|
Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II (11/11/2011 1:31:06 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rader
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I think forts, terrain, and op mode are EXTREMELY relevant to the results you report seeing in your game.
Yes, too relevant, that's my entire point.
In decreasing order of significant, from observation, I would guess that the most important factors in bombing are:
1. Bomb load (way ahead of anything else)
2. Terrain (especially if clear)
3. Op mode (Especially if strat, less so if move)
4. Altitude
5. Forts
6. Other factors (morale, fatigue, attack mode = dive bombing, etc., although these don't seem to matter much).
In additon, AA and fighters can play a role, but these only make a difference if massed (in which case, they can make way too much of a difference).
Forts defenitely make a difference, but they don't make that much difference. In clear terrain, I would consider even a fort level of 6 to be pretty indefensible. I had level 6 fots on Hailar and they didn't offer much protection against the 4Es (a division still had a life span of less than a week).
It's all well and good to say "don't defend in the clear", and ideally you shouldn't, but often that just isn't realistic. Sure, it's nice to be able to defend in the woods or mountains, but when it comes to bases, you really don't have much of a choice where they are placed (and forts, as stated, don't make enough difference). You don't have enough AA to defend everywhere.
If the idea really is to make clear hexes indefensible (as they currently are in WITP), we should be really careful what we call a "clear" hex. I'm ok with having some hexes in the manchurian plain or the Australian outback be "clear" and thus extra vulnerable to air/armor (like desert fighting maybe), but just look how many important bases in Japan are considered "clear".
[image]local://upfiles/14041/175990CAB02D468487AC914A01041975.jpg[/image]
Now, I've travelled around Japan, and nothing I saw there could possibly be considered "clear". So, I thought I'd use our good friend google street view to take a couple of typical shots of some of these "clear" hexes.
Beating Ye Olde Dead Horse . . .
You're not being true to the game design, again.
1) "Forts" ain't "Forts" (apologies ot Perdue Chicken.) Forts in a base hex, 0-9, are permanent, engineered structures. A Forts 6 in a base are very substantial, concrete and steel permanent bunkers, pillboxes, and fighting positions. A Forts 6 in an open, non-base hex are temporary, field-designed and built structures, along the lines of trenches and log and sandbag OPs and light bunkers. (Can an LCU even build field Forts to 6? I don't recall more than a 4, but maybe I move my guys too often.) So you can't say that a Forts 6 in a non-base hex ought to give significant protection to infantry. Bombs, and arty, take out men in trenches real good.
2) Yes, the circled areas you circled may be "Clear" terrain, but they're bases, which means they can build (see #1), "real" Forts, not field Forts. Those forts offer substantial protection to troops. With a "real" Forts 6 you will not see a division wiped out in a week. If you maintain that you will I ask now that you provide evidence of this.
3) Conclusion: don't obsess with terrain. (Although the travel pictures were nice.) If you don't have AA or fighters, put your troops in bases in Real Forts. Otherwise, if you chose to defend in the fields, take what you get. The model is what it is.
|
|
|
|
