Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Is this WAD?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> Is this WAD? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Is this WAD? - 2/21/2016 11:09:45 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline 		I have been experimenting with using the different types of aircraft (FBs, 2E and 4E) on "Unit" bombings missions. First I will apologize to Helpless as I now believe he is right, using 2Es and 4Es on these missions is not optimizing their use. In most cases the FBs can do a better job of "Unit" bombing if used correctly. I just had not figured out, until now, how to use them correctly. I always assumed it was best to have the FBs attack from a relatively low altitude. But Helpless tipped me off when he pointed out that FBs can dive which increases their accuracy. So I experimented with attacking with the FBs from different altitudes. Below are the results of 2 identical attacks except that one is from 5000' and the other is from 30,000'. As you can see the attack from 30,000' caused about 25% more casualties. But, even more importantly, it lost 80% fewer aircraft to flak and also suffered far fewer damaged aircraft (98 damaged FBs at 5000' compared to only 30 at 30,000'). Accordingly, whereas 2/3rds of the FBs attacking from 5000' ended with morale of less than 55, none of the aircraft attacking from 30,000' were below this threshold.

Note that there were only 3 mixed flak units in the 3 units I bombed (one per unit). If these German units had more flak than I suspect the differences in attacking from different altitudes would be even more pronounced. Also note that attacks from high altitude are more prone to be intercepted by enemy fighters. So if there are a lot of German fighters in the area and the units being bombed do not have very much flak, you might still be better off bombing from a low altitude. I like this as it may enourage the German player to stop pulling every single fighter back to Germany to be used against the SBs.

Of course, using your FBs for unit bombing means they can't be used for interdiction. But the good news is that my tests indicate that these high altitude attacks work just as well for interdiction. So no more losing 100s of FBs every turn to flak.

I have tried these high altitude FB attacks the last couple turns in my game with Liquid Sky with good results. But doing so has now made me feel guilty. Is this WAD or am I taking advantage (ie exploiting) a loop hole in the game design? I can see why attacking at high speed (ie diving) from high altitude would reduce flak losses. But at 30,000' would the FBs even be able to see targets in the first place? And wouldn't they have to dive into the flak so they would at least take a few more losses and damage? Also (and more importantly) what if QBall reads this in the game we are playing where I am the Germans and starts using this tactic on me? And finally, I couldn't have been the first player to figure this out am I?






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 2/22/2016 12:16:48 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/22/2016 2:04:05 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		I know in the case of dive bombers and FBs that glide bomb that the idea is they travel to/from the target at higher altitudes and bomb at lower altitude. This allows them to avoid low level flak for much of their mission. This is WAD. Now I can see an argument that for interdiction (and even for some unit bombing) that they might be loitering at lower altitudes looking for targets and that this would make them more susceptible to flak for a greater part of the mission than just the final dive to hit a target (as in an SBD diving on a carrier). But I don't know all the details of the system so Pavel or Gary would have to speak to exactly how things are done and whether it makes sense for all cases. For now I would assume it is WAD. As for whether others have figured this out, I'm interested in the answer to this as well.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 2
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/22/2016 5:27:26 AM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline 		FB starts glide bombing when approach below 5k, so in both cases they should dive. The difference is that in these two examples flights will get different flak fire. The one approaching at 30K will get heavy/med flak fire (at high alt) + medium/small flak when they dive. 5k flight will get medium/small flak fire twice. Flak efficiency is greatly reduced when plane is diving. So depending on flak composition at the target and on the approach path results can be very different. I guess in the example above unit flak value is mostly medium/small, so lower approach is more dangerous, but can be beneficial in some situations.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 3
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/22/2016 5:44:55 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline 		Thank you Helpless. So I guess my tactic isn't as good as I thought, it depends on the type of flak units. But when you say FB starts glide bombing when approach below 5000', don't you mean above 5000'.

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 4
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/22/2016 5:54:27 AM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

But when you say FB starts glide bombing when approach below 5000', don't you mean above 5000'.


Just as said FBs start dive bombing at 5000 and above, assuming that flying lower doesn't bring them into position to have efficient dive bomb in terms of all accuracy and flak protection benefits. Below 5K they make glide bombing attacks.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 5
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/22/2016 5:57:36 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

When I set up Flak in my units, I assign 1 HVY Flak, 1 Mixed flak and 1 Light flak.

When the front is static(ish) I will put flak in towns/airfields right beside the front. If it is a city that cant really be taken I will use a regiment of flak.

I will put RR flak scattered around a bit farther back for interdiction.

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 6
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/23/2016 2:10:47 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		I like the Mixed Flak units attached to important units (i.e. Panzer, PzG, and Para) because they're basically a Light Flak and Heavy Flak unit combined.

Good test though, because it shows why both types are important

It could be the difference between the tests was purely the amount of flak resistance. In which case the other takeaway from this is the importance, for the Germans in particular, of embedding flak units with your combat units. You have enough flak to basically hand a unit out to every division, with important ones getting 2 or 3.

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 2/23/2016 2:32:01 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 7
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/23/2016 5:15:26 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline 		My FB bombing attacks on LS this last turn were not nearly as effective. Probably because he was using the measures he describes above. I was still able to cause a fair number of casualties, but my losses and damaged aircraft were much higher. So this isn't the "magic pill" I thought. Which is good.

So don't bother trying it on me QBall, because it is a waste really:).

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 2/23/2016 5:16:36 AM >

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 8
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/23/2016 7:27:12 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline 		Also my units are getting more entrenched which i assume lessens the bombing effects

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 9
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/24/2016 1:52:11 AM   
cmunson


Posts: 6238
Joined: 9/15/2007
From: Austin, Texas
Status: offline 		Good thread. Lots of helpful information here.

_____________________________

Chris

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 10
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/24/2016 2:06:58 PM   
soeren01

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 6/25/2004
From: Bayern
Status: offline 		I did some tests, comparing 2E (Marauder) and 4E (B-17). My tests where aimed to compare the damage per bomb ratio of the planes. While flying identical missions, I have seen no significant differences in Mission results.

Example: Ground Attack:Unit
50 B-17 carrying 8 500lbs bombs each (total of 400 bombs)inflicted an average of 47 casualities.
50 Marauders carrying 8 500lbs bombs each (total of 400 bombs)inflicted an average of 50 casualities.

Example: Ground Attack:Interdiction Clear hex
50 B-17 carrying 8 500lbs bombs each (total of 400 bombs) inflicted an average interdiction of 80.
50 Marauders carrying 8 500lbs bombs each (total of 400 bombs) inflicted an average interdiction of 78.

This leads my to the conclusion, that for ground attacks using level bombers only the number of bombs is relevant.

If there are advantages/disadvantages they are somwhere else, for example:
A Marauder is much cheaper than an B-17 but can carry the same bombload for ground attacks.
A shot down Marauder results in fewer manpower losses.
A Marauder has no disadvantage operating from level 2 airfields.





_____________________________

soeren01, formerly known as Soeren
CoG FoF
PacWar WIR BoB BTR UV WITP WITE WITW

(in reply to cmunson)
Post #: 11
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/24/2016 2:29:06 PM   
Ostwindflak


Posts: 668
Joined: 1/23/2014
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		Will 4E bombers be more effective at causing disruption to dug in units more so than 2E bombers or FBs?

(in reply to soeren01)
Post #: 12
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/25/2016 1:46:45 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: soeren01

I did some tests, comparing 2E (Marauder) and 4E (B-17). My tests where aimed to compare the damage per bomb ratio of the planes. While flying identical missions, I have seen no significant differences in Mission results.

Example: Ground Attack:Unit
50 B-17 carrying 8 500lbs bombs each (total of 400 bombs)inflicted an average of 47 casualities.
50 Marauders carrying 8 500lbs bombs each (total of 400 bombs)inflicted an average of 50 casualities.

Example: Ground Attack:Interdiction Clear hex
50 B-17 carrying 8 500lbs bombs each (total of 400 bombs) inflicted an average interdiction of 80.
50 Marauders carrying 8 500lbs bombs each (total of 400 bombs) inflicted an average interdiction of 78.

This leads my to the conclusion, that for ground attacks using level bombers only the number of bombs is relevant.

If there are advantages/disadvantages they are somwhere else, for example:
A Marauder is much cheaper than an B-17 but can carry the same bombload for ground attacks.
A shot down Marauder results in fewer manpower losses.
A Marauder has no disadvantage operating from level 2 airfields.




Sorenson, my tests yielded much different results. Namely that the 2Es didn't even come close to matching the 4Es in terms of casualties caused even taking into account the different bomb loads. Would you be willing to post a save of your tests prior to air execution so I can compare to mine to see what the differences are.

(in reply to soeren01)
Post #: 13
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/25/2016 10:18:10 AM   
soeren01

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 6/25/2004
From: Bayern
Status: offline 		used hex 91,183 for the interdiction test.
used hex 89,182 for the unit attack test.

Please bear in mind, that this just compares identical attacks with different plane types (2E and 4E). I made no effort to optimize the attacks.
The data from my tests is from attacks at 10.000 feet.
Attacks from other altitudes show the same trend, if the number of bombs dropped is equal,the results are comparable.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

soeren01, formerly known as Soeren
CoG FoF
PacWar WIR BoB BTR UV WITP WITE WITW

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 14
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/26/2016 1:46:06 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

Also my units are getting more entrenched which i assume lessens the bombing effects


I would like to think that is the case LS as it makes sense. But I am not sure that entrenchment, terrain or even weather have much if any effect on "Unit" bombing. The other thing I think should have an effect is the number of enemy units in the bombed hex. One would think that, all other things being equal, 3 full divisions in a hex would present more targets (albeit also more flak) and therefore would take more losses than a single regiment. But in my most recent turn of my game with QBall I "Unit" Bombed a lone regiment, in a mountain hex, in rain that was fortified to level 3 and caused 2500 casualties thus basically destroying the unit with air power alone. Oh yeah, I bombed from an altitude of 5000' thus avoiding interception by the Allied fighters, I wonder who I learned that from? Now, of course, the regiment did not have a flak unit assigned; but still that seems a little ridiculous to me. For one thing if I had attacked at 5000" I would have slammed into the 10,000'+ mountains. But even putting that aside that regiment would have been well camouflaged and dug in. It might have been difficult to hide 30,000 men, but not 2500.

But, as usual, I probably have it all wrong. Perhaps Helpless or one of the developers can comment on how, if at all, weather, terrain, entrenchment and enemy unit size and numbers affect "Unit" Bombing?

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 2/26/2016 2:54:35 AM >

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 15
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/26/2016 3:02:06 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: soeren01

used hex 91,183 for the interdiction test.
used hex 89,182 for the unit attack test.

Please bear in mind, that this just compares identical attacks with different plane types (2E and 4E). I made no effort to optimize the attacks.
The data from my tests is from attacks at 10.000 feet.
Attacks from other altitudes show the same trend, if the number of bombs dropped is equal,the results are comparable.


Okay, now someone is going to have to explain to me how I convert the Attachment into a WitW sav. file. When I click on the attachment I get a txt file. Sorry I am not a techie.

(in reply to soeren01)
Post #: 16
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/26/2016 9:22:49 AM   
soeren01

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 6/25/2004
From: Bayern
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: soeren01

used hex 91,183 for the interdiction test.
used hex 89,182 for the unit attack test.

Please bear in mind, that this just compares identical attacks with different plane types (2E and 4E). I made no effort to optimize the attacks.
The data from my tests is from attacks at 10.000 feet.
Attacks from other altitudes show the same trend, if the number of bombs dropped is equal,the results are comparable.


Okay, now someone is going to have to explain to me how I convert the Attachment into a WitW sav. file. When I click on the attachment I get a txt file. Sorry I am not a techie.


Just rename the file into testsetup.sav und you should have a valid save.


_____________________________

soeren01, formerly known as Soeren
CoG FoF
PacWar WIR BoB BTR UV WITP WITE WITW

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 17
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/26/2016 5:03:39 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: soeren01


quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: soeren01

used hex 91,183 for the interdiction test.
used hex 89,182 for the unit attack test.

Please bear in mind, that this just compares identical attacks with different plane types (2E and 4E). I made no effort to optimize the attacks.
The data from my tests is from attacks at 10.000 feet.
Attacks from other altitudes show the same trend, if the number of bombs dropped is equal,the results are comparable.


Okay, now someone is going to have to explain to me how I convert the Attachment into a WitW sav. file. When I click on the attachment I get a txt file. Sorry I am not a techie.


Just rename the file into testsetup.sav und you should have a valid save.



I tried that, but with Windows 10 you can rename a file, but not the extension. So Windows (and the WitW program) both think it is a text file. I assume there is some way to override Windows 10 so I can rename the extension, but again I am no techie and don't know how.

(in reply to soeren01)
Post #: 18
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/26/2016 7:42:48 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

Perhaps Helpless or one of the developers can comment on how, if at all, weather, terrain, entrenchment and enemy unit size and numbers affect "Unit" Bombing?


Until Pavel (Helpless) has time to answer in detail, I can pass on Gary's memory of what impacts unit bombing. First, a caveat that things may have changed as Pavel was the last to work on unit bombing and it's been quite a while since Gary has worked on it. Gary is pretty sure entrenchment levels reduce casualties. He's not sure about terrain (it's very possible it does as well, he just can't remember). Weather has many impacts on air missions, but he's pretty sure one of them is on the chance to hit the target. He thinks the number of targets in the hex does impact the chance of hitting something (the more to hit, the greater chance something will be hit). One other factor that doesn't often get mentioned but is important as well is the detection level of the target.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 19
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/26/2016 8:27:03 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

Perhaps Helpless or one of the developers can comment on how, if at all, weather, terrain, entrenchment and enemy unit size and numbers affect "Unit" Bombing?


Until Pavel (Helpless) has time to answer in detail, I can pass on Gary's memory of what impacts unit bombing. First, a caveat that things may have changed as Pavel was the last to work on unit bombing and it's been quite a while since Gary has worked on it. Gary is pretty sure entrenchment levels reduce casualties. He's not sure about terrain (it's very possible it does as well, he just can't remember). Weather has many impacts on air missions, but he's pretty sure one of them is on the chance to hit the target. He thinks the number of targets in the hex does impact the chance of hitting something (the more to hit, the greater chance something will be hit). One other factor that doesn't often get mentioned but is important as well is the detection level of the target.



Well the Mountain regiment was adjacent to my units so I suppose the detection level might have been high; but I didn't recon the hex at all. All I know is that this unit's entrenchment, mountain hex, rain and small unit size didn't seem to help it too much. Below are my bombing mission results and the follow up attack. As you can see the air attacks alone appear to have destroyed the unit, or at least killed all the manpower in it.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 20
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/26/2016 8:30:46 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline 		I will add that the German FBs and TACBs (I used both here) appear to be way more effective at inflicting casualties than the Allied FBs; often causing around 1.5 casualties for every aircraft. If I can cause .75 casualties per Allied Aircraft I think this is doing very well. There may be good reasons for this, just saying.

< Message edited by Harrybanana -- 2/26/2016 8:34:13 PM >

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 21
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/26/2016 8:33:36 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline 		Screenshot doesn't tell much, but I see nothing which would make me worry. Need to look at the save to provide any feedback.

Theoretically all it factors mentioned by Joel are true. I didn't do much on the the unit bombing as it was initially coded by Gary. The only change I did recently was related to the HQ bombing, which should have nothing to do with the discussed topic.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 22
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/26/2016 8:43:54 PM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Screenshot doesn't tell much, but I see nothing which would make me worry. Need to look at the save to provide any feedback.

Theoretically all it factors mentioned by Joel are true. I didn't do much on the the unit bombing as it was initially coded by Gary. The only change I did recently was related to the HQ bombing, which should have nothing to do with the discussed topic.


Well, the screenshot tells you that a 2500 man regiment of mountain troops alone in a mountain hex fortified to level 3 were completely destroyed by 1800 sorties of German FBs and TACBs flying in the rain. Admittedly it doesn't tell you how this was done without the save, but I submit that the fact it did happen should be cause for worry.

Do you need the save from before such an attack, or is after good enough? If the former I'm not sure how I can do that as this is a server game. If the latter than the next time I see such an attack I will let you know before advancing the turn.

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 23
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/26/2016 8:55:10 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

the screenshot tells you that a 2500 man regiment of mountain troops alone in a mountain hex fortified to level 3 were completely destroyed


I don't see it.

quote:

Do you need the save from before such an attack, or is after good enough?


In such a case I need a save before the attack.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 24
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/27/2016 2:27:43 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

the screenshot tells you that a 2500 man regiment of mountain troops alone in a mountain hex fortified to level 3 were completely destroyed


I don't see it.


Well as usual I am obviously missing something. How do you not see that each attack of 340 to 380 aircraft was inflicting 400 to 644 casualties per attack and that the enemy unit was wiped out by this? That is why the final attacks didn't do any damage, because there were no men left in the enemy unit. Does anyone else not see this? What am I missing?



quote:

Do you need the save from before such an attack, or is after good enough?

In such a case I need a save before the attack.


So I guess that means I need to set up a bombing attack on an enemy unit and then (without even knowing the results of my attack) stop my turn and email you to run my air execution to see what happens. I'll try and set up such an attack though now, of course, my opponent is forewarned.

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 25
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/27/2016 8:21:12 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

I've noticed something similar. It is better to stack three divisions in a hex for defence against air attack then to spread out. For one you get more flak. The other is it seems that air attack will do 'x' number of damage against a unit. And a bigger (or more) unit will absorb that damage better.

I've also noticed that for small units, they get overwhelmed in combat easier. I just assumed it was working as designed....but it does get me that a mountain regiment, in a mountain will show like a 50 CV, and I attack it with 3 divisions totaling 15 cv, and kick it off them mountain easily.

But then, that is like 9-1 odds (men) with a lot of guns on the side of the 3 divisions.

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 26
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/27/2016 8:56:20 AM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

That is why the final attacks didn't do any damage, because there were no men left in the enemy unit. Does anyone else not see this? What am I missing?


Depleted units do not fight. Depletion doesn't mean no one left. Lots of damaged/disabled elements after corp size bombing campaign against single regiment can do this on any terrain (especially if there is no knowledge on initial state of the unit under attack).

Can only guess without a save, but again, I see nothing wrong in the provided results. Honestly I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to show or prove, but I can look into the save to see if there is something wrong for possible tuning.

quote:

So I guess that means I need to set up a bombing attack on an enemy unit and then (without even knowing the results of my attack) stop my turn and email you to run my air execution to see what happens. I'll try and set up such an attack though now, of course, my opponent is forewarned.


PBEM++ system allows us to retrieve two saves - current and previous (backup). So if you save and then just execute air directives and quit after auto-save (do not make any additional saves), we should be able to access backup file, which should be a pre-air execution save.




_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 27
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/28/2016 12:20:11 AM   
Harrybanana

 

Posts: 4097
Joined: 11/27/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

quote:

That is why the final attacks didn't do any damage, because there were no men left in the enemy unit. Does anyone else not see this? What am I missing?


Depleted units do not fight. Depletion doesn't mean no one left. Lots of damaged/disabled elements after corp size bombing campaign against single regiment can do this on any terrain (especially if there is no knowledge on initial state of the unit under attack).

Can only guess without a save, but again, I see nothing wrong in the provided results. Honestly I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to show or prove, but I can look into the save to see if there is something wrong for possible tuning.

quote:

So I guess that means I need to set up a bombing attack on an enemy unit and then (without even knowing the results of my attack) stop my turn and email you to run my air execution to see what happens. I'll try and set up such an attack though now, of course, my opponent is forewarned.


PBEM++ system allows us to retrieve two saves - current and previous (backup). So if you save and then just execute air directives and quit after auto-save (do not make any additional saves), we should be able to access backup file, which should be a pre-air execution save.



Well in this case I am pretty sure there was no one left because I believe the regiment in question only has a maximum strength of about 2500 and that is how many casualties I inflicted. What I am trying to show is that it is possible to inflict an impossibly high number of causalities on a fortified unit in a mountain hex in poor weather. IMHO this is a flaw in the game program. I am not saying that the game is not WAD; what I am saying is that the design is wrong.

But I am probably being too critical. This is such an excellent game that whenever I see something that isn't quite right it annoys me.

Oh yeah, I tried an almost identical attack on another mountain regiment in Italy and only inflicted about 600 casulties. So maybe this was just a fluke. I don't know.

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 28
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/28/2016 7:27:39 AM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Well in this case I am pretty sure there was no one left because I believe the regiment in question only has a maximum strength of about 2500 and that is how many casualties I inflicted


How do you get the 2500 number? How do you know that all of them were pure kills, i.e. ready elements destroyed?

quote:

What I am trying to show is that it is possible to inflict an impossibly high number of causalities on a fortified unit in a mountain hex in poor weather. IMHO this is a flaw in the game program. I am not saying that the game is not WAD; what I am saying is that the design is wrong.


I don't see "impossibly high number", nor I see "bad" weather (rain is just some probability of clouds). With low alt bombing it has diminishing effect. Forts and mountain is indeed something which should provide some protection in such a case, which is seen by very low interdiction numbers. On opposite side I see huge amount of planes allocated against well reconed front line unit. It would be good to look at the saves in such a case.

quote:

Oh yeah, I tried an almost identical attack on another mountain regiment in Italy and only inflicted about 600 casulties. So maybe this was just a fluke. I don't know.


Or something else which might be not so obvious. In any case, rolls can shift results.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Harrybanana)
Post #: 29
RE: Is this WAD? - 2/28/2016 9:34:19 AM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

That's a good point. The Losses it shows on bombing is actually the Killed + Disabled. You would have to look at the unit to see how much of it was actually killed. That is also why the apparently completely empty unit took casualties when you attacked it...some of the disabled guys were killed when it routed away.

_____________________________

“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great

(in reply to Helpless)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> Is this WAD? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.953