Matrix Games Forums

The Führer has summoned Crackaces to take charge of battle tactics and secret weapons research in the new "Battle Message Level 8" programme. So from next turn 42 beender will the 8MP Axis team centre commander.

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

The Führer has summoned Crackaces to take charge of battle tactics and secret weapons research in the new "Battle Message Level 8" programme. So from next turn 42 beender will the 8MP Axis team centre commander.

Another explanation to cover the truth that the Axis ground commanders have no confidence in final victory. They ask for new assignments so that the blame for failure will not fall on their shoulders. Safer to ask for a cushy desk job in Berlin.

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

The Führer has summoned Crackaces to take charge of battle tactics and secret weapons research in the new "Battle Message Level 8" programme. So from next turn 42 beender will the 8MP Axis team centre commander.

Another explanation to cover the truth that the Axis ground commanders have no confidence in final victory. They ask for new assignments so that the blame for failure will not fall on their shoulders. Safer to ask for a cushy desk job in Berlin.

Actually, one member of your team crossed a line of civil behavior. The irony of this situation -- I have been replaced by far a much better player. I could not have asked for anything better.

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

The Führer has summoned Crackaces to take charge of battle tactics and secret weapons research in the new "Battle Message Level 8" programme. So from next turn 42 beender will the 8MP Axis team centre commander.

Another explanation to cover the truth that the Axis ground commanders have no confidence in final victory. They ask for new assignments so that the blame for failure will not fall on their shoulders. Safer to ask for a cushy desk job in Berlin.

"I told you this would happen"!

Change is coming Zorch [:D]

Myths and Misconceptions of the Axis Strategic Bombing Campaign in the German-Soviet War

Myth #1: Strategic Bombing Works

Reality: For who? How many Soviet players go into a game with the following mindset and are successful? Here is the decision made in our game before the Soviet side even started Turn 1.

3/13/2007 Hortlund
“As Commander Im responsible for all airforce- things. I will do all airforce things before I send the turn to the front-commanders. But I will of cource use the airforce to support you guys as best I can.

We will not send the airforce to the national reserve. I understand the logic behind the reasoning from a game-perspective, but I refuse to play like that. The Motherland is under attack and is fighting for its life. The idea to send all airunits to reserve airfields behind the Urals in such a situation is just gamey and completely unrealistic.”

Clearly this shows Hortlund was not uninformed or clueless about what was going on. He knew what kind of a game he wanted to play. Unfortunately, playing a “historical” game was not going to match up well with someone who is intent on using every advantage the game engine allows.

HardLuckYetAgain made this statement on Turn 5:
“The Soviets could stop this cold if they wanted too pretty easy, question is will they do it.”

Hortlund had already answered that question. The air forces were going to be subjected to a pattern of losses to airfield attacks that would only accelerate until there was a change of command at the top.

Below is information on weekly losses in the current game by category.



Included in these numbers are two other random games where the statistics were posted at specific game turns.

What I will point out here is the enormous losses the Hortlund strategy of leaving the VVS out to fight from Day 1 created. By comparison to the other games the numbers are not all that dissimilar except in one category, ground bombing of air bases. At the start of Week 10 when I picked up our game as Supreme Commander, the VVS had already lost almost 8,500 aircraft on the ground with 4,000 of these taking place after the initial turn. If you look at Stef’s numbers, and we have seen how well he has managed his game, Soviet losses by ground attack on Week 14 were a little over 6,000 compared to almost 10,500 in our multiplayer game. I will maintain that the sheer number of extra fighters that would have been available for air defense had a standard play been made to manage Soviet fighters to the reserves would have left far more planes available to participate in combating the strategic air campaign that Telemecus has been waging.

Conclusion: If you are familiar with infomercials, you would recognize the pitch: I have made great $$$ flipping used Bf-109's to the Rumanian Airforce and YOU CAN TOO! Just send in five monthly payments of $19.95. And if you act right now, I'll send you my special bonus CD "Bombing Gorky for Fun and Profit". But you must ACT NOW. Operators are standing by...

Yes, well.. players who will take the Soviet side and willingly let their air forces get bombed out of existence on general principle are not standing by and so if people think this will work for them, disappointment awaits. But by all means send the Axis Supreme Commander your hard earned cash. As P.T. Barnum once said "There's a sucker born every minute."

Myth #2

The runner who leads a marathon race declares themselves the winner after 5.8 kilometers.

Wait…what??

A marathon is a race with a distance of 42.195 kilometers. 5.8 kilometers represents 13.7% of the race distance. That percentage coincides with turn 28 of a 204 turn game. Our esteemed opponent has already determined as of turn 28 that he has already succeeded.

Keep running fella, you got a ways to go yet.

Myth #3

Light Tanks Matter

No they don't. In WiTE, Soviet light tanks are useless. I have compared light tank losses to medium tank losses in other games, and the results are not even close. Light tanks of all types suffer losses of over 90% among those produced. In return, they do basically nothing other than consume men and resources.

Go to the 1942 scenario set to H vs H and attack a German security regiment with a Soviet tank corps with battle messaging set to level 6. Here are the results in one such battle:

Soviet light tank loss
2 breakdowns
2 disrupted by field guns
1 disrupted by AT rifle fire
2 disrupted by 20mm AA fire

Soviet light tank success
none

Light tanks do not add any CV of significance and their lack of presence does not prevent a brigade or corps from attacking or defending. In first blizzard, I prefer not to use tank brigades excessively on the attack because they just burn trucks as the advance goes westward into terrain devoid of an existing Soviet rail network. In any case, those that do participate in the offensive were refitted to full strength while some brigades in the rear remain empty of light tanks they have no need for.

Also, the lowly T-26 light tank, is so numerous at the start of the war, that they can still fill the roles of the T-60 and T-70 well into 1942.

Light tanks are as useful as a fork in a bowl of soup broth. When the game makes them even remotely meaningful, you may claim some success as Axis bombing their factories. But not now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc

Post #346 updated

and again

Conclusion: If you are familiar with infomercials, you would recognize the pitch: I have made great $$$ flipping used Bf-109's to the Rumanian Airforce and YOU CAN TOO! Just send in five monthly payments of $19.95. And if you act right now, I'll send you my special bonus CD "Bombing Gorky for Fun and Profit". But you must ACT NOW. Operators are standing by...

It is in the very nature of the imperialist leaders to sell their overpriced strategies by fancy advertisements. Luckily, the Soviet analysts are there to debunk all the misinformation presented in commercials.

----------------------

There for sure is an advantage from strategic bombing, especially if it 1) Hits resources important for the Soviet conduct of war and 2) Uses resources (trucks&level bombers) which not needed somewhere else (groudn bombing/support).

The huge effect we see here is an outlier, caused by 1) the skillfull handling of the Axis air force and 2) the completely passivity of the Soviets in the Air during the first 10 turns, which made a longer inactivity necessary even after the change in high command.

To underline my point, there were full air armies at 10-15 morale around T10.

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
The huge effect we see here is an outlier, caused by 1) the skillfull handling of the Axis air force and 2) the completely passivity of the Soviets in the Air during the first 10 turns, which made a longer inactivity necessary even after the change in high command.

To underline my point, there were full air armies at 10-15 morale around T10.

Although I think that misses the key points that
i) Only 1% damage stopped a factory expanding - and lead to thousands in lost production. This will go of course in v1.11.02. But I do not think any Soviet air force every turn could stop all of those factories from getting at least 1% damage. The other games where I have seen it tried now they certainly could not whatever the condition of the air force or its rear area protection.
ii) The air defence of rear areas should be a different matter from the air war at the front. Strategic bombing is out of range of Axis fighters and so it is a question of a small number of Soviet fighter groups actually providing fighter cover. That was always available. The ahistorical action was to leave almost the whole of the Soviet Union with no fighter cover at all for almost the whole time. The Soviet Union had a big air force to provide cover for a big country. At no time did they bunch up the entire air force for exclusive use on front lines.
iii) Damage is cumulative but repair is sequential. In many AARs or comments I read people giving up after they get meagre results. Of course you will. Getting more would make it way overpowered. The point is you build up so that putting 1% ontop of 48% damage will last 16 turns (3% repair per turn) - that last 1% is actually 16%! So long as you can incur damage faster than it repairs you have a successful strategic bombing campaign. If you are not bombing airfields then you can do that just as well as soon as other places come in fighter range (Moscow, Kharkhov etc.)

Current beta withstanding for the energy needed to get to 1% I think it is very worth it for two reasons

Either you stop the expansion which has a nice cumilative effect on production over a period or you force the Soviets to divert air forces into areas where it cannot fight back at your fighters
Both are nice and all's they take is a few meagre bombers flying over a city

I don't see how that is not an effective strategy personally however like I said this all needs reassesing under the current beta

I do worry whether under the new v1.11.02 if the Soviet air force has been nerfed too much. We will have to wait and see. Personally I think the old Soviet air force was only considered overpowered if you allowed all of it to concentrate on front lines. I thought the natural re-balancing was going to be the threat of strategic bombing meant every Soviet player had to redeploy significant parts of their air force from turn 1 to defend their industry. Then the Soviet air force would no longer be overpowered without any need for a version change. The rule changes as I see it only reduces slightly the effectiveness of strategic bombing, but they do massively enhance early war Soviet production from all those factories that normally get evacuated due to the ground war. Has this re-balancing of the non-strategic bombing part actually been considered? If the Soviet air force is now nerfed AND still has to start defending its industry I fear for anyone starting a game as a Soviet air commander.

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

I do worry whether under the new v1.11.02 if the Soviet air force has been nerfed too much. We will have to wait and see. Personally I think the old Soviet air force was only considered overpowered if you allowed all of it to concentrate on front lines. I thought the natural re-balancing was going to be the threat of strategic bombing meant every Soviet player had to redeploy significant parts of their air force from turn 1 to defend their industry. Then the Soviet air force would no longer be overpowered without any need for a version change. The rule changes as I see it only reduces slightly the effectiveness of strategic bombing, but they do massively enhance early war Soviet production from all those factories that normally get evacuated due to the ground war. Has this re-balancing of the non-strategic bombing part actually been considered? If the Soviet air force is now nerfed AND still has to start defending its industry I fear for anyone starting a game as a Soviet air commander.

IMO it was not difficult for the German to contain the Soviet airforce. Just too many German players were rushing their airforce into action when it was not necessary to do so in the early turns. Thus the Soviets could concentrate, as you mentioned above, and devastate the German Airforce turn after turn with German fighters intercepting.

As for the strategic bombing campaign, I think this is a great addition to the game and will have the desired effects as you have shown throughout this AAR. Unfortunately, many players will not immediately put into practice this really nice addition to the German War effort. If they do then the additional protection of industrial centers is a must for the Soviet player thus taking away from the front line fighters that would otherwise be available to the Soviets. Personally, I think the game should have been designed with certain criteria of a garrison type of infantry & air around specific areas of the map and had to be held there until certain conditions released them from the area. But that is another story for another time.

In a nutshell, I know you are 100% correct Telemecus. The trick is getting other players to believe in the system you have put forth by either playing with it or being bombed by it. I think the "explosion" could be detrimental . Time will tell.

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
The huge effect we see here is an outlier, caused by 1) the skillfull handling of the Axis air force and 2) the completely passivity of the Soviets in the Air during the first 10 turns, which made a longer inactivity necessary even after the change in high command.

To underline my point, there were full air armies at 10-15 morale around T10.

Although I think that misses the key points that
i) Only 1% damage stopped a factory expanding - and lead to thousands in lost production. This will go of course in v1.11.02. But I do not think any Soviet air force every turn could stop all of those factories from getting at least 1% damage. The other games where I have seen it tried now they certainly could not whatever the condition of the air force or its rear area protection.
ii) The air defence of rear areas should be a different matter from the air war at the front. Strategic bombing is out of range of Axis fighters and so it is a question of a small number of Soviet fighter groups actually providing fighter cover. That was always available. The ahistorical action was to leave almost the whole of the Soviet Union with no fighter cover at all for almost the whole time. The Soviet Union had a big air force to provide cover for a big country. At no time did they bunch up the entire air force for exclusive use on front lines.
iii) Damage is cumulative but repair is sequential. In many AARs or comments I read people giving up after they get meagre results. Of course you will. Getting more would make it way overpowered. The point is you build up so that putting 1% ontop of 48% damage will last 16 turns (3% repair per turn) - that last 1% is actually 16%! So long as you can incur damage faster than it repairs you have a successful strategic bombing campaign. If you are not bombing airfields then you can do that just as well as soon as other places come in fighter range (Moscow, Kharkhov etc.)

The Soviet air force "MUST" fly. Having said that I say this, "The Soviet Player must actively manage their airforce properly". Ewald is correct in his assessment & Telemecus points out great points reinforcing. The end result was too little too late. Still a very nice learning example for others to gleen information from on this AAR on the Air interactions from both sides.

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
...../.....

Although I think that misses the key points that
i) Only 1% damage stopped a factory expanding - and lead to thousands in lost production. This will go of course in v1.11.02. But I do not think any Soviet air force every turn could stop all of those factories from getting at least 1% damage. .../....
ii) ..../.... it is a question of a small number of Soviet fighter groups actually providing fighter cover. That was always available.
iii) Damage is cumulative but repair is sequential. ..../....

@Telemecus: My only point is that the results in 8MP are considerably higher than what you can expect in a game where the Soviets reply to nanomanagement with micromanagement at min + are active in the air from the beginning. In addition bombing factories only has an effect on the Soviets if it causes a shortage or makes them alter their strategy in fear of one. That limits the number of branches where strategic bombing can have an impact.

Beside of those points, I agree with your writing and the facts presented (of which I learned quite a number from your AAR), also with your view that strategic bombing is a strong tool.

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
@Telemecus: My only point is that the results in 8MP are considerably higher than what you can expect in a game where the Soviets reply to nanomanagement with micromanagement at min + are active in the air from the beginning. In addition bombing factories only has an effect on the Soviets if it causes a shortage or makes them alter their strategy in fear of one. That limits the number of branches where strategic bombing can have an impact.

Beside of those points, I agree with your writing and the facts presented (of which I learned quite a number from your AAR), also with your view that strategic bombing is a strong tool.

I think all of those points are valid and I would not put the 8MP game as the new "norm."

The key point for me is that strategic bombing does work and has an impact - particularly if you can further aim it at key choke points more so than has been done in 8MP.

SparkleyT introduced me to the concept of a "meta" which I think covers it well. The old meta was strategic bombing is not worth the effort - and so the Soviets do not even have to defend against it. Hence they can concentrate everything at the front. What I think the new "meta" should be is that strategic bombing does work. So the Soviet air force needs to be in the rear to defend Soviet industry - and hence cannot be concentrated all at the front.

What I think the end consequence of this logic would be is that the Soviet air force is dispersed across the Soviet Union and not concentrated all at the front. So cannot be overpowered. And also as a consequence Axis strategic bombing is rare and perhaps only in a few critical choke points. This as it happens seems far closer to historical than the old "meta" was to me.

Post #346 updated

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
@Telemecus: My only point is that the results in 8MP are considerably higher than what you can expect in a game where the Soviets reply to nanomanagement with micromanagement at min + are active in the air from the beginning. In addition bombing factories only has an effect on the Soviets if it causes a shortage or makes them alter their strategy in fear of one. That limits the number of branches where strategic bombing can have an impact.

Beside of those points, I agree with your writing and the facts presented (of which I learned quite a number from your AAR), also with your view that strategic bombing is a strong tool.

I think all of those points are valid and I would not put the 8MP game as the new "norm."

The key point for me is that strategic bombing does work and has an impact - particularly if you can further aim it at key choke points more so than has been done in 8MP.

SparkleyT introduced me to the concept of a "meta" which I think covers it well. The old meta was strategic bombing is not worth the effort - and so the Soviets do not even have to defend against it. Hence they can concentrate everything at the front. What I think the new "meta" should be is that strategic bombing does work. So the Soviet air force needs to be in the rear to defend Soviet industry - and hence cannot be concentrated all at the front.

What I think the end consequence of this logic would be is that the Soviet air force is dispersed across the Soviet Union and not concentrated all at the front. So cannot be overpowered. And also as a consequence Axis strategic bombing is rare and perhaps only in a few critical choke points. This as it happens seems far closer to historical than the old "meta" was to me.

N.B. - The word 'paradigm' is sometimes used instead of 'meta'.

From a historical angle, did the Germans possess enough intelligence to conduct strategic bombing? And would the Luftwaffe have been able to execute precision bombing of identified factories, even with air superiority?

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
@Telemecus: My only point is that the results in 8MP are considerably higher than what you can expect in a game where the Soviets reply to nanomanagement with micromanagement at min + are active in the air from the beginning. In addition bombing factories only has an effect on the Soviets if it causes a shortage or makes them alter their strategy in fear of one. That limits the number of branches where strategic bombing can have an impact.

Beside of those points, I agree with your writing and the facts presented (of which I learned quite a number from your AAR), also with your view that strategic bombing is a strong tool.

I think all of those points are valid and I would not put the 8MP game as the new "norm."

The key point for me is that strategic bombing does work and has an impact - particularly if you can further aim it at key choke points more so than has been done in 8MP.

SparkleyT introduced me to the concept of a "meta" which I think covers it well. The old meta was strategic bombing is not worth the effort - and so the Soviets do not even have to defend against it. Hence they can concentrate everything at the front. What I think the new "meta" should be is that strategic bombing does work. So the Soviet air force needs to be in the rear to defend Soviet industry - and hence cannot be concentrated all at the front.

What I think the end consequence of this logic would be is that the Soviet air force is dispersed across the Soviet Union and not concentrated all at the front. So cannot be overpowered. And also as a consequence Axis strategic bombing is rare and perhaps only in a few critical choke points. This as it happens seems far closer to historical than the old "meta" was to me.

N.B. - The word 'paradigm' is sometimes used instead of 'meta'.

From a historical angle, did the Germans possess enough intelligence to conduct strategic bombing? And would the Luftwaffe have been able to execute precision bombing of identified factories, even with air superiority?

Hey easy now! "Precision bombing" is trademarked by the Americans ;-P