Carpet bombing

[IBender]

Regarding carpet bombing...as the allies I am having surprising success with it and it often clears the way for an invasion or some nasty blocking force for me to move inland. However, I am wondering about the effects that...well effect carpet bombing. Does terrain matter? What if they are in the mountains? Fortress? City etc?

I ask because my success has really been in open plains, and my failures are usually in more complex terrain etc.

Thanks and if terrain matters can someone point me to the rules.

[paulderynck]

It is halved by the same terrain that halves ground support. Forest, Swamp, Jungle.

[IBender]

That helps thanks

[Centuur]

To be honest, I think this optional rule is too Allied friendly.

It is almost impossible for the Axis to succesfully use this rule in early war, due to the fact that there are no big bombers available. Also, after the one time carpet bombing was used during WWII, the Allies immediately stopped using it, since the battlefield became such a mess, that they had problems attacking and moving around. This side effect is simply not present in MWIF...

[AllenK]

It was used more than once but not many more times. The British used it at Goodwood and, I think, Totalize, there might have been a couple of others associated with the Caen battles. The US used it for Cobra. In addition to the mess it made of the terrain, the friendly fire casualties from bombing inaccuracy were also a problem. That too isn't represented.

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: AllenK

It was used more than once but not many more times. The British used it at Goodwood and, I think, Totalize, there might have been a couple of others associated with the Caen battles. The US used it for Cobra. In addition to the mess it made of the terrain, the friendly fire casualties from bombing inaccuracy were also a problem. That too isn't represented.

It was actually used a fair number times (Cassino, for example), enough that I knew someone who was taught the German doctrine on how to survive being carpet bombed. [1] However, it is too powerful in the game. I suggest one change: An air unit can carpet bomb a hex only if it is using atomic bombs or if a cooperating land unit exerts a zone of control into the hex. Every use of carpet bombing I can think of was against troops in the front lines.

(I have some other changes I would make, but this is the essential one, and can be implemented by players of MWiF.)

[1] Get in a shallow trench, so that splinters from bombs hitting the ground will miss you. Do not get into a deep trench -- it will collapse on top of you. I think that you were supposed to put your hands over your ears, and keep your mouth open. but am not sure of that.

[paulderynck]

Many, many suggestions like these were discussed for RAW8. Ultimately, the decision was made to delete the rule.

[Viktor_Kormel_slith]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Many, many suggestions like these were discussed for RAW8. Ultimately, the decision was made to delete the rule.

Excellent decision for the most absurd optional rule in MWIF. Even nowdays it is impossible destroy an army corps only throug bombing. In WW II, there was some carpets bombings against german and japanese troops and they were an absolute failure.

I never played it and I´ll never play it. [;)] I´m glad that RAW 8 kick out this stupid rule.

[IBender]

This is interesting. I havent found carpet bombing to be all tht easy to pull off. Easy to send out lots of bombers and come up with zero results. Yes when it works they lose a corp but over all considering how many times I send out droves of bombers, (cost of reorg bombers, cost of building them vs something else, time for them to be built) They just dont seem too powerful to me. I may change my mind at some point but I am surprised you all feel this way.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Azorn01

This is interesting. I havent found carpet bombing to be all tht easy to pull off. Easy to send out lots of bombers and come up with zero results. Yes when it works they lose a corp but over all considering how many times I send out droves of bombers, (cost of reorg bombers, cost of building them vs something else, time for them to be built) They just dont seem too powerful to me. I may change my mind at some point but I am surprised you all feel this way.

Try using the heavy US STRAT bombers, when using an offensive chit during late game. You can easily get into the last row of the strategic bombardment table. Same with the Soviets if they concentrate their heavy bombers. That is the end of the German HQ's...

[AllenK]

In one of my solitaire games I did have a good run of the dice with carpet bombing and destroyed a few German corps. Had the massed heavy bombers been used strategically, it would have been factories destroyed instead (assuming the same die rolls). Over the medium to long term, this would have been a much better return for the effort due to the ongoing lost production and BP costs to repair factories. Lost BP's and BP's spent repairing factories are not producing combat units.

As it happened, the short term immediate gains got nullified pretty quickly by subsequent poor land combat results. Even without that, I don't think the return would have been worth it.

If I were writing Carpet Bombing as a rule into WiF, I would only allow it to be used on hexes that were adjacent to a friendly unit (reflecting the WW2 use). Each adjacent hex to the target hex occupied by friendly units would also roll on the Strategic Bombing table. For each * result, a friendly unit in the hex would be disorganised by the bombing. This would represent the risk of incurring friendly fire casualties due to inaccurate bombing (as happened in WW2).

[paulderynck]

Good idea - and only allow it and resolve it during the ground support phase (and instead of any real ground support missions) so that any announced attacks take their lumps due to friendly unit disruptions if they happen. Closer to the real events.

[IBender]

Allied Heavy Bombers were in the habit of flattening entire cities in 44 and 45. As that is not reflected in the game perhaps the carpet bombing rules are fine?

Just putting it out there. I will push bombers in the late game though and see if my view changes on this.

[paulderynck]

A city and a firestorm - especially when your houses are made out of paper - are a whole different affair. The actual history of carpet bombing enemy units in the front lines, as cited above, was a far more checkered affair.

[AlbertN]

The main issue - and a reason for which I am glad the rule has been removed - is that you can nuke out units before movement (emptying hexes at times) or simply erase that HQ which immediately puts OOS for combat (and movement) purpose a sector of the front. Which can be a game breaker in a game that often requires planning and preparation, due to the key role HQ have.

I've even tried to use it in some circumstances as Axis, I've to admit you need to roll pretty high. But those were few shots where pratically the whole of LND3 of Italy and Germany were flying over Gibraltar or so to carpet bomb; or to break in the Caucasus.
But in the end the Allies are the true rulers of that rule - with their waves of heavy bombers that later on can wreck havoc and especially make landings potentially much easier (nuke enemy unit, deny ZoC on landing hexes for the notional, etc).

[jboldt007]

Newb question but ... carpet bombing seems the only way to destroy aircraft units "on the ground" where a follow up land action is not being done? - I'm thinking Pacific island bases here. I don't know as haven't used carpet bombing yet in MWIF...

[Joseignacio]

Yes, it's the only one I can think of, to destroy them on the ground without ground moves (i.e. overrunning the plane).

[jboldt007]

Right - in some theatres - Pacific and Mediterranean- it would seem to be a key rule to consider. For island fortresses like Truk and Malta and so on it would be one way to reduce them where an invasion is out of the question. Historically this was often the case...

[Centuur]

This rule is far too Allied friendly. The effect on carpet bombing is simply too powerfull, especially in Europe. It makes it impossible for Germany to keep for example the Eastern Front in supply. The loss of an HQ due to carpet bombing often means that the USSR can put whole section out of supply. If they did make succesfull ground strikes earlier in the turn on that particular front section (or got disorganised units as a result of earlier attacks), they can simply start mopping up those suddenly OOS units.

It would be a far better rule if Carpet Bombing would happen after land combat resolution, since in such a case, the other side gets the opportunity to repair the damage done. That seems reasonable, since when the Allies did attack an area after carpet bombing, they got into a lot of problems due to the destruction or because friendly forces were to close to the target area and got bombed themselves....

[Joseignacio]

I don't use it, and a vast majority of the players that I know don't either.

Although in some stances like jboldt says it could be convenient, there are always workarounds of these fortresses, and although carpet bombing may be historically accurate in those cases, the counterbalance is that it could and would be massively used in wider fronts, like the USSR or the conquer of France + Germany, unbalancing completely the game, considering the amount of production, the number of air units and the quality of the bombers on favor of the allies by 1945.