Failure of the Will - GR (allies), loki (axis)

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Saturn V

...

Another ordnance consideration is that I'm not sure how well the game recreates is certain bomb types being more effective against certain types of targets, or at least being more commonly used against certain types of targets. 100-lb GP and 20-lb fragmentation bombs, for example, were frequently used against enemy airfields, with the former potholing runways and the latter damaging aircraft in the open.

...

Specific to this, there are some fit to mission rules. The main one is that a rocket load out for GA/GS will do more damage to a moving target. But the key aspect is:

When attacking ground targets each weapon system is rated for its effect (Eff), accuracy (Acc), blast radius (Blast), anti-soft (ASoft) target efficiency, anti-armor (AArm) target efficiency, target penetration (Pen) efficiency, and High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) efficiency..

Effect is an overall measure of the impact of the weapon and a higher value indicates more explosive impact. The values are related to the amount of high explosive in the bomb or other weapon system. Accuracy reflects the chance to hit a target and the lower the value the more likely this is to happen while the blast radius indicates the area it can impact (so an inaccurate large bomb may still do substantial damage).

That is from the draft WiTE2 rules but the same conditions apply in WiTW, just less clearly stated.

How they intersect is complex but fairly logical (for the most part) in practice, if you are hitting a hard or well dug in target, you want a big bomb. So a raid on U-boats is best done with a large payload.

Others are easy to interpret, the axis WGr A2A rocket will destroy its target IF it hits as it has an accuracy of 1 compared to 30+ for most aircraft machine guns. By contrast most of the A2G rockets in the game have an accuracy of 8.

But that leaves a lot of grey areas such as airfield bombing. The key there is to cause damage which lowers the % of the airfield in use (&/or destroys planes). I tend to think 500-1000lb does best as a compromise here.

The closest I can find in the database to the others you mention are 100lb bombs, the best of these has a blast range of 22 and a soft attack of 528. I'm not sure it will do much real damage.

But the modelling of plane types and weapon systems has simplifications. I don't find the game systems reward too much specialisation and more types would probably just lead to either more micro-management or more mis-matches?

[loki100]

T23 – 4 December 1943

Forecast was wrong, heavy rain in Italy, snow over the Reich.

8 AAF attacked Bremen and Kassel. RAF at night over the Ruhr. My night fighters were more useful than usual.

Oddly a bit disappointed to lose the VP for N Italy, but it does free up some units.



Situation behind Allied lines



Weather should swap back to light rains next turn.

[bomccarthy]

ORIGINAL: Saturn V

ORIGINAL: bomccarthy

The danger is the Allied players will shift their strategic bombers to ground unit bombing only, first in Italy and then in NW Europe.

Well, in real life using the heavy bombers in tactical attacks frequently didn't turn out well, with damage sometimes being done to their own side's units. In attacks against an enemy front line unit, perhaps there ought to be a chance of 'friendly fire' hitting any adjacent friendly unit.

The main problem I foresee arises from the game mechanics - there is an older AAR where the Allied player used his heavy bombers almost exclusively for carpet bombing ground units, repeatedly blowing holes in the Axis defensive lines in France. The game mechanics enabling this are not going to change much without a wholesale and unfeasible revision of the code, so the idea is to come up with some sort of realistic workaround; i.e., admin or political points paid for "going outside the doctrine" (if that is feasible within the game mechanics).

Ideally, we would be able to have different subtypes of aircraft within the same unit (P-47D-15 with P-47D-22 and D-25); however, the game code can't accommodate it. Thus, I would hate to have even greater granularity in subtypes, creating more artificial shortages within air groups.

[EddyBear81]

I don't see the issue with carpet bombing units with heavy bombers. It has been done historically (ok, not on a large scale), and I'm not even sure this is a winning strategy compared to bombing transport targets or industrial centers (for example, bombing MAN may kill more "soldiers" than bombing the front because it limits replenishment of pools).

OK, it helps when the german players turns the front into WW1 style trench warfare : heavily fortified hexes in "clear" terrain (mostly north-east France). Had it been the case in WW2, there would perhaps have been a "doctrine change" to break the deadlock of trench warfare with large bombers raids.
And then it's up to the german player to adapt : commit more AA resources to the front (and even LW planes, yes), adopt a more mobile defense, focusing on rough/city/forest.

And let's not forget that bombing units does not mean sending a B-17 crushing the foxhole 50m ahead : I like to interpret it as bombing rear area troop concentration, C&C centers, local depots, etc. For me, this is OK-ish from a historical point of view, so I tend to accept it in game.

The one critic towards air power I have is that air losses are almost without consequence to the Allied player : AFAIK, the manpower losses do not translate into VP losses, and it's a big flaw in my opinion.

[loki100]

I'm relaxed about the unit bombing mission. its probably a bit too powerful but it is fairly essential for say a major river crossing or against a well fortified clear hex. Since most of what you do is disruption I tend to regard it as a very focussed interdiction mission, crudely C&C/logistics get knocked about, which undermines the actual front line troops.

If there is decent AA present then the bombers take a lot of damage and while they are doing that they are not knocking out production/gaining VP/messing with rail lines.

I fully agree with the wider comment that air losses are a free good for the allies but the game is balanced around that so not sure in the current framework there is much of a solution?

[loki100]

T24 – 11 December 1943

Allies moving into contact in Italy.

BC over the Ruhr and the U-boats around Bremen.

8 AAF suspiciously quiet apart from a small raid on Emden.

Resulting VP chart.



Decided to risk reminding the Allies that I still have some offensive capability. So massive air attack on a couple of exposed Canadian armoured divisions.

Cost me quite a lot but even the bombers knocked out some tanks.



More air losses in the actual attack.

Probably not really worth it.



Still at least I 'won' the turn – if we only look at losses.



Situation in Italy

[loki100]

T25 – 18 December 1943

Allies being cautious on the ground in Italy.

Bomber Command and Tactical Air start on the v-weapon sites in France. BC carries out a limited raid over the Ruhr. 8 AAF tried to knock out U-Boat and v-weapon production over the Baltic. One batch of unescorted B-17s were caught by my fighters and took heavy losses.

No real impact on the VP chart.



Weather next turn of cold over most of NW Europe, heavy rain in Italy.

Decide to take a gamble. The Allied bombers over France were unescorted so I move 50% of 2 Jagd to protect some of the sites around Amiens (0 hex wide so they have to be directly attacked) – might just catch the allies out.

Gradually starting to sort out my French deployment – I'm pessimistic about being able to do much so its really a matter of force preservation and trying to disrupt any allied timetable.

In Italy, another raid on a tempting target.



Maybe I can recapture Rome?

[GloriousRuse]

A VP Comparison: 1943

Loki is going to be possibly be unavailable for a touch due to the dreaded real world, but we did have a short e-mail chat about our relative VPs and how it got there by the end of '43. Spoiler, I use the T26 VP chart from the most recent game.

So, as '43 comes to a close I have 212 VPs compared to the 112 VPs Loki had. Self flattery aside, how did we get that 100 points?

Was it bombing? By a slim majority. 55 VP

About half of the difference in our scores comes from VP bombing. Namely, I picked up 247 points versus Loki's 192. Our U-boat points, when T27 processes, will be one point apart. Which means the other 55 VPs came from hitting VP targets and some daylight raids.

What is interesting here s that neither of us really ever blew out the bombing score. I think my high point was 15 a turn, but it settled into the 13 range by late fall as I started to shift a focus to military production. In contrast, Loki built steadily into the 13 range. Both of us had a mass U-boat repair near the end of the year that diverted missions, and both of us had to spend time prepping the V-Weapons for '44.

The difference is less the final level of destruction as it is the phasing. Loki hit AFVs and trucks very early, slowing his growth to the double digit bombing VPs. In contrast, I aimed very deliberately to get there to cover Rome if things went wrong. The difference paid off in the late summer to early fall period, where I was putting up scores 3-4 points higher a turn than our first game, which then slid into the same range as Loki's points by late '43. Even when I shifted to AFVs, the residual damage kept paying out points. Given I think his technical proficiency actually delivered more bombs for more "hit target %" results, this is a testimony to the value of getting the points in early. Particularly as the bombing scores drop much faster than the city point.

Was it losses? Partially. 27 VP

Despite a positive looking early start, the Rome landings were intensely painful. I ended with -178 loss VPs for '43 compared to Loki's -205. Both include the negative start position. Which highlights two things: one, because losses are a one time penalty, sudden shocking events are actually less dramatic than continuous operational costs. In short, it's better to lose a division all at once and then win then lose 30,000 men cracking a line slowly over 20 small attacks. Two, because losses stay absolute while rewards drop significantly, you are forgiven for a lot more errors in '43 than any other time in the game. The combination incentivizes boldness on the WAs part.

Also interesting is that our total casualties are about even; the points come from who suffered them. Loki's preference for CW assault troops in every major attack was more costly than three American divisions being rendered ineffective.

Surely then it was cities? Pretty close to bombing. 42 VP

No surprises here. Having Rome in November is a clincher when it comes to city points. What is unique is that when you compare it versus the bombing campaign. A sequencing decision on bomb targets in '43 was worth more than taking Rome 7 months early.

Now, my first reaction was to go "woah - strat air is OP." But this is short sighted. Strat air gets chopped to 1/3 it's value as of early '44. It is a one time mass packet that then depreciates quickly and requires constant air effort to maintain for ever smaller gains.

In contrast, cities are at 2/3 value as of early '44 and 1/2 their value by late '44. And once you have them, barring hideous error, you keep them for free. Rome and the follow up alone will probably be the equivalent of my entire new '44 bombing VP/turn score for a bit.

That's more than 100. Yes it is. Partisans/garrison. -24 VP

All told, Loki really knocked it out of the park with garrisons. This is an indicator of his superior mechanics, yes, but also of the fact that he has mostly preserved the heer other than the opening phases of '43. He has lost 70k less troops than I had by this point in the war, which means he is not desperately scraping the continent for anything he can find. This is also why there is a solid row of fresh armor and FJs sitting on the Arno. This has come from avoiding pockets during the withdrawal north - I've gotten a few paltry infantry regiments - and less commitment to die in place defenses.

[loki100]

T26 – 25 December 1943

No ground attacks in Italy – allies seem to be content to move up to the Arno.

On the other hand, a lot of air action.



Day raids by Bomber Command over the Ruhr. 8 AAF seemed to be after the v-weapon production around Hannover.

Last time the v-weapon raids in NE France were unescorted, this time FC seemed to be expecting some response.

Air defence of Bethune was a disaster but at Amiens caught out 2 Tactical Air on a lot of un(der) escorted missions.

Looks like cold over most of Europe next turn, light rain in Italy.

[loki100]

T27 – 1 January 1944

In Italy, Allies tried to take Rimini but the FJ division held them off.

Some bombing of v-weapon launch sites. BC doing its usual day missions, this time around Dusseldorf and Hannover. 8 AAF over the v-weapon sites on the Baltic, my fighters opted to completely ignore this as they did around Ulm-Augsburg.

Final 1943 set of VP:



Situation in Italy



Clearly I am going to have to substantively weaken that front line but its easier for me to disengage and redeploy by rail than it is for the allies to sail off. So I should get some warnings as to when I can start to pull out the better formations.

Current OOB.



Next turn is clear over the Reich, light rain in Italy. I think I am getting worse weather (from the axis perspective) than last time, can only hope it balances out at some stage.

Few comments on 1943, GR has already mentioned most of this.

By my standards this is not too bad in Italy – I've managed to lose more units for a worse position in previous games. Main thing is I still think a Corsica defense is viable but you clearly need to properly cover every port.

I really do not agree with the use of BC for day bombing. Going back to the earlier discussions, I think if an Allied player wants to do this they should pay the admin cost of sacking Harris. Its pretty cheap and there are good enough replacements but it reflects one part of the constraints.

More generally this trick effectively removes the German NF from the game (they are useless by day), everyone now knows how to use FC to dominate the Ruhr and its a massive gain in terms of bombing VP.

Most of the +50 bombing VP compared to our last game can be traced to this (and less attnetion to tanks and trucks).

Other than that, u-boat VP are much the same (53/56) as loss VP is a lot closer than I expected (205/178) which surprises me as I thought I'd been a lot more careless in this respect. Worth remembering how much of the allied losses come from simply being in contact (attrition).

Still that plus the extra bombing VP accounts for 80 of the 100 extra VP that GR has managed to gain.

Given what will happen between now and the main France landings, its inevitable this is heading at least for a minor allied victory.

I'm busy setting up in France to try something out. I have no illusions of stopping the allies or even gaining the beachhead VP so I want to see if its possible to really muck up their breakout.

[loki100]

T28 – 8 January 1944

Allies attacked Rimini again, held despite heavy losses and a lot of supporting naval gunfire.

For a change, committed the RSI Italian air units to an AS and they inflicted some losses.

Limited BC day efforts over the Ruhr, 8 AAF at Magdeburg.

Looks like this turn's snowfall will persist into next week – I tend to find this results in very poor bombing outcomes and a lot of operational damage.

Unless the situation in Italy really shifts during the winter, my guess is this pattern of VP is going to be repeated till say April when the bombing weather starts to consistently improve.



So as usual with a German AAR, really nothing to say at this stage. Since I suspect a lot of allied naval movement over the next month have set up a few things that might pay off – depends on how incautious they are.

Reasonably happy with my deployment in France. As ever I won't be once the allies have landed but that is a different issue.

[loki100]

T29 - 15 January 1944

Italian RSI formations perform as well as usual.



Limited bombing in Northern Europe, 8 AAF around Magdeburg and British hitting v-weapon launch sites.

Allied VP gain a fairly predictable +7.

Most of my moves are to prepare for the next round of departures and for the March 44 garrison demands.

Urgent enquiries are launched into how the army managed to lose 672 men in the circumstances.



Keeping an eye on these numbers – not for the value as such but more that any increase is probably a clue that allied units are leaving Italy.



Especially as my recon suggests a lot less in reserve behind the Allied front line.



And really just for information – air losses



Weather for next turn looks like the same mix of snowfall in N Europe and heavy rains over Italy.

[loki100]

T30 – 22 January 1944

Both sides stare at each other in Italy, Kesselring mulls over the recent orders to rescue the Pope.

VP score up to +11.

BC usual day stuff over the Ruhr, 8 AAF hits Magdeburg.

+40 cargo ships, not enough to indicate any real movements.



Noticed the allies are bombing the French population.



So quick to write but spent about 2 hours on redeployments and future allocations.

Weather next turn looks like cold in NW Europe, heavy rain in Italy.

[John B.]

Not how you lost 672 men, but how 3 allies superheros managed to take out 672 men and 6 guns before they were taken down!

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: John B.

Not how you lost 672 men, but how 3 allies superheros managed to take out 672 men and 6 guns before they were taken down!

indeed [;)]

was trying to gloss over that this was as bad as 8 August 1918 for the Wehrmacht (aka the 'Black Day of the German Army')

[loki100]

T31 – 29 January 1944

+9 VP, total of 246 (at least I got -3 for garrisons ... really this is the only value I can directly influence at the moment).

Only Allied bombing in NW Europe was the v-weapon sites and some recon over Normandy.



However, exciting things happened in Livorno. Which was bombed 60 times.

Pictures of the one destroyed Allied tank are being sent to Berlin for validation (especially as it may have been a Crusader III).

I'm particularly impressed by the performance of the 412 Ost infantry battalion.



All that eased by some very strange climactic conditions over the current front line.



Weather systems for next turn, looks like no Strategic bombing but Italy may well be clear – or in heavy rain?



No sign of any Allied redeployments as they lost 0 troop ships and around 40 cargo ships (so really just normal attrition).

Given the massive change to the front line in Italy – heres a situation map



One good thing of having completed most of the mobilisation is I now have a few spare admin pts. So some focus on putting more factories onto priority repair – at a time when the demands on the Allied airforces start to expand (as, of course, does the allied airforce).

[John B.]

Don't mock the mighty ost battalions! We're playing MMP's Beyond the Rhine in my FTF wargaming group (or will be when the quarantine lifts) and my ost battalions have surprised the British on a number of occasions.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: John B.

Don't mock the mighty ost battalions! We're playing MMP's Beyond the Rhine in my FTF wargaming group (or will be when the quarantine lifts) and my ost battalions have surprised the British on a number of occasions.

ahem, while the 634 remembered they are far safer fighting the British rather than the Soviets the 412 clearly decided it was time to declare global peace. To assist on their re-education they will be on a train to Gomel as soon as I can manage it [;)]

[John B.]

[:D]

[Scona]

What is your opinion about Allied landings on the eastern side of the Adriatic based on the your previous game? Is there a house rule about this being done?

It would seem that the German forces might be stretched thin in a game using fixed east front deployment, but would have more options to deal with this under a free east front deployment.

Also there simply might not be anything really worth a major Allied commitment in this most of this area.