Is air power too strong against ground units??

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: Treale

I remember that SC had airpower dominate the game. Whoever developed and built the most air, won the game. This is totally gamey and un-realistic IMHO.

That's seems pretty realistic to me. It was the Allies that developed the most powerful airforces and it was the Allies that won the war.

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: MrQuiet

Given a choice, I would choose a rule that air alone can not do a general attack. They could do all the other attacks or participate in a general attack with ground forces.

Just my opinion.

-MrQuiet

I would agree - and I would also say that air attacks against armor should more effective than against infantry. That just seems more historical.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: Grifman

I would agree - and I would also say that air attacks against armor should more effective than against infantry. That just seems more historical.

Not really. In fact, the accuracy of WW2 weapons (including the anti-tank rockets) was so miserable that the safest place for a tank crew was inside the tank. Following the Normandy campaign, British sent special teams to investigate the efficiency of air power against tanks and came back with dissapointing results. Less than 10% of German tanks were disabled by air power.

Where air power was deadly was in the interdiction role as well as attacks on supply lines. German Panthers and Tigers were formidable, but the trucks carrying the fuel weren't so Allied air power turned against them and rendered tanks useless. A lots of brand new Panthers were found abandoned in excellent condition, for lack of fuel.

Back then, designers of Third Reich realised that air power alone is not efficient against corps sized ground units. Hence, air factors could not attack ground factors by themselves and the ratio of air to ground attack factors in ground support missions could not exceed 3:1.

GGWAW would be a better and more realistic game with Third Reich solution applied.


Drax

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: Grifman

ORIGINAL: Treale

I remember that SC had airpower dominate the game. Whoever developed and built the most air, won the game. This is totally gamey and un-realistic IMHO.

That's seems pretty realistic to me. It was the Allies that developed the most powerful airforces and it was the Allies that won the war.

Apparently you haven't played SC where air fleets would wipe out whole armies and open up multiple holes in lines or clear a victory hex, so a land unit could take it. Not very historical to me!!!!

[raydude]

ORIGINAL: pyrhic

not necessarily...i know what he means. In a recent game, I enacted an attack against the low countries. It had 6 units in it including 2AA and artillery - good enough to withstand a pretty good sea assault. I hit it with massed bombers(10 i think) wiping out everything and walked in with one infantry - capturing the zone, and destroying the rail and resources for him (spoiling raid).

Abstractly, could 3 months of bombing so utterly destroy the occupation force to allow invaders to land and seize the area? ummmm...

this is why i like the idea of bombers causing interdiction points (if it could be done)...that arty and aa would have been destroyed, but i'd still have to move in at least 2 units (thought 3 or 4 for surety) and needing 4+ transports instead of 2 to destroy the existing forces and invade (likely with few losses)....this is beginning to sound more like D-Day than the original scenario..

I would argue that you're not thinking abstractly enough. What makes you think that the bombing and invasion would be that separate in real life? Do you really think you are simulating that the Allies would conduct 3 months of massive bombing raids and then send in the 1 ground unit w/ no air support for the remainder of 3 months - just because the game represents them as 2 separate events?

As for D-day, the Allies succeeded in capturing Paris 2 months after the landing and then proceeded to bag a lot of Germans in the Falaise Pocket in August. So hmmmm, I'm thinking the game would represent that as 6 units destroyed, plus rail and resources damaged - exactly as your result turned out.

You've expended 10 supplies (for the bombers), 1 for the ground unit, and resources to build the 2 transports. How much more "epic" does D-Day need to be to satisfy people?

[SeaMonkey]

Has everyone forgotten about what happened to the Panzer Lehr division at the opening of Cobra in Normandy. An extreme case, but it did happen, and could have been prosecuted more effectively in the future.

The atomic bomb was slated to be used against Berlin, just because it didn't happen, should the option not be available?

[ratprince]

here here!

Excellent point Seamonkey!

The idea of War gaming is that it gives us the potential for "A-historical" outcomes. If not, what is the point in playing them?

MIKe

[pyrhic]

ORIGINAL: raydude
I would argue that you're not thinking abstractly enough. What makes you think that the bombing and invasion would be that separate in real life? Do you really think you are simulating that the Allies would conduct 3 months of massive bombing raids and then send in the 1 ground unit w/ no air support for the remainder of 3 months - just because the game represents them as 2 separate events?

As for D-day, the Allies succeeded in capturing Paris 2 months after the landing and then proceeded to bag a lot of Germans in the Falaise Pocket in August. So hmmmm, I'm thinking the game would represent that as 6 units destroyed, plus rail and resources damaged - exactly as your result turned out.

You've expended 10 supplies (for the bombers), 1 for the ground unit, and resources to build the 2 transports. How much more "epic" does D-Day need to be to satisfy people?

The thing is there were very substantial allied ground assets in france in those first three months doing the fighting. The first day of landings alone were something along the lines of elements of 7 divisions(if i remember correctly) - and I think only one company achieved it's pre-invasion day one goals (a Canadian company from Juno, i believe). The point is there was substantial resistance that required the build up of transport, supply, ships, troops and planes.

The thing is, you can do this epic landing in waw with just two transports, carrying one militia. After that captures the unoccupied territory(with 100% chance of victory), you can send in another 10 units(or less if tanks) + supplies on those same two transports. It just makes the invasion too easy imo..

dont forget that it also works the other way too (sealion). Aircraft repressed infantry, they generally didn't destroy them and certainly not in the scale portrayed in the game...

[raydude]

ORIGINAL: pyrhic

The thing is, you can do this epic landing in waw with just two transports, carrying one militia. After that captures the unoccupied territory(with 100% chance of victory), you can send in another 10 units(or less if tanks) + supplies on those same two transports. It just makes the invasion too easy imo..

dont forget that it also works the other way too (sealion). Aircraft repressed infantry, they generally didn't destroy them and certainly not in the scale portrayed in the game...

What do you mean, "only 2 transports" ? To me each transport unit signifies a substantial amount of merchant shipping capability. One transport unit allows Japan to transport resources back to the home islands AND ship out supplies AND troops. Which translates into lots and lots of ships. To judge that "two transports" in the game is not representative of the size of the D-Day invasion fleet begs the question: what do you think 1 transport represents?

[pyrhic]

you think one represents half the 5000 ships taking part in the d-day invasion?

"They came, rank after relentless rank, ten lanes wide, twenty miles across, five thousand ships of every description. There were fast new attack transports, slow rust-scarred freighters, small ocean liners, Channel steamers, hospital ships, weather-beaten tankers, coaster and swarms of fussing tugs. There were endless columns of shallow-draft landing ships-great wallowing vessels, some of them almost 350 feet long. ... Ahead of the convoys were processions of mine sweepers, Coast Guard cutters, buoy-layers and motor launches. Barrage balloons flew above the ships. Squadrons of fighter planes weaved below the clouds. And surrounding this fantastic cavalcade of ships packed with men, guns, tanks, motor vehicles and supplies, ... was a formidable array 702 warships." The Longest Day

You think that sounds like 2 ships? [:D]


I think i have somewhere around 60+ transports in my game. Invasion should be a major event requiring a substantial amont of ships, getting 5 or 6 transports together (10%) of my transport capability, would imo be a major event. 2 ships? I have 15-20 bridging the atlantic alone....

[HardRock]

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer

ORIGINAL: Grifman

I would agree - and I would also say that air attacks against armor should more effective than against infantry. That just seems more historical.

Not really. In fact, the accuracy of WW2 weapons (including the anti-tank rockets) was so miserable that the safest place for a tank crew was inside the tank. Following the Normandy campaign, British sent special teams to investigate the efficiency of air power against tanks and came back with dissapointing results. Less than 10% of German tanks were disabled by air power.

Where air power was deadly was in the interdiction role as well as attacks on supply lines. German Panthers and Tigers were formidable, but the trucks carrying the fuel weren't so Allied air power turned against them and rendered tanks useless. A lots of brand new Panthers were found abandoned in excellent condition, for lack of fuel.

Back then, designers of Third Reich realised that air power alone is not efficient against corps sized ground units. Hence, air factors could not attack ground factors by themselves and the ratio of air to ground attack factors in ground support missions could not exceed 3:1.

GGWAW would be a better and more realistic game with Third Reich solution applied.


Drax

Hear hear!!:)

I stike a vote against the easy air power too.
I can accept a game as opposed to a hard core simulation but there's got to be a little sense of reality.

Blasting an area with air then running in with a cheap militia invasion is just bogus.

And air did not kill armies in WW2.

As pointed out this only happend in modern war...yet still the ground force had to go in with strength.

This is a bit too axis-allies' ish.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

Has everyone forgotten about what happened to the Panzer Lehr division at the opening of Cobra in Normandy. An extreme case, but it did happen, and could have been prosecuted more effectively in the future.

Panzer Lehr was already atritted by continuous fighting since June, with little or no replacements. It was only a shell of its former self when Americans launched Cobra in late July.

And, of course, Americans followed the bombing with a powerful ground attack by their crack corps, not the game equivalent of a replacement depot.


Drax

[SeaMonkey]

Ahhh, the ButMonkeys surface.....simple facts....the Panzer Lehr division was still an effective fighting source....sight Bayerlein's report to OKW 20th July 1944. After carpet bombing...same commander. ... "Pz Lehr cease to exist"(translation from German). The facts, Gentlemen, from the commander of Panzer Lehr.

Oh yes .....But I know, ....he was somewhat disoriented from the bombing.[:D]

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer

ORIGINAL: Grifman

I would agree - and I would also say that air attacks against armor should more effective than against infantry. That just seems more historical.

Not really. In fact, the accuracy of WW2 weapons (including the anti-tank rockets) was so miserable that the safest place for a tank crew was inside the tank. Following the Normandy campaign, British sent special teams to investigate the efficiency of air power against tanks and came back with dissapointing results. Less than 10% of German tanks were disabled by air power.

Where air power was deadly was in the interdiction role as well as attacks on supply lines. German Panthers and Tigers were formidable, but the trucks carrying the fuel weren't so Allied air power turned against them and rendered tanks useless. A lots of brand new Panthers were found abandoned in excellent condition, for lack of fuel.

You make my point for me. I never said that airpower destroyed alot of tanks, just more effective - and as you point out, tanks require alot of fuel, and without fuel they are as good as dead. That was part of my point - though not stated explicitly, I'll admit.

However, how could the British the effectiveness of airpower without something to compare it to? Maybe the 10% destroyed represented half of the armor units targeted - in that case, a 50% kill rate is very effective. Just looking at the output (losses) without looking at the inputs (attacks) tells you very little

That said, my point was a comparative one, not an absolute one. I think airpower is more effective against mechanized formations - they are bigger targets, generally more concentrated, require more fuel, etc. Infantry formations are more dispersed, require less fuel, etc.. Infantry marching down a road can jump off the road into a ditch or into the woods - a tank is stuck and a target.

[raydude]

ORIGINAL: Grifman

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer

Where air power was deadly was in the interdiction role as well as attacks on supply lines. German Panthers and Tigers were formidable, but the trucks carrying the fuel weren't so Allied air power turned against them and rendered tanks useless. A lots of brand new Panthers were found abandoned in excellent condition, for lack of fuel.

You make my point for me. I never said that airpower destroyed alot of tanks, just more effective - and as you point out, tanks require alot of fuel, and without fuel they are as good as dead. That was part of my point - though not stated explicitly, I'll admit.

I like Grifman's statement - "without fuel they are as good as dead". But the game still allows one to have a unsupplied tank unit be able to defend itself. The unit just can't move. Still, that doesn't quite represent what was happening in reality. So, how do you represent what effectively happens? Represent the tank unit as being destroyed in the game.

Given the current game "rules" and contraints, how can you represent it otherwise?

[CharonJr]

I would favor bombing vs. ground units resulting in interdiction, too.

IMO the combat values of the bombed (by air and sea) units should be heavily lowered and if they are hit by any ground-unit during the same turn they should be destroyed (as if they were damaged by the bombardment), but I think that the interdiction modifier should be even harsher than the "damaged" modifier (maybe -2 like being destroyed).

In this way the unit would be more or less useless for combat (borken moral, disorganised, no supplies... well... interdicted ), but would only be destroyed if they are attacked by a ground unit during the same turn.

If no ground attack happens they are able to regain their organisation for the next turn.

And I think that militia units should be destroyed as before since it is much more likely that such units will break when they face heavy bombardment and cease to exist as a fighting force

IMO this would be a decent representation of the effect of airpower without making it to powerful.

CharonJr

[hakon]

The obvious solution is to take a lot away from aircraft land attack (1-3), and instead give them a new attack type, attack supply. Then say that each supply point only gives supply to 1 unit (though for the entire turn) when defending, so that with a force of 30 defending units, you need 6 supply. Give each airplane the capability to kill 1 supply per ground attack point they have (something like 2-5 per plane). If you are able to put a unit out of supply, it gets major penalties in any follow-up attack, as per the existing rules.