|
Alfred -> RE: AF/Port/ground strikes & ordnance question (1/25/2012 11:44:42 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ambassador
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alfred
What you need to be considering is the effect of the bomb. You can see how much effect the different bombs have by looking up the in game database.
So to consider your nominated examples, you will see that 2 x 500 lbs GP does not equal 4 x 250 lbs GP.
Then it just becomes a question of die rolls as to whether the bombs actually hit.
Alfred
Thank you, Alfred.
So I only have to add the effect of all weapons to compare ? This depends from each mod then (DaBabes has 250-lbs with exactly half the effect of 500-lbs, so 4*250 is equal to 2*500).
Ah, not quite.[:)] I'll have to expand on my post.
You are essentially asking about the impact of ordnance on 3 different things:
- fixed terrestrial facilities
- operation of facilities
- combat and support units
In all cases the first priority is actually hitting the target with your ordnance. In this the odds of obtaining a hit are more favourable if you drop more bombs. But then the value of achieving hits is dependent on the size of the bomb.
1. Against fixed terrestrial facilities (airfield runways, port wharfs) in simplified terms the more hits you achieve the greater the odds of inflicting a higher per centage damage to the facility.
However when you target a fixed terrestrial facility you may also destroy supply held at the base. The amount of supply destroyed is based on the bomb's quantum effect modified by die rolls. In this instance even if the effect quantum of 2 x 250 lb bombs = 1 x 500 lb bomb, the result you see is not the same unless the die roll for both of the smaller bomb hits produced the same effective quantum delivery as the bigger bomb hit.
2. Against operation of facilities you are dealing with a game abstract which largely incorporates the personnel required to make the facilities usable. However, in the game some of these personnel are represented by separate units and these can suffer collateral damage when the terrestrial facilities are targetted.
Think of the distinction this way. If you bomb the airfield of a vacant base you inflict destruction (in game terms damage) only to the terrestrial facilities which I commented upon in point 1 above. However if the airfield is populated with air units and base forces to service the aircraft stationed at the airfield, both the air and support land units can suffer collateral damage. In this instance, the anti-soft rating of the ordnance dropped is the key factor. I don't have the game open at the moment but from memory, a 250 lb bomb whose effect rating is 50% that of a 500 lb bomb does not necessarily have an anti-soft rating which is also 50% of the bigger bomb.
3. Against combat and support units (ie the air unit is on a ground attack mission) it is the anti-soft rating which is the key factor. In this context I will correct an assumption you made in the OP.
Against ships, "bigger is better" is not completely accurate. Against unarmoured ships your statement is valid if we accept by "bigger" you meant the greater the effect rating of the ordnance. However against armoured targets, the anti-armour rating of the ordnance is more important as the first priority is to pierce the armour otherwise most of the explosive value of the effect rating is lost.
So the bottom line is that there is no simple answer to your query. As a generalisation, go for the ordnance with the bigger effect rating but be aware of the different circumstances. Just as important as the type of ordnance are all the other vital ancillary factors such as pilot skills and experience, bombing altitude, airframe durability.
Alfred
|
|
|
|
