you let the Allied production narrow the gap and then exceed the Axis. You are dead at that point unless you have taken out England and most of Africa and into the Mid-east.

Japan is utterly screwed by delaying attacks on the WAllies unless they are participating in a 'double team' vs Russia. Without attacking either, Japan is floundering along at about 11-12 econ.

I'm convinced that they only way to cut down on the research advantage the WAlllies have is to strike early and hard (as they really had to do). Threatening Britain with extinction will make the WAllied player have to play for defense. Pushing into Africa and into the Middle East towards the Russian oil fields can threaten auto-victory and force the Allies to come out and play before heavy research can completely pay off.

I've just started a new game with the same opponent (again, I am the Axis). I am going to try and force him to defend Britain more aggressively than in the last game where I ignored Britain to prep for Barbarossa. I dont really intend to invade Britain unless he leave it open, but by posturing the threat, I might force some different expenses. I also intend to hit the US in the Spring of 41 with Japan rather than waiting a turn. It will cut into my supply build-up, but I'd rather have the resources on the islands wrecked and awaiting repair rather than pumping into the WAllied econ.

I'm not convinced that the research is overstated, but I have my suspicions as to the 'tricks' to the game. But I'm reasonably sure that a 'wait and see' strategy as the Axis is doomed to fail regardless of research.

One other thing to do might be to play with FoW off to better be able to monitor opposing research and thus, not be 'surprised' by the sudden appearance of unkillable units.

Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's World at War”