There are several problems. One is the narrows between Italy and Albania have quite high default interdiction (#2 or #3) so you either take the losses or allocate my airpower just to address that problem. There is another similar problem area up around Venice.
The other is you can get out of range of your own fighters.
Here it depends a bit on phasing and where you land - and what you want to do.
In a MP game, you can't go Sicily-Adriatic but then most allied players will put in a repurposed landing to Calabria. Even so, if you are low down in Calabria you can't get Spitfires etc over landings near Bari.
In our games I did a fairly conventional Adriatic landing around Bari. I was basically hoping that GR would give me a tank battle in the open terrain of S Italy rather than preserve his Pzrs for the mountains. In this game he did a pragmatic (well chosen) landing next to Tarentum.
I think this links into the reality that the Italy game runs in phases. Post Sicily, the Germans will seal off Calabria, you do a landing to shake them loose, they then retreat to a line from Naples along the Bifano. You then land near Rome to shake them out of this.
There is a trade off, go further north and the shake out can be more dramatic, go too far north and you can get into trouble with lack of aircover. In this game, I think GR got a bit greedy at Rome and went too far north - but its a fine judgement.
This can go wrong for the German player if you are not aware of the risks. Certainly with the EF off, and the hard wired withdrawals, you simply can't fight two major operations at the same time. Try that and you can lose a lot to encirclements. The Allied player can have some problems if they badly plan their landings (here is where the Bari etc landing can go wrong) not so much in the risk of failure as taking heavy losses due to contested sea zones. The other allied mistake is being too cautious (you can see this in Xhoel's excellent AAR and I did it in a long buried very early AAR - there are other examples).
You basically need two pressure points and the threat (even if never used) of something else.
The other useful Adriatic naval mission is an end-run with a brigade. Quick to generate and repurpose and can catch out an unwary German player - or make a wary one even more cautious.
More generally, in itself the Adriatic is not VP rich and I think in the early analysis of the game was rather under-appreciated. Its actually quite rewarding even if you basically just use ground forces. There are choke points but to use them means the Germans have to commit some good troops. The Allies can have decent infantry on both coasts and switch their armour with some ease. The reward is a constant threat of turning west to meet up with a Med landing giving a pocket.
I certainly wouldn't create a rule about landings in the Adriatic. All the options have trade-offs and it seems fair that it is in play. The only place I would never even think of targetting a landing is Anzio - hard to think of a worse placed option if you tried (Salerno is not too bad if all you want to do is to break out into S Italy).
Failure of the Will - GR (allies), loki (axis)
Moderator: MOD_WarintheWest
-
GloriousRuse
- Posts: 923
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:51 am
RE: T31 - excitement in Livorno
Airpower is really the defining need of MP landings in my opinion. A competent German player can place more and more pain on Allied landings the further North and East they go, while allied airbases are thin on the ground near the north Adriatic. By the time you’re where we are now, the Germans literally have 270 degrees of bases surrounding the north Adriatic, all with short ranges. In contrast, the WA have to split limited basing in north Italy - especially on the east coast - between:
1. Fighters to kill German bombers so he doesn’t just sit there sinking everything.
2. Patrol aircraft to open the sea lanes and some fighters to make sure they don’t die.
3. Ground attack aircraft to enable the breakthrough and cover the landings.
You can get around some of it by repurposing the 15th Air Force, but the reality is that it would be a more even air battle than you probably want at the same time you’re withdrawing TFs to England for the big show. It’s certainly tempting and possible, but the potential for losses is high.
Finally, unless you wait until early-mid ‘44, you won’t have much of an exploitation echelon. By now you’re staring at pretty even odds along a lot of the front, and designated breakout sectors are going to need a good chunk to actually ever link up. Plus, it’s about five weeks to get a unit to England, and another three to refit it to invasion readiness. Landings are month+ operations, so anything committed isn’t making it to D-Day.
1. Fighters to kill German bombers so he doesn’t just sit there sinking everything.
2. Patrol aircraft to open the sea lanes and some fighters to make sure they don’t die.
3. Ground attack aircraft to enable the breakthrough and cover the landings.
You can get around some of it by repurposing the 15th Air Force, but the reality is that it would be a more even air battle than you probably want at the same time you’re withdrawing TFs to England for the big show. It’s certainly tempting and possible, but the potential for losses is high.
Finally, unless you wait until early-mid ‘44, you won’t have much of an exploitation echelon. By now you’re staring at pretty even odds along a lot of the front, and designated breakout sectors are going to need a good chunk to actually ever link up. Plus, it’s about five weeks to get a unit to England, and another three to refit it to invasion readiness. Landings are month+ operations, so anything committed isn’t making it to D-Day.
T32 - leaning on Pisa
T32 – 5 February 1944
So more drama in Italy – as Pisa leans under pressure but doesn't actually crumble.
Fortunately for GR his corps commander had more sense than the supreme commander ... if either of those had actually advanced to close combat I'd be gleefully counting the resulting VP.[1]
Over NW Europe, weather was better than expected (or worse – depends on your point of view). 8 AAF attacked around Hannover, BC by day over the Ruhr and against launch pads in France.
VP situation, my last re-organisation pays off a little in terms of Partisan VP.
Trying things out (aka being bored being on the defensive), so put together an odd GA mission, very low altitude which should avoid both allied fighters and most flak apart from over the target. The target is a French division in clear terrain.
Or, in other words, a waste of time.
Looks like heavy rain over NW Europe next turn but clear in Italy.
Allied troop ship losses still 85, Cargo up to 1100.
[1] We had an email discussion over why this stopped so quickly. My guess is that the cv was 1-2 and that after both his pre-attack airstrikes and the in-attack GS and longer ranged artillery. So the next phase is going to a fairly straight exchange of fire with the advantage very much on my side (terrain + forts), even if the Allies win (& that would need a massive swap over of non-disrupted combat elements) they are going to pay a high price.
In WiTE2, with a typical Soviet commander (in this if I recall its the initiative value that matters), that attack would have gone in and generated a lot of losses.
So more drama in Italy – as Pisa leans under pressure but doesn't actually crumble.
Fortunately for GR his corps commander had more sense than the supreme commander ... if either of those had actually advanced to close combat I'd be gleefully counting the resulting VP.[1]
Over NW Europe, weather was better than expected (or worse – depends on your point of view). 8 AAF attacked around Hannover, BC by day over the Ruhr and against launch pads in France.
VP situation, my last re-organisation pays off a little in terms of Partisan VP.
Trying things out (aka being bored being on the defensive), so put together an odd GA mission, very low altitude which should avoid both allied fighters and most flak apart from over the target. The target is a French division in clear terrain.
Or, in other words, a waste of time.
Looks like heavy rain over NW Europe next turn but clear in Italy.
Allied troop ship losses still 85, Cargo up to 1100.
[1] We had an email discussion over why this stopped so quickly. My guess is that the cv was 1-2 and that after both his pre-attack airstrikes and the in-attack GS and longer ranged artillery. So the next phase is going to a fairly straight exchange of fire with the advantage very much on my side (terrain + forts), even if the Allies win (& that would need a massive swap over of non-disrupted combat elements) they are going to pay a high price.
In WiTE2, with a typical Soviet commander (in this if I recall its the initiative value that matters), that attack would have gone in and generated a lot of losses.
T33 - Pisa shudders but holds
T33 – 12 February 1944
Another go at Pisa, I'd swapped the defenders around a bit.
Overall in Italy, I'm still working on the principle that I can redeploy to France quicker than the allies can.
Heavy rain over NW Europe so no strategic bombing.
This, plus recent moves and allocating more admin to repairs is bringing the loss of VP under some control. But I can't see this ending anywhere but an allied minor victory with the chance of a major win if things go wrong.
Post-recon, hard to draw too many conclusions about what the allies are up to. Piombino not being a major port its not really a good disembarkation option.
Cargo ship losses up 26 to 1126 (and one lost troop ship so they have now lost 86) so that doesn't help much either in terms of interpreting what is going on.
Most of their turn losses can be traced to the Pisa battle, the rest may indicate some losses at sea.
Looks like cold/snowfall next week.
Another go at Pisa, I'd swapped the defenders around a bit.
Overall in Italy, I'm still working on the principle that I can redeploy to France quicker than the allies can.
Heavy rain over NW Europe so no strategic bombing.
This, plus recent moves and allocating more admin to repairs is bringing the loss of VP under some control. But I can't see this ending anywhere but an allied minor victory with the chance of a major win if things go wrong.
Post-recon, hard to draw too many conclusions about what the allies are up to. Piombino not being a major port its not really a good disembarkation option.
Cargo ship losses up 26 to 1126 (and one lost troop ship so they have now lost 86) so that doesn't help much either in terms of interpreting what is going on.
Most of their turn losses can be traced to the Pisa battle, the rest may indicate some losses at sea.
Looks like cold/snowfall next week.
T34 - Pity about the rest of the line
T34 – 19 February 1944
Oh well, at least its not Pisa
In the air 8 AAF around Hannover and the v-weapons at Nordhausen, usual BC daylight raids over the Ruhr (I've not changed my view about doing this), elements of BC and 8AAF seem to be very interested in my transport network.
Maybe we see a March invasion?
VP score unremarkable, given the extent that the partisan score can vary even with the same garrison levels.
Lot of US units around Bristol.
Italy, small adjustment after the Allied gains.
Seems there are some naval moves as troop ship losses up 4 to 90 and cargo up 27 to 1153. I assume the cargo losses are a sort of baseline attrition for moving supply around.
Ground losses
Oh well, at least its not Pisa
In the air 8 AAF around Hannover and the v-weapons at Nordhausen, usual BC daylight raids over the Ruhr (I've not changed my view about doing this), elements of BC and 8AAF seem to be very interested in my transport network.
Maybe we see a March invasion?
VP score unremarkable, given the extent that the partisan score can vary even with the same garrison levels.
Lot of US units around Bristol.
Italy, small adjustment after the Allied gains.
Seems there are some naval moves as troop ship losses up 4 to 90 and cargo up 27 to 1153. I assume the cargo losses are a sort of baseline attrition for moving supply around.
Ground losses
T35 - Spying on Bristol
T35 – 26 February 1944
Situation in Italy goes from bad to worse.
8 AAF attacked Magdeburg, what seems to have been an AS over the Baltic and the usual unrealistic BC day raid over the Ruhr [1].
Other than that, a lot of port bombing in the Pas de Calais.
As usual, I seem to have misjudged generating a defensive AS over N Italy, as my fighters ran into unexpected allied air cover.
Nothing much to say about the VP chart at +6.
So decided on a gamble in Italy. Repeated the low level GA mission from a few turns back and chucked all the armour at the base of the Allied salient.
This paid off with losses and a surprising rout.
Doubt it will hold, whether the Allies can turn this against me badly will depend on how much fresh formations they have left. They will break through – have little doubt about that.
Rather enjoying running pointless recon missions over the UK.
Well that should help with the VP score, also allies lost 4 troop ships and 30 cargo ships.
At least most of my air losses were RSI formations.
Unfortunately it looks like clear skies over most of Europe next turn – this would have been a good time for some heavy rain in Italy.
[1] You can assume my view on this hasn't changed, till I start to see Mustangs running close escort.
Situation in Italy goes from bad to worse.
8 AAF attacked Magdeburg, what seems to have been an AS over the Baltic and the usual unrealistic BC day raid over the Ruhr [1].
Other than that, a lot of port bombing in the Pas de Calais.
As usual, I seem to have misjudged generating a defensive AS over N Italy, as my fighters ran into unexpected allied air cover.
Nothing much to say about the VP chart at +6.
So decided on a gamble in Italy. Repeated the low level GA mission from a few turns back and chucked all the armour at the base of the Allied salient.
This paid off with losses and a surprising rout.
Doubt it will hold, whether the Allies can turn this against me badly will depend on how much fresh formations they have left. They will break through – have little doubt about that.
Rather enjoying running pointless recon missions over the UK.
Well that should help with the VP score, also allies lost 4 troop ships and 30 cargo ships.
At least most of my air losses were RSI formations.
Unfortunately it looks like clear skies over most of Europe next turn – this would have been a good time for some heavy rain in Italy.
[1] You can assume my view on this hasn't changed, till I start to see Mustangs running close escort.
-
EddyBear81
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:07 pm
- Location: Lille, France
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol
I guess my question about BC daylight raids will be rather naive : why don't you send a big bad defensive AS directive above the Ruhr if they are unescorted ? That should teach them.
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol
because all an Allied player has to do is to sit FC in an AS over the Ruhr, which is feasible as it has no other task. Any resulting A2A will at very best exchange planes and that is a short route to the early destruction of the Luftwaffe.
Add on the extra bombing accuracy = more VP.
The problem is that BC only did the most specialist of day light raids up to the Summer of 1944. At that stage they did more as they could piggy back behind 8 AAF's interdiction. They could also have made better use of their own Mustangs as opposed to using them in GS in Italy for some reason.
Even then, their day light operations were less effective than 8 AAF as they stuck to their bomber stream tactic as opposed to 8 AAF's box tactic. This was almost inevitable as they had spent 4 years training around that design of a mission.
The other missing bit is the British were afraid of German bombing so only slowly released FC for offensive missions, again post D-Day is the key step here as after that only minimal formations were kept back to deal with the v-weapons and the few final German raids (the last was in April 45).
There are a few other bits. In the game the British NF are actually quite decent day fighters but the German NF are sitting ducks, so in effect doing this removes all the German NF and preserves the value of the Allied NF (the US Black Widows make very good long range day escorts).
So its ahistoric, has no downsides and there is no response. So I really don't like it. There are plenty of other totally valid ahistoric options in the game, 4E bombers doing regular GA for eg, that I have no objections to. There is a clear trade off of asset allocation, there is a cost and, given the usual German limitations, there are even responses.
Add on the extra bombing accuracy = more VP.
The problem is that BC only did the most specialist of day light raids up to the Summer of 1944. At that stage they did more as they could piggy back behind 8 AAF's interdiction. They could also have made better use of their own Mustangs as opposed to using them in GS in Italy for some reason.
Even then, their day light operations were less effective than 8 AAF as they stuck to their bomber stream tactic as opposed to 8 AAF's box tactic. This was almost inevitable as they had spent 4 years training around that design of a mission.
The other missing bit is the British were afraid of German bombing so only slowly released FC for offensive missions, again post D-Day is the key step here as after that only minimal formations were kept back to deal with the v-weapons and the few final German raids (the last was in April 45).
There are a few other bits. In the game the British NF are actually quite decent day fighters but the German NF are sitting ducks, so in effect doing this removes all the German NF and preserves the value of the Allied NF (the US Black Widows make very good long range day escorts).
So its ahistoric, has no downsides and there is no response. So I really don't like it. There are plenty of other totally valid ahistoric options in the game, 4E bombers doing regular GA for eg, that I have no objections to. There is a clear trade off of asset allocation, there is a cost and, given the usual German limitations, there are even responses.
-
bomccarthy
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:32 pm
- Location: L.A.
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol
I have only played as WA against the AI, so I don't know how effective it would be for the Luftwaffe to run nuisance bombing raids on England - either very high level raids (at 30k+ ft or very low level raids at 1k ft). It might cause a human WA player to retain some FC units for defense-only.
One problem with the game post-D-Day is that V-1 raids are not represented. These caused FC to keep its fastest fighters in England for months after the invasion.
One problem with the game post-D-Day is that V-1 raids are not represented. These caused FC to keep its fastest fighters in England for months after the invasion.
-
GloriousRuse
- Posts: 923
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:51 am
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol
Since the daylight bombing discussion is developing, I figured I would take a look at the decision cycle that got there, as it is one of those ones that treads the line between ahistoric/freedom and historical/enforced method.
Step 0: There is no need to defend England. Now part of this is 20/20 hindsight, and that part is forgivable. After all, with 20/20 hindsight on "the flow of the game" many less historical decisions can be made in any game. The other part is that there is no mechanical incentive.
Step 0A: If there was a need to defend England - say reverse bombing points of a sort- it would certainly require the German bomber force actually attack England in '43. Which would take away those same bombers from being the dreaded fleet killer of the Italian shores - an ahistorical use of that asset; yes, there were items like the air raid on Bari, but never utter devastation as the entire fury of the western KGs arrived as a hammer. How many players would choose to fly into the maw of FC for a few VPs as opposed to preserve their best landing defense tool? We don't know, because there isn't the option.
But if they did go for the historic answer, it would pull bombers and fighters forward into the Ruhr, France, etc. Which would trigger battles far forward of where most German players want them. So - the question becomes "at what point do we force history?" After all, we could lock BC into night for '43 and prevent FC from being aggressive by simply taking away most of the German bomber fleet and preventing redeployment of fighters east and calling it a historical trade. In essence, the decision to make this unavailable as an option drives the rest of the decision cycle.
Step 1: The allies want to kill the LW, and not needing to defend England by the pre-made decision, send very aggressive fighters out. Also an ahistoric decision, but one we're ok with.
Step 2: The Germans want to save the LW. So they pull back to east Germany. Also ahistorical for the political leadership.
Now this is worth looking at, because this is conventional wisdom and not a given. You could make a very reasonable argument that one of the German player's biggest strategic decisions is "when, where, and how do I spend the LW?" A look at VP analysis says that the '43 air war is often the biggest single chunk of VPs the WA get all game. Massively so. While the price of defending West Germany and the Ruhr is indeed going to be the LW getting battered, you might conclude that the LW exists to be sacrificed on an altar sometime and there are whole lot of VPs riding up front - is it better to have extra fighters shooting down planes in '44, or slow/damage the VP deadliest portion of the allied air war? I'm not convinced this is a given. You would have to adjust tactics - massed air ambushes on planned turns, not just eave the Ruhr on auto and see what happens - but it might be viable.
Step 3: The allies, seeing their are no day fighters, jump to daylight raids for increased damage and to avoid night fighters.
Step 4: The germans are re-presented with the issue of step 2. Admitteedly, there is one other decision they could make besides "defend forward" and that would be "scrap the NFs early and use the proceeds to fight." Which admittedly is a decision with a much longer loop than the WA, who merely would then have to tick "night" again while bombing.
Step 0: There is no need to defend England. Now part of this is 20/20 hindsight, and that part is forgivable. After all, with 20/20 hindsight on "the flow of the game" many less historical decisions can be made in any game. The other part is that there is no mechanical incentive.
Step 0A: If there was a need to defend England - say reverse bombing points of a sort- it would certainly require the German bomber force actually attack England in '43. Which would take away those same bombers from being the dreaded fleet killer of the Italian shores - an ahistorical use of that asset; yes, there were items like the air raid on Bari, but never utter devastation as the entire fury of the western KGs arrived as a hammer. How many players would choose to fly into the maw of FC for a few VPs as opposed to preserve their best landing defense tool? We don't know, because there isn't the option.
But if they did go for the historic answer, it would pull bombers and fighters forward into the Ruhr, France, etc. Which would trigger battles far forward of where most German players want them. So - the question becomes "at what point do we force history?" After all, we could lock BC into night for '43 and prevent FC from being aggressive by simply taking away most of the German bomber fleet and preventing redeployment of fighters east and calling it a historical trade. In essence, the decision to make this unavailable as an option drives the rest of the decision cycle.
Step 1: The allies want to kill the LW, and not needing to defend England by the pre-made decision, send very aggressive fighters out. Also an ahistoric decision, but one we're ok with.
Step 2: The Germans want to save the LW. So they pull back to east Germany. Also ahistorical for the political leadership.
Now this is worth looking at, because this is conventional wisdom and not a given. You could make a very reasonable argument that one of the German player's biggest strategic decisions is "when, where, and how do I spend the LW?" A look at VP analysis says that the '43 air war is often the biggest single chunk of VPs the WA get all game. Massively so. While the price of defending West Germany and the Ruhr is indeed going to be the LW getting battered, you might conclude that the LW exists to be sacrificed on an altar sometime and there are whole lot of VPs riding up front - is it better to have extra fighters shooting down planes in '44, or slow/damage the VP deadliest portion of the allied air war? I'm not convinced this is a given. You would have to adjust tactics - massed air ambushes on planned turns, not just eave the Ruhr on auto and see what happens - but it might be viable.
Step 3: The allies, seeing their are no day fighters, jump to daylight raids for increased damage and to avoid night fighters.
Step 4: The germans are re-presented with the issue of step 2. Admitteedly, there is one other decision they could make besides "defend forward" and that would be "scrap the NFs early and use the proceeds to fight." Which admittedly is a decision with a much longer loop than the WA, who merely would then have to tick "night" again while bombing.
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol
ORIGINAL: bomccarthy
I have only played as WA against the AI, so I don't know how effective it would be for the Luftwaffe to run nuisance bombing raids on England - either very high level raids (at 30k+ ft or very low level raids at 1k ft). It might cause a human WA player to retain some FC units for defense-only.
One problem with the game post-D-Day is that V-1 raids are not represented. These caused FC to keep its fastest fighters in England for months after the invasion.
its a total waste of effort to do strat bombing in the UK. I'd struggle to think of a factory group that would really matter and the LW is not configured for the mission. I guess the way to make it feasible is -ve VP for say manpower centres. The concept of leaving the cities to sleep outside had dropped off by 1943 (& was disruptive to British production) but its something that people would probably have done again if they felt threatened.
and yes, the RAF kept both fast planes and good pilots back for that, but on the other hand the v-weapons repair fast and can cost an allied player much needed VP if they fail to pay enough attention, so I think they already consume quite a lot of allied resources.
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol
ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse
...
Step 3: The allies, seeing their are no day fighters, jump to daylight raids for increased damage and to avoid night fighters.
Step 4: The germans are re-presented with the issue of step 2. Admitteedly, there is one other decision they could make besides "defend forward" and that would be "scrap the NFs early and use the proceeds to fight." Which admittedly is a decision with a much longer loop than the WA, who merely would then have to tick "night" again while bombing.
The flaw is the Allied NF have value (in places considerable) as day fighters, the German NF are completely useless so can't be repurposed. SO not only do you get more VP you render 25-30% of the axis fighters redundant - so its an unrealistic gain, with advantages and no response.
In the main I don't care about ahistoric, its a game not a re-enactment. You want to send virtually every allied FB to the Med in 1943, I'm not going to complain. You still need to get enough bases and in truth the allies need that commitment or they ate going to be stuck on the historical timeline. if the LW turns up en-masse in response ... well.
If you fight FC over the Ruhr you'll trade planes at 1-1, that is a simple way to lose. The AI does this as it doesn't abandon the west of Germany or France. You can run FC into the ground in 1943 (I've simply run out of available fighters by November) as the reward is that the Germans are using untrained pilots in mid-44.
If BC by day had a cost to the Allies I'd see it as a decision with trade offs, it doesn't & in there is my core concern - and why I don't do it. There's load of stuff not in the game about bomber tactics as well nutters like Harris that stopped this happening. Even when BC went over to day bombing in mid-44 it was less effective than 8AAF as it had hardwired doctrinal problems in doing it.
-
GloriousRuse
- Posts: 923
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:51 am
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol
And I guess the question would really come down to a matter of would losing the LW to do it actually change the outcome? If committing the LE west translates to less VPs in return for a dead LW, then it’s a decision. If it just means a dead LW for no change, then it’s not.
-
EddyBear81
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:07 pm
- Location: Lille, France
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol
Wouldn't setting up an FC AS directive over the Ruhr similar to escorting bombers ? In the same vein as the 8th AF tactic of sending the Mustangs in sweeps ahead of the bomber force ?
And if you do not commit LW, then the AS flights would be a waste, just as the RAF fighter sweeps over France were a waste in 1941.
My guess is that there is a flaw in the mechanic : AS directive only take off if there is enemy planes airborne. So if you don't commit LW, then FC does not lose anything (flak + op losses). This is not logical. Am I right ?
(in fact, the whole concept of Air Defence is lacking in WitW : there is very limited options for the defender, aside setting AS to fight at the preferred altitude. No "small packets vs "big wings" decisions, no aggressive patrolling, no "planes on alert", no "109s cover the Sturmbocke" rules...)
And if you do not commit LW, then the AS flights would be a waste, just as the RAF fighter sweeps over France were a waste in 1941.
My guess is that there is a flaw in the mechanic : AS directive only take off if there is enemy planes airborne. So if you don't commit LW, then FC does not lose anything (flak + op losses). This is not logical. Am I right ?
(in fact, the whole concept of Air Defence is lacking in WitW : there is very limited options for the defender, aside setting AS to fight at the preferred altitude. No "small packets vs "big wings" decisions, no aggressive patrolling, no "planes on alert", no "109s cover the Sturmbocke" rules...)
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol
ORIGINAL: EddyBear81
Wouldn't setting up an FC AS directive over the Ruhr similar to escorting bombers ? In the same vein as the 8th AF tactic of sending the Mustangs in sweeps ahead of the bomber force ?
And if you do not commit LW, then the AS flights would be a waste, just as the RAF fighter sweeps over France were a waste in 1941.
My guess is that there is a flaw in the mechanic : AS directive only take off if there is enemy planes airborne. So if you don't commit LW, then FC does not lose anything (flak + op losses). This is not logical. Am I right ?
(in fact, the whole concept of Air Defence is lacking in WitW : there is very limited options for the defender, aside setting AS to fight at the preferred altitude. No "small packets vs "big wings" decisions, no aggressive patrolling, no "planes on alert", no "109s cover the Sturmbocke" rules...)
Fighters on escort missions act different to those on an AS in the game code.
In an AS, they go looking for a fight and prioritise A2A, on an escort they will ignore enemy fighters at the wrong altitude and generally look for less combat.
As a player you can optimise this by how you schedule the bombing and AS days - in part this will depend on if the Axis player is using AS for the defence (almost certainly as it stops small groups of fighters wandering off to odd corners of the map) or auto-intercept.
I've just dug into my last AI game and by the end of October 43 - practically the end of the first phase of the airwar, I was getting near 2-1 losses on axis fighters - and I was playing pretty casually as I had FoW off as I wanted to test some ideas about bombing approaches, I could have done more if I'd sat down and worked on my set ups. This would have escalated as I gained the longer range US fighters so that is basically burning out FC in AS over the Ruhr. The only negative side was much higher pilot losses but that is a minimal concern for the main UK/US pools.
T36 - oh well my fun didn't last long
T36 – 4 March 1944
Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
Small, rather pointless, pay off in terms of VP.
Usual day raids by BC, 8 AAF mostly bombing v-weapon launch sites, fuel around Hamburg and Kassel.
Decided not to pull back in Italy.
Tried a new fighter deployment in Germany – with not exactly very high expectations.
Weather seems to be remaining clear for next turn.
Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
Small, rather pointless, pay off in terms of VP.
Usual day raids by BC, 8 AAF mostly bombing v-weapon launch sites, fuel around Hamburg and Kassel.
Decided not to pull back in Italy.
Tried a new fighter deployment in Germany – with not exactly very high expectations.
Weather seems to be remaining clear for next turn.
RE: T36 - oh well my fun didn't last long
That's a nice scowl on the picture of Mackensen. And there are never pointless VP payoffs. 
John Barr
RE: T36 - oh well my fun didn't last long
ORIGINAL: John B.
That's a nice scowl on the picture of Mackensen. And there are never pointless VP payoffs.
yep, imagine what he'd look like if something had really gone wrong ...[;)]
-
bomccarthy
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 7:32 pm
- Location: L.A.
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol
ORIGINAL: loki100
ORIGINAL: bomccarthy
I have only played as WA against the AI, so I don't know how effective it would be for the Luftwaffe to run nuisance bombing raids on England - either very high level raids (at 30k+ ft or very low level raids at 1k ft). It might cause a human WA player to retain some FC units for defense-only.
One problem with the game post-D-Day is that V-1 raids are not represented. These caused FC to keep its fastest fighters in England for months after the invasion.
its a total waste of effort to do strat bombing in the UK. I'd struggle to think of a factory group that would really matter and the LW is not configured for the mission. I guess the way to make it feasible is -ve VP for say manpower centres. The concept of leaving the cities to sleep outside had dropped off by 1943 (& was disruptive to British production) but its something that people would probably have done again if they felt threatened.
and yes, the RAF kept both fast planes and good pilots back for that, but on the other hand the v-weapons repair fast and can cost an allied player much needed VP if they fail to pay enough attention, so I think they already consume quite a lot of allied resources.
Would it be worth the effort to bomb the ports where the Allied invasion forces are likely to prep? No VPs, but could the LW inflict enough damage to delay invasion prep in early '44 (and cause FC to retain assets for the air defense of England)?
RE: T35 - Spying on Bristol
ORIGINAL: bomccarthy
ORIGINAL: loki100
ORIGINAL: bomccarthy
I have only played as WA against the AI, so I don't know how effective it would be for the Luftwaffe to run nuisance bombing raids on England - either very high level raids (at 30k+ ft or very low level raids at 1k ft). It might cause a human WA player to retain some FC units for defense-only.
One problem with the game post-D-Day is that V-1 raids are not represented. These caused FC to keep its fastest fighters in England for months after the invasion.
....
Would it be worth the effort to bomb the ports where the Allied invasion forces are likely to prep? No VPs, but could the LW inflict enough damage to delay invasion prep in early '44 (and cause FC to retain assets for the air defense of England)?
Not sure, there are specific rules around port bombing that increase operational losses, you'd have to pick the right one and bomb it right down to effectively level #1. Now I tend to start preparing with a couple of N African TF in December, so that is around 20-24 turns, they'd get well over say 60 PP even in #2 level port. My usual choice is to use Glasgow and Belfast for the reinforcement TF (you have around 15-18 turns to build up with these). There is no way those are feasible targets for sustained bombing in early 1944.
In effect there are a lot of valid 4+ ports, you'd have to guess right and be able to sustain, thats a lot of things have to fall your way.
I think my basic complaint would be removed if either (a) the German NF had any utility at day (they don't); or, (b) you could repurpose them to day fighters - lets face it by late Jan 44 the German player is awash in interchangeable perfectly decent Bf-109s, the constraint is pilots and air units.