[WarInEur] Fun with CWIE2

[sgminfo]

Indeed it should...
:-)


-|steve|-



Jeffery K. McGonagill wrote:
> Shouldn't this arguement also be applied to units performing interdiction?
>  
> ~Jeffery~
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* sgminfo <mailto:sgminfo at aol.com>
>     *To:* john_pace_ca at yahoo.com <mailto:john_pace_ca at yahoo.com>
>     *Cc:* Warineur <mailto:warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
>     *Sent:* Saturday, August 30, 2008 8:01 AM
>     *Subject:* Re: [WarInEur] Fun with CWIE2
>
>     John Pace wrote:
>>     One of the things I liked with CWiE-1's Air Superiority option
>>     rule, is that a side with Air Superiority, can still inflict
>>     significant attrition damage on the weaker side, even if the
>>     weaker side refuses to 'come-out-and-play'.  With allied 60 APs
>>     in the allied Air Superiority box, the Allies (together with the
>>     Soviets in the Eastern Front) can slowly attrition the Western
>>     and Southern front Luftwaffe to more realistic levels.
>>
>
>     The Air attrition rule 'seems' to makegood sense. But I feel it
>     tends to fall down a little in the detailed execution.
>
>     Whereas it is an excellent deterrent to the 'easy out' of refusing
>     to commit.
>     In practice it was never so easy.
>
>     The solved problem is, the defender who refuses to fight,
>     and refuses to defend anything,
>     has the indignity of getting shot up on the ground,
>     and incurring disruption and loss of aircraft.
>
>     But,
>     as in the battle of Britain,
>
>
>     The critical problem was pilots, not aircraft, at the time of the
>     battle of Britain,
>     and so it was the case in 1943-44 over Germany.
>     The Luftwaffe was never overly short of replacement aircraft,
>     but was short of trained aircrew to fly the replacements..
>
>
>
>     Using the model the allied airforce simply applies leverage,
>     that results in losses to the enemy for no cost.
>
>     Thus it becomes a freebie...
>
>     So the balance of power tends to tilt more in favour of the agressor,
>     whereas the refusal to fight,
>     although disruptive,
>     was not a lose-lose equation in real life.
>     Hence the reason the Luftwffe often adopted it,
>     andthe allied forces strained their thoughts on ways to force the
>     Luftwaffe to battle...
>
>
>     If you talk to pilots of the time,
>     they would all tell you...
>
>     If you come down from CAP to do low level attack and interdiction
>     sorties,
>     they are one of the most dangerous mission profiles you can adopt,
>     playing the enemy's game.
>
>     Airfields are obvious targets,
>     so tend to bristle with flak,
>     and low level...thefighters have thrown away the advantages of height,
>     and if sorties areplanned with a ground attack profile,
>     losses to random ground fire are not insignificant.
>
>
>     I have pondered this on many occasions...
>     but each time it has seemed insuperable to have a way around this
>     that models things any better.
>
>     But if you look at things from an off angle,
>     such as today,
>     then sometimes a possible solution pops its head up,
>     unbidden, and without warning.
>
>
>     So try this as an idea for an option,
>     based upon what we already do with air attrition,
>     but seriously modded.
>
>     At the same time I am proposing to use existing concepts
>     so cutting down of cutting completely new code.
>
>     The following points are the salient features of going after the
>     enemy when they refuse to fight...
>
>     1.If the defender refuses to fight, he exposes all his ground
>     organisation to disruption and interferance
>     2.If this happens you interfere with his ability to fight back
>     ruining his efficiency.
>     3.If you go low level chasing after his assets, you pick up a
>     significant amount of collateral damage to your own air force.
>
>     So this is a proposal for a mod for later inclusion...
>
>     We put in a button for low level interdiction...on the aircontrol
>     screen
>     The equivalent to releasing the fighters to go low level post 'big
>     week'
>
>     We use the existing attrition rule to calculate losses....
>
>     We take this base figure and divide it by two.
>     *           This number is the number of aircraft WE lose*
>     committing in this dangerous environment.
>
>     So what is the penalty for the enemy?
>                  This same number is used and is the value we use to
>     knock of the allowed CAP limit *for him*,
>     for the following cycle. So he then cannot fly so many aircraft at
>     full demand.
>
>     i.e. The enemy does not suffer any direct losses. But we are
>     beginning to degrade his ability to function effectively on the front,
>     by damaging his ground infrastructure.
>
>     If attrition is not maintained, then the cap jumps back to normal.
>     It does this because ground damage is very easy to repair rapidly.
>
>
>     So..
>
>     It results in loading the dice in our favour...the enemy cannot
>     make so full a response...
>     The attacker does not get of scot free when indulging in this
>     manoeuvre.
>
>
>
>     Thoughts anyone?
>
>     WE can dodge the numbers about a bit, but the essence is there...
>
>
>     -|steve|-
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     _______________________________________________
>     WarInEur mailing list
>     WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
>     http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080830/f263ce1b/attachment.html