From: "Jim Mason" Subject: Luftwaffe Followup Hello Friends: Kevin wrote: > I have to disagree. I have played "Luftwaffe" for many years and, though it's > been a long time since I've used the original rules, had always interpreted > them to allow opposing fighters to each fire, in a pure fighter vs. fighter > combat. > > The rules specifically proscribe close-escorting fighters from returning > German fire if they wish to remain in that status. > > The rules, in an example of play, refer to a P-47 "counter-attack" to > illustrate the differences in "E" ratings of planes. If, in a pure fighter > vs. fighter combat, units were prohibited from firing during the opponent's > turn, there would be no reason to refer to a "counter-attack;" it would be > merely another "attack" during the US player's turn. > > Granted, "Luftwaffe's" rules must rate among the most abysmal ever written > and, as such, much is left to interpretation. But, so far as I can recall, no > one I ever played against read it that only the phasing player's units > "shoot." > > Parenthetically, there is a much better combat system for "LW." Some > suggested changes to the game were published in the General a few years back. > If anyone's interested, I can dig it up. I am a novice to the game - and am playing it "solitaire" to get grasp of the rules so I can explain them to my wife. I am one of the lucky ones who has a spouse who will play - she just won't read the rules. On the whole, I do think that makes me lucky. I can't wait to play it non-solitaire so the Germans don't know where the bombers are coming from. That being the case, are there any other "tricks" that any of you can pass along? Here are some of my observations having played three "solitaires" using both "attack only" and "counter-attack" methods. (Note - these observations are only in regard to the basic 20 turn game. None of the complicated stuff, tournament rules, and other things that might matter in a longer campaign scenario apply to these comments - I just want to get the basic game down!) 1) It seems that the Germans do much better when the "counterattack" is in place. Otherwise they tend to mess around with the fighters instead of attacking the bombers. I have heard exactly two opinions on this interpretation - and they disagree. I would appreciate if other players could weigh in on this "attack only" vs. "counter-attack" discussion. 2) Unless there is a great opportunity, it seems best for the Germans to basically ignore the fighters and concentrate on the bombers - you don't get any "victory points" for killing fighters but every bomber you kill means one less city is bombed. 3) "Close Escort" fighters seem to exist only as cannon fodder to protect the bombers, correct? The way I have been playing it, I stick some P-38's and P-47's as close escort to big bomber stacks and then let them absorb some of the initial punishment. As long as they stay in close escort, it appears that they don't shoot back but rather just exist to protect the bombers and absorb the bullets for them. It does seem ludicrous that they wouldn't shoot back. I'd appreciate any comments on the "Close Escort" aspect of the game. 4) Once a bomber has bombed its target, it must get across the "R" line before the 20 turns are up. If it does not, the city that it bombed is "magically" unbombed, at least for "vinctory determination". There does not appear to be any reason for the Germans to waste effort and attack a bomber that has already bombed, as they don't get an "unbombing bonus" for that, only for those that can't return in time due to faulty planning. (Again, this only for the 20 turn basic game. Campaign games would be much different, I'm sure, but I'm not asking about those . . . also, for the sake of this comment I am ignoring the penalty for losing fighters due to lack of fuel - I understand that one.) Is it necessary to clutter up the board with returning bombers? Is there any reason the American player can't count ahead and verify to the German that there are sufficient turns for the bomber to return and then remove it from the board? 5) With 21 bombers at my disposal, I've tried a monster stack (10+ bombers) that travels inland and then branches out, accompanied by two smaller stacks going somewhere else and a one bomber raid to Amsterdam, and that didn't seem to work too great. The Germans concentrated on the monster and wiped it out, which effectively ended the game. I also tried sending 7 or 8 little stacks all over the place. That didn't work either, as the Germans were able to pick them off rather easily. Last night I tried a big stack of 7, three medium stacks of 4, and then a couple of small raids of 1 and 2 each. This seemed to work the best. It's evident that timing when to send the raids is key, and that is why I can't wait to actually play someone other than myself - rather hard to supply any element of surprise there. However, I'm thinking that several "alternative" bombing raids could be set up with prearranged stacks, and then in the middle of the game I could use dice to see where and when they would set out. Playing two sides of the fighters might be a little tough, but at least there would be an element of surprise. Anyone know if this has already been done? Thanks for reading to the end of this rather long post. As I said before, I'd appreciate any tricks that you can send along, as well as rule clarifications and other comments. I'd also be interested in the alternative combat system. If not the actual article, at least a brief. Have a good one! Jim Jim Mason, Director of Development Graduate School of Education, Univ. of Utah mason_j@gse.utah.edu (801)581-8221 http://www.gse.utah.edu/mason/webpage1.htm From: BillR54619 Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Followup In a message dated 98-03-03 13:13:48 EST, Mason_J@GSE.UTAH.EDU writes: << 5) With 21 bombers at my disposal, I've tried a monster stack (10+ bombers) that travels inland and then branches out, accompanied by two smaller stacks going somewhere else and a one bomber raid to Amsterdam, and that didn't seem to work too great. The Germans concentrated on the monster and wiped it out, which effectively ended the game. I also tried sending 7 or 8 little stacks all over the place. That didn't work either, as the Germans were able to pick them off rather easily. Last night I tried a big stack of 7, three medium stacks of 4, and then a couple of small raids of 1 and 2 each. This seemed to work the best. It's evident that timing when to send the raids is key, and that is why I can't wait to actually play someone other than myself - rather hard to supply any element of surprise there. However, I'm thinking that several "alternative" bombing raids could be set up with prearranged stacks, and then in the middle of the game I could use dice to see where and when they would set out. Playing two sides of the fighters might be a little tough, but at least there would be an element of surprise. Anyone know if this has already been done? >> That's basically right Jim. the logistics of your bombing missions are all important. You want to fly by the most direct route possible, minimizing the exposure time of your bombers. Surprise is not so much a factor as understanding what your capabilities are and how best to overwhelm the Luftwaffe defenses, shooting down as many of their fighters as you can once you've acquired the capability to do so. At first, you just try to bull through, but later, you use your bombers as bait, moving in with your fighters for the kill. P-47s can be very formidable, but when the P-51s come on line, that's when you can really tear 'em up. But some of the most interesting scenarios are the 1942 and 1943 scenarios when your bombers must make much of the trip alone. It has been a long time since I played this game, but I remember liking it a lot. Bill R. From: Bowden Russell Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Followup > In a message dated 98-03-03 13:13:48 EST, Mason_J@GSE.UTAH.EDU writes: > > << 5) With 21 bombers at my disposal, I've tried a monster stack (10+ > bombers) that travels inland and then branches out, accompanied by > two smaller stacks going somewhere else and a one bomber raid to > Amsterdam, and that didn't seem to work too great. The Germans > concentrated on the monster and wiped it out, which effectively > ended the game. I also tried sending 7 or 8 little stacks all over > the place. That didn't work either, as the Germans were able to pick > them off rather easily. Last night I tried a big stack of 7, three > medium stacks of 4, and then a couple of small raids of 1 and 2 each. > This seemed to work the best. Recently whle playing this game ( I was the German player ) my insedious opponent sent the bombers out in stacks of ONE! right behind this "wave" of bombers was a massive stack of P47's/P51's just daring me to jump on any number of these little stacks! Bascially, as the wave spreads out it becomes almost impossible to get most of them ( due to basing restrictions, threat of Allied fighters straffing the base, etc. ). If I choose to attack anyone of the stacks my payoff would be just one little bomber yet the payback was enormous-the entire US figher wing would pounce on me. If I chose to attack many of the one bomber stacks I might get many of them but all it takes is a couple of bad die rolls ( one's and two's ) and than I still get beat up by the "Wolfpack". For what it is worth. Bowden From: "Jim Mason" Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Followup Hi Friends: Bowden wrote: > Recently whle playing this game ( I was the German player ) my > insedious opponent sent the bombers out in stacks of ONE! right > behind this "wave" of bombers was a massive stack of P47's/P51's > just daring me to jump on any number of these little stacks! > Bascially, as the wave spreads out it becomes almost impossible > to get most of them ( due to basing restrictions, threat of > Allied fighters straffing the base, etc. ). If I choose to > attack anyone of the stacks my payoff would be just one little > bomber yet the payback was enormous-the entire US figher wing would > pounce on me. If I chose to attack many of the one bomber stacks > I might get many of them but all it takes is a couple of bad > die rolls ( one's and two's ) and than I still get beat up by > the "Wolfpack". What is your system for fighter to fight combat? As you may recall, there was some discussion about this and one person said that attacking fighters were immune from return fire until the next "1/2 turn" (when that player would be forced to decide whether to fight back, flee, or pursue other targets during the course of their turn), and another said that they could immediately return fire in the attacking player's turn with any surviving fighter units in that hex. (This person did say that "everyone" played this way.) Care to break the tie? Also, I'd be interested to hear your take on how "close escort" fighters operate. Do they merely serve as "bullet absorbers" or do they get to fight back somehow? In any case, thanks for your input. It's a great scenario to try! You can count on me giving it a shot. I'd also like to hear more about the alternative combat system that was mentioned by another post. Jim PS - Sorry folks, no Joe McCarthy content here. Jim Mason, Director of Development Graduate School of Education, Univ. of Utah mason_j@gse.utah.edu (801)581-8221 http://www.gse.utah.edu/mason/webpage1.htm From: "D.Percival" Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Followup At 16:17 4/03/98 MST, you wrote: Hi all, Dug this out for the first time in a *lot* of years Oh what fond memories, I could still remember the beginnings of the blurb on the back "A Glint of sunlight dancing on silvered wings, ......" and the "Now you are in control...YOU command the bombers" line, pretty stirring to a 10/11yr old I forget now. This was the first wargame I saw and then he first that I ever owned. Unpacking the box brought back wonderful memories, trying to understand the rules, talking to some friends, trying to convince parents to 1. play and 2 that spending $60 on it wasn't a waste :) The arguments, the joy , the planning, IIRC I even did a project at school (We call it Grade 5 here in OZ but it was when I was 10 or 11yrs old) based on theinformation from the games. Anyway I could wax lyrical about this for ages, sufice it to say It brought back a lot. And I dont think that I played it correctly ever :( I recall playing Operation Custer and the Basic Game but I probably never played the other games correctly. Then it got put away as I discovered other AH titles and never looked back :)) >Also, I'd be interested to hear your take on how "close escort" >fighters operate. Do they merely serve as "bullet absorbers" or do >they get to fight back somehow? > I looked at this it was my impression and after looking at the rules again that Close Escorty fighters got to fly with the bombers, losses always went from them first and they ddont get to shoot back. (Which IMO maeans that "A single P51 sent along as Close escort can often turn the brunt of a viscious FW190 attack" is pretty stupid why waste your best ftr) >In any case, thanks for your input. It's a great scenario to try! >You can count on me giving it a shot. Ditto here I rember trying to work out the best way of negating the "big" German ftr stacks >I'd also like to hear more about the alternative combat system that >was mentioned by another post. Me too >Jim > I may very well have to break this one out and try and rekindle some interest in it All the best .....Darren..... To err is human But to really stuff things up requires a computer From: Bowden Russell Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Followup > What is your system for fighter to fight combat? As you may recall, > there was some discussion about this and one person said that > attacking fighters were immune from return fire until the next > "1/2 turn" (when that player would be forced to decide whether to > fight back, flee, or pursue other targets during the course of > their turn), and another said that they could immediately return fire > in the attacking player's turn with any surviving fighter units in > that hex. (This person did say that "everyone" played this way.) > Care to break the tie? Fighter combat occurs simultaneously but only in hexes where combat did occur (in the previous turn ) can Americans initiate Air to Air combat. > Also, I'd be interested to hear your take on how "close escort" > fighters operate. Do they merely serve as "bullet absorbers" or do > they get to fight back somehow? Kevin Kiff and I use the same CE rule found in the General: Makes the game more realistic. > In any case, thanks for your input. It's a great scenario to try! > You can count on me giving it a shot. > > I'd also like to hear more about the alternative combat system that > was mentioned by another post. > > Jim Any time Jim. Bowden From: BillR54619 Subject: Re: Luftwaffe Followup In a message dated 3/4/98 7:13:55 PM, Mason_J@GSE.UTAH.EDU wrote: >Also, I'd be interested to hear your take on how "close escort" >fighters operate. Do they merely serve as "bullet absorbers" or do >they get to fight back somehow? Jim- correct me if my memory is in error, but don't escorts fire back at half strength in Luftwaffe ? This is a tactical optimization issue. You want to allocate enough escorts to make sure your bombers get through, then figure out how to allocate the rest of your fighter's missions. The really brute force approach is big stacks of bombers and fighters together. You won't max out your fighter kills that way, but you'll suck in swarms of German fighters, and grind them up in one place. Then after that big hit, you fly your smaller and more difficult missions. But you've got to get Hermann up in the air to shoot him out of the air. Bowden's story was another approach, albeit a pretty extreme one. I never thought of sending out single bomber pieces, probably because I'm too lazy to push individual pieces around.. But certainly as your bomber force branches out in a "tree", you should have many bomber pieces hitting many different targets. Bill R. From: "Jim Mason" Subject: Endless Luftwaffe Hello Friends: Joe talked to the game designer last night and got the definitive answer about fighter to fighter combat in Luftwaffe. "There is no "return fire" until the next player's turn." Well, we can lawyer this to death and get nowhere. I would like to make the point that there seems to be no rationale for the instruction to "assess the losses immediately" if there isn't a return fire aspect. If there wasn't a return fire, why tell us to assess the losses immediately - would someone try to claim that the losses be taken at the end of the game or something? This being the case, I thought I would "play-test" the two scenarios using hypothetical strategies and see which produces more accurate play and results. Return-Fire mode: In the return-fire mode, smaller American fighter stacks effectively commit suicide by attacking larger German fighter stacks. They might inflict one or two damage points, but then are immediately crushed with a halfways decent die-roll by the German. Then the next turn, the German goes on to attack the bomber stack having already destroyed the fighters. Thus, the game becomes a huge stack vs. huge stack dance, with each side trying to get in position to blast the other's stack first and knock it out so it can't return fire. Having the Americans pick-off units on the ground through strafing attacks doesn't accomplish much, as you need at least 4 factors to have a decent chance of hitting anything, and then this leaves the fighters suceptable to an attack by one of the aforementioned big stacks. Attack-only mode: My comments on the rules aside, this seems to be a much better interpretation on what might actually occur. (My air combat experience is nil, as I'm sure is the case for 95% of the people on this list . . . ) In this mode, smaller stacks of American fighters can hassle the Germans and force them to make the decision to EITHER continue the fight OR attack the bombers. Given that the whole game depends on knocking out the bombers, this is a crucial decision for the German to make. Obviously they have to decide if the advantage to fighting back (getting the fighters out of the way) is greater than that of attacking the bombers. If the bombers are still early in their run and in a huge stack, it might be better to kill the fighters and perhaps wait until the huge stack of bombers breaks up a little. If it is a smaller stack or late in the run, they might abandon the fighters. Looking at it in this light, it does seem that the "attack-only" mode presents a more realistic approach, despite the intuitive assumption that "of course" the attacked fighters would fight back . . . Comments? Jim Jim Mason, Director of Development Graduate School of Education, Univ. of Utah mason_j@gse.utah.edu (801)581-8221 http://www.gse.utah.edu/mason/webpage1.htm