Pelton (GHC) vs KWG (WA) GHC Victory

[KWG]

Allies advance and capture the German depot at Vire.

[KWG]

Losses so far.

[KWG]

2nd RAF Tactical Air Force HQ

A urgent call comes in over the radio from VII US Corps HQ :

"ADVANCING, SURROUNDED BY GERMANS BRING MOD XXX PDQ"

Beer is delivered to Allied forces in Normandy.

Mod XXX was the actual name of the setup and mission.

PDQ= Pretty Damn Quick.

[KWG]

Monty presses on in Italy.

Things are looking bad for the Allies In Italy and France. Germans strong everywhere and rolling in the VPs.

Disaster shadows our every move.

We should have just gotten 10 hexes in Italy and 10 hexes in France and then bombed our way to victory.

General Confusion must be in charge.

German stragglers surrender in a valley near Cassino.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Turn 49

WA Loses: 256,000
GHC Loses: 268,000

Turn 51

WA Loses 273,350
GHC Loses 326,564

WA loses over 3 turns; 17,000
GHC loses over 3 turns: 58,000

ratio: 1 to 3.4

Pelton,

What KWG is saying is that there is a good reason why your data for the last 3 turns shows the German losses at 3.4X that of the WA; namely because he is using his strategic air force (ie BC and 8th) solely for the purpose of bombing your troops rather than (as they were used historically) for bombing your cities. In one post here he shows that his air force bombing caused you approximately 12,000 losses in 1 turn. If he had the same results for the 3 turns you posted your data on than it means that (according to my 7 year old nephew) 36,000 of your 58,000 losses were caused by the air bombing and only 22,000 by other causes. Of course, this intensive carpet bombing would have also caused disruption of your units so that the ground attack loss ratio was slightly in his favour (17,000 to 22,000). Historically, as far as I am aware, the Allies only used this carpet bombing tactic once in, as KWG points out, Operation Cobra. Some of the credit for the success of this operation is due to the carpet bombing. It was an historic example of the proper use of "Shock and Awe." KWG is not making historic use of his strategic air forces and therefore I do not think you should be able to expect your loss ratio data to match the historical loss ratio data. Of course you are benefiting from this as KWG should not be gaining as many strategic bombing VPs. So to be fair you should also be showing us the data for the Strategic Bombing VPs for the last few turns.

FYI, in my game against QBall (the first one as we have now started a second game with me as the Germans) it seems to me that I was almost always suffering more casualties than him even when he retreated. This was until I started using Bomber Command to bomb his units like KWG is doing to you. I have found BC far more effective at killing and disrupting German units than any of my FB Commands. It seems that the quantity of bombs you drop is far more important than the height from which they are dropped or the training of the air groups. FBs are still more effective at interdiction of course. QBall is returning the favour, bombing my units almost every turn and killing my men, even in snowfall weather. Another advantage is that since BC air groups are more durable and fly above 15,000' my Flak losses and damage seem to be much less, so I don't need to "Rest" 1/2 my Air force every turn. The difference is that in our game I didn't start this tactic until late 44 and I am not using 8th AF like KWG is.

So the issue for me is: are the losses and damage caused by the big bombers historical? Personally I think they are over rated in the game. Shock and Awe will only work so often before the enemy adapts. At the same time I think the losses and damage caused by the tactical air groups (FBs and 2 engine bombers), especially Air Support missions and enemy units reserve reacting through interdicted hexes, is under rated. You may have read my posts on the nerfing of rockets and interdiction, if not I suggest you do so as they make fascinating reading. So I actually agree with you (Good Lord) that the loss ratio should not be as one sided as it is because he should not be causing as many bombing losses as he is. If the Allied player chooses to use his strategic AF to support the ground war then the loss ratio should be more in his favour than historical; just not as much as is happening here.

[KWG]

8th Army liberates Frosinone!!!

General Montgomery orders his troops on... into the unknown.
Unconfirmed sources say that Frosinone may have been a important supply depot for German forces.

Monty is reported to be here... there... everywhere... as 8th Army HQ is as busy as a beehive in spring.

Something is in the air.

[KWG]

German to Allies loss ratio: 9-1


AFVs about equal...... Krupp steel...

[KWG]

[font="Verdana"][/font] ...if there's a bustle in your hedgerow don't be alarmed now...

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: KWG

[font="Verdana"][/font] ...if there's a bustle in your hedgerow don't be alarmed now...

KWG, It doesn't seem like you are taking very may casualties, but you lost 10 VPs last turn. Could you post a screenshot of the VP screen so we can see what is going on here.

[KWG]

Sure, here's the VP screen. Points are off due to bug and have to be adjusted toward the Axis.

You did a good explanation above.

Iam losing in VPs. Iam doing a strategy that I really do not want to do, I talked myself into it. What's a few VPs in Allies direction if the Allies are not going anywhere. Iam not really playing for VPs, or in a way to win or lose. Iam playing to accomplish and have a good time.

If playing for pure VPs I was going to do a strategy where I got just enough hexes in Italy, just enough hexes in France, dig in and then strategically bomb for VPs. I once played as the Germans vs AI and the Allies had over 13,000 VPs (garrison hits) yet I was winning on the ground. I was going to do a post that said more space was needing in the data box for the points against me.

I hoping to makeup for VPs in the long run and not being very good at this I can only hope I dont lose too bad.
I will give 2 VPs for every German unit that voluntalry surrenders [:)]

As in my above post, I feel Iam on the verge of a disaster in France and Italy and everything is going against me.

[KWG]

Given orders to test the enemies' strength, 4th Armor Division sees a opportunity and keeping the momentum in their favor they defeat German forces east of Vire.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Turn 49

WA Loses: 256,000
GHC Loses: 268,000

Turn 51

WA Loses 273,350
GHC Loses 326,564

WA loses over 3 turns; 17,000
GHC loses over 3 turns: 58,000

ratio: 1 to 3.4

Pelton,

What KWG is saying is that there is a good reason why your data for the last 3 turns shows the German losses at 3.4X that of the WA; namely because he is using his strategic air force (ie BC and 8th) solely for the purpose of bombing your troops rather than (as they were used historically) for bombing your cities. In one post here he shows that his air force bombing caused you approximately 12,000 losses in 1 turn. If he had the same results for the 3 turns you posted your data on than it means that (according to my 7 year old nephew) 36,000 of your 58,000 losses were caused by the air bombing and only 22,000 by other causes. Of course, this intensive carpet bombing would have also caused disruption of your units so that the ground attack loss ratio was slightly in his favour (17,000 to 22,000). Historically, as far as I am aware, the Allies only used this carpet bombing tactic once in, as KWG points out, Operation Cobra. Some of the credit for the success of this operation is due to the carpet bombing. It was an historic example of the proper use of "Shock and Awe." KWG is not making historic use of his strategic air forces and therefore I do not think you should be able to expect your loss ratio data to match the historical loss ratio data. Of course you are benefiting from this as KWG should not be gaining as many strategic bombing VPs. So to be fair you should also be showing us the data for the Strategic Bombing VPs for the last few turns.

FYI, in my game against QBall (the first one as we have now started a second game with me as the Germans) it seems to me that I was almost always suffering more casualties than him even when he retreated. This was until I started using Bomber Command to bomb his units like KWG is doing to you. I have found BC far more effective at killing and disrupting German units than any of my FB Commands. It seems that the quantity of bombs you drop is far more important than the height from which they are dropped or the training of the air groups. FBs are still more effective at interdiction of course. QBall is returning the favour, bombing my units almost every turn and killing my men, even in snowfall weather. Another advantage is that since BC air groups are more durable and fly above 15,000' my Flak losses and damage seem to be much less, so I don't need to "Rest" 1/2 my Air force every turn. The difference is that in our game I didn't start this tactic until late 44 and I am not using 8th AF like KWG is.

So the issue for me is: are the losses and damage caused by the big bombers historical? Personally I think they are over rated in the game. Shock and Awe will only work so often before the enemy adapts. At the same time I think the losses and damage caused by the tactical air groups (FBs and 2 engine bombers), especially Air Support missions and enemy units reserve reacting through interdicted hexes, is under rated. You may have read my posts on the nerfing of rockets and interdiction, if not I suggest you do so as they make fascinating reading. So I actually agree with you (Good Lord) that the loss ratio should not be as one sided as it is because he should not be causing as many bombing losses as he is. If the Allied player chooses to use his strategic AF to support the ground war then the loss ratio should be more in his favour than historical; just not as much as is happening here.

Its clear this is an exploit.

WitW combat system and system in general has not been pushed. Clearly KWG is exploiting what is a poor design.
Yes its WAD, but the design is poor and can and is being easly exploited.

I would do the same.

Hopefully exploits like this will be removed before WitE 2.0 is released.

This is why one has to simply look at the historical combat ratio's and simply track in game ratio's

Its more then clear that the current combat engine simply can not turn out historical ratio's, BECAUSE of exploits.

I think over all the system can work, but not until Middle Earth exploits are removed.

[RedLancer]

This is not an exploit. Strategic Bombers were used on more than one occasion against ground troops so there is no reason why they couldn't be used over a more protracted period. KWG is losing V-Wpn VPs.

Why, when a tactic is employed that is different to history or that provides a significant advantage against you do you call it an exploit? Why don't you criticise your ahistoric holding of reserves on trains as an exploit and ask for that to be corrected?

[KWG]

Not just because Iam playing as Allies, I will present supporting evidence:


WHAT CAN PUT A TIGER TANK ON IT'S BACK?


Exploit? Depends on what the context of the word means. Game vs Real Life.
This is not as clear cut as Airborne King Tiger Tanks or Shermans taking 15 hits from 88s resulting in ricochets

!!!And this may be far from a guaranteed winning strategy. I might be doing something to ensure my own defeat!!!


Iam doing what was physically possible and WAS DONE and SHOULD have been done more.

Is this not what the Luftwaffe did on a smaller scale at the beginning of the war???

Operation Cobra broke the stalemate at the front and if it had been done every week after, the war may have been over by Christmas. As I alluded to in a previous post - a decision was made to continue to bomb Germany's men, women and childern - to destroy their lifes in all aspects.

There is NO reason that what was done at Dresden, et al. could not have been done to the front line soldiers.
We bombed Dresden to SHOW the Russians what we could do

B52 strikes Gulf War.


Its like saying only so many AFVs can be in a battle? The code seems to be simulating the real world as what could and would happen, VERY WELL.
So a "governor" to set a max speed for game play - A reverse expolit - a "deploit" or "disploit"?

The MIGHTY 8th AIR FORCE........ Royal Air Force BOMBER Command
They were a POWERFUL force no doubt. LOOK WHAT THEY DID TO GERMANY - cities, infastructure, people.

The only way to adapt to it would be to "get out" of the Area of Operations, or dig so deep that any ground defense is hindered and would not matter. Or fight for control of the Air.

This strategy would be great to use in my Early Birds scenario, where the Germans get jets and other planes a year early.

Iam disrupting more than just killing, as the accounts of Corba and other such bombings state... everyone is in shock and command is in disorder.


Pelton's "badger in a foxhole" defense leaves only one saving response :
Sherman's "The Southern people want war, I will give them war."

Which leads to Seminole's quote:
"Pelton seems to be playing into KWG's strategy of facing him in the eye of a hurricane."



THE NEW GERMAN SALUTE
As German soldiers said of Allied air power:
As the war progessed, throwing your arm over your head and ducking became the new Sieg Heil salute.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

This is not an exploit. Strategic Bombers were used on more than one occasion against ground troops so there is no reason why they couldn't be used over a more protracted period. KWG is losing V-Wpn VPs.

Why, when a tactic is employed that is different to history or that provides a significant advantage against you do you call it an exploit? Why don't you criticise your ahistoric holding of reserves on trains as an exploit and ask for that to be corrected?

Exactly. How is carpet bombing, which is what KWG is doing, an "exploit"?

[loki100]

fully agree, you are trading off VPs in the strategic airwar to take advantage of Pelton's rigid defensive tactics. He is playing fully into your hands.

The longer term test is whether you get more VP by wrecking the German army now or hitting is industry/population and so on.

[Harrybanana]

I don't think it is an exploit for 2 reasons:

1. An exploit is something you do to win a game and I think KWG knows that this is not a winning strategy. When you say that you would do it if you were him Pelton I don't think you have considered how many VPs he is losing each turn because of this. I was getting 6 Strategic bombing VPs per turn and losing only 1 to V-Weapons at the same point in time against QBall. So I was gaining a net of 5 VPs per turn from the Strategic air war. KWG is losing 2 VPs per turn. So smile and relax, your strategy will be the winning one.

2. An exploit, IMHO, is where you use a rule or gaming feature for something other than what it was intended, thus breaking the spirit of the rule. Here KWG is not using BC or 8th for a purpose other than what the game intended. The programmers never intended to prevent a player from using these Air Commands in this way, but it does provide for a specific penalty if you do so. By the same token you could, if you wish, ignore the Garrisoning requirements and move your entire army where ever you want. You would just have to pay the consequences for doing so.

However, while not an exploit, I repeat my opinion that Strategic Bombers are much more effective at bombing troops than they should be.

[Harrybanana]

KWG, are you willing to provide any specifics of how you are doing this? As I said in my game against QBall I started adopting a similar strategy. I would generally use the 1600 or so bombers I have in BC to fly four 400 bombers each Ground Attack ("Unit") Air directives against 4 enemy hexes. They would generally fly 3 days per week at about 17,000 feet. For my load out I used whatever gave me the most bombs rather than just a few big bombs. But I don't know as I got as good a results as you are getting here. Though on one turn I did advance 2 to 3 hexes against tough opposition on a 3 hex wide front. I found using 400 FBs or 2 engine level bombers at 12000 feet was not nearly as effective. It is now January 1945 and I am considering using even 8th AF in a ground attack roll once the skies clear. The way I see it the Strategic bombing divisor is so high in 45 that it will probably only cost me 1 or 2 VPs per turn. But I really haven't decide if I "feel right" about this yet. It is not an exploit, but somehow it still feels a little wrong to me. probably not enough to keep me up at night with a bad conscience though.

[Q-Ball]

IMO, using strategic bombers is not an exploit, even though I have been a victim of it. It's a choice. The only part is that the Allies have more incentive to make that choice in the game than RL. Why? Because strategic bombing doesn't produce the results it did in real life. It racks up VPs, but Strategic bombing doesn't produce the level of economic impact that did IRL, particularly in fuel.

I have never run out of fuel as Germany, and never had to consider fuel as an operational limitation. That's not realistic either.

[Helpless]

I have never run out of fuel as Germany, and never had to consider fuel as an operational limitation. That's not realistic either.

There were posts showing that it is possible.