Bombard/Air interface? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV



Message

amattin -> Bombard/Air interface? (4/20/2021 11:37:55 AM)

Hi, new player, enjoying the game.

In scenarios with a lot of indirect fire, is there an easier way to set up bombardments than clicking each support unit, right clicking target, selecting the attack mode, etc. Example, in Bong Son 66 I have all kinds of attach helicopters and air support, and to have all units bombard a single hex for me is like 50 clicks (selecting each unit & group individually). Because they can bombard more than once per turn its a LOT of clicking.

Is there a shortcut to this? (I see in the Tiller demos, you can get an artillery popup that quickly takes you through all the artillery fires).

Thanks!



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/20/2021 12:01:26 PM)

If you want a full bombardment that is the only way. An alternative is to set the ranged units to Support and they will use 1/2 their strength in attacks. You can't specify which attacks, they will support any within range. Each way has its disadvantage, but you have a choice.

Edit: I don't use the Attack Planner, but there might be an option in there, too.



golden delicious -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/20/2021 12:48:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Edit: I don't use the Attack Planner, but there might be an option in there, too.


Bingo. The attack planner is the place to go for your supports. They'll be listed in the right hand pane and you can click to toggle whether or not they will directly support the attack.

I'm unsure whether they added a scroll bar to this area in the new interface, but it used to be that if you had a very large number of long range units available they would overflow this box and so you wouldn't be able to see all of them. Then you're stuck with the old-fashioned way- but note that only uncommitted units are shown here, so if you have lots of attacks to set up you can come back after you've assigned supports elsewhere, and more units may display on the bottom of the list.



amattin -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/20/2021 12:53:37 PM)

Awesome, thank you both! I see that I can use the attack planner and only assign supports as a way of bombarding, thats pretty much what I was hoping for.

As far as setting the indirect units to Support mode, is that in the Deploy sub menu? Would I set them to Local/tactical reserve?

Thanks again!



golden delicious -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/20/2021 1:40:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: amattin

Awesome, thank you both! I see that I can use the attack planner and only assign supports as a way of bombarding, thats pretty much what I was hoping for.

As far as setting the indirect units to Support mode, is that in the Deploy sub menu? Would I set them to Local/tactical reserve?

Thanks again!


Units which have a long-range icon (i.e. artillery or HQ) in a reserve or one of the dug in (D / E / F) deployments will provide passive support to combats in range. Same for air units on a "Combat Support" setting. Is this what you mean?



amattin -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/20/2021 4:35:31 PM)

Thank you! Yes, that was exactly what I was wondering, which of those modes to use to ensure that those units weren't just sitting.



golden delicious -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/20/2021 5:23:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: amattin

Thank you! Yes, that was exactly what I was wondering, which of those modes to use to ensure that those units weren't just sitting.


From my experience, you'll want your artillery in direct support of an attack. This is doubly so since there's no chance of artillery being unavailable to support defenders in TOAW IV, because they retain their deployment status after bombarding. This is a trifle unrealistic but let's not worry about that.

Things are a bit different with aircraft, since the cost/benefit ratio of losses versus effectiveness is going to be different if you wear them out. Still, if I have bombers available I tend to either assign them direct where I want them, or let them rest.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/20/2021 6:33:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

From my experience, you'll want your artillery in direct support of an attack. This is doubly so since there's no chance of artillery being unavailable to support defenders in TOAW IV, because they retain their deployment status after bombarding. This is a trifle unrealistic but let's not worry about that.


Actually, if they were in Mobile deployment prior to being added to the attack, they will resume that deployment after the attack. So, there is some chance of being unavailable for their defenders. First put them in a reserve deployment (or leave them dug in if they started that way), then directly assign them.

And why is that unrealistic?



golden delicious -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/21/2021 8:11:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Actually, if they were in Mobile deployment prior to being added to the attack, they will resume that deployment after the attack. So, there is some chance of being unavailable for their defenders.


Only if the player screws up. No player is going to deliberately leave their artillery on mobile status before assigning them to an attack.

quote:

First put them in a reserve deployment (or leave them dug in if they started that way), then directly assign them.

And why is that unrealistic?


Because the IGO-UGO system is an abstraction. In the real world, force 2 doesn't sit there patiently waiting for force 1 to finish their attacks before starting their own: in fact they're occurring simultaneously. If a force commits all of its artillery to a particular push, in the real world this creates a risk that the artillery isn't going to be available if a counterattack shows up somewhere else. The way this used to be simulated in TOAW is that the player might get early turn ending before being able to set all that artillery back to support. Now he needn't worry: the guns can blast away freely and happily and still take breaks to paste that counterattack that's happening at the same time.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/21/2021 8:39:04 AM)

In certain situations you can use 'T' effectively for Artillery units. For example, a mobile attack such as Barbarossa. You can move your artillery along with the attacking units, putting them in 'T' so that they will support [50%] attacks. As the front advances, the artillery will eventually be out of range. Move them up and put them in 'T' so that they will continue to support.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/21/2021 3:10:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Only if the player screws up. No player is going to deliberately leave their artillery on mobile status before assigning them to an attack.


Unless they want to rest them - which might especially apply to air units.

Regardless, players needed to know about this factor in order to exploit it properly.

quote:

Because the IGO-UGO system is an abstraction. In the real world, force 2 doesn't sit there patiently waiting for force 1 to finish their attacks before starting their own: in fact they're occurring simultaneously. If a force commits all of its artillery to a particular push, in the real world this creates a risk that the artillery isn't going to be available if a counterattack shows up somewhere else. The way this used to be simulated in TOAW is that the player might get early turn ending before being able to set all that artillery back to support. Now he needn't worry: the guns can blast away freely and happily and still take breaks to paste that counterattack that's happening at the same time.


For simultaneous movement (to the extent that that occurs historically) TOAW has reserve movement. The enemy player's turn is not occuring simultaneously with the friendly player's. Whether this is a more realistic model than WEGO (or any other simultaneous movement model) is a matter of opinion. (With some opinions based upon hard evidence. Others less so. [:D] )

Regardless, continuous artillery usage is modeled by the strength reduction due to supply expenditure.

Finally, passive artillery support of attacks retains defensive support ability. Why should direct support be different?



golden delicious -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/21/2021 3:28:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Regardless, continuous artillery usage is modeled by the strength reduction due to supply expenditure.


Not if the artillery is already at 1% supply.

In TOAW, good troops are still pretty effective at 1% supply. A lot of the time, the right play is to just bang away at everything and to hell with your supply level: what you want is to have your artillery fight for ten combat rounds on direct support, then be on passive support for the whole enemy turn, too.

quote:

Finally, passive artillery support of attacks retains defensive support ability. Why should direct support be different?


Let's look at the real world situation.

An artillery battery is supporting some attack somewhere, when a report radios in that there's a furious counterattack being made in the other direction and they're needed for counter-battery. The battery switches support halfway through its schedule to follow the new orders.

How on earth can the unit then be said to be fully supporting the attack? They cannot be bombarding both targets at once. Either they're dedicated to the attack or they're allowed to switch targets- which would be passive support.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/21/2021 4:03:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Not if the artillery is already at 1% supply.

In TOAW, good troops are still pretty effective at 1% supply. A lot of the time, the right play is to just bang away at everything and to hell with your supply level: what you want is to have your artillery fight for ten combat rounds on direct support, then be on passive support for the whole enemy turn, too.


1% supply does not mean out of supply. It just means maximum fire discipline has been reached. Obviously, infantry, tanks, and everything else besides artillery can directly apply their full strength throughout their player-turn, then defend throughout the enemy player-turn. Why should artillery be different? Whatever the supply model is applying to ground attackers, has to be applied to ranged support as well.

quote:

Let's look at the real world situation.

An artillery battery is supporting some attack somewhere, when a report radios in that there's a furious counterattack being made in the other direction and they're needed for counter-battery. The battery switches support halfway through its schedule to follow the new orders.

How on earth can the unit then be said to be fully supporting the attack? They cannot be bombarding both targets at once. Either they're dedicated to the attack or they're allowed to switch targets- which would be passive support.


Again, the only simultaneous movement TOAW supports is reserve movement. If reserve movement occurs, a directly supporting artillery unit will not switch to opportunity fire against it until its direct support orders have been completed. Again, the enemy player-turn is not occurring simultaneously with the friendly player-turn.



golden delicious -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/21/2021 6:19:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

1% supply does not mean out of supply. It just means maximum fire discipline has been reached. Obviously, infantry, tanks, and everything else besides artillery can directly apply their full strength throughout their player-turn, then defend throughout the enemy player-turn. Why should artillery be different?


Infantry moves when it attacks and then they're out of position and more vulnerable to attack. Moreover, unit quality is much more important for units on the line as it governs RFC probability as well as unit strength.

quote:

Again, the enemy player-turn is not occurring simultaneously with the friendly player-turn.


You do realise this is supposed to be a simulation, don't you? That IGO-UGO is an abstraction only necessary to make PBEM possible?



rhinobones -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/21/2021 6:44:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

IGO-UGO is an abstraction only necessary to make PBEM possible?


The v4v series used a WEGO system and was fully PBM capable.

Regards



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/21/2021 7:00:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Infantry moves when it attacks and then they're out of position and more vulnerable to attack. Moreover, unit quality is much more important for units on the line as it governs RFC probability as well as unit strength.


I'm not sure what your point is here? Back to supply: The supply model covers direct combat by ground elements in both friendly and enemy player-turns. It has to function the same for ranged support.

quote:

You do realise this is supposed to be a simulation, don't you? That IGO-UGO is an abstraction only necessary to make PBEM possible?


Combat operations have a great deal of inertia to them. Combat really isn't endlessly continuous. Soldiers have to rest and sleep. Previous operations have to be evaluated - including gathering intel about them. Future plans have to be devised. Orders have to be designed and distributed. Supplies and replacements have to be distributed. Plenty of slack to allow one side to act and the other to react. IGOUGO isn't as great an abstraction as most players think.



Lobster -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/21/2021 9:41:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Infantry moves when it attacks and then they're out of position and more vulnerable to attack. Moreover, unit quality is much more important for units on the line as it governs RFC probability as well as unit strength.


I'm not sure what your point is here? Back to supply: The supply model covers direct combat by ground elements in both friendly and enemy player-turns. It has to function the same for ranged support.

quote:

You do realise this is supposed to be a simulation, don't you? That IGO-UGO is an abstraction only necessary to make PBEM possible?


Combat operations have a great deal of inertia to them. Combat really isn't endlessly continuous. Soldiers have to rest and sleep. Previous operations have to be evaluated - including gathering intel about them. Future plans have to be devised. Orders have to be designed and distributed. Supplies and replacements have to be distributed. Plenty of slack to allow one side to act and the other to react. IGOUGO isn't as great an abstraction as most players think.



quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

So you have no argument?...

Life is tough all over.


[:D]

I know when hitting my head against a brick wall is pointless. Talking to my cat is more productive. [;)]



amattin -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/22/2021 12:45:18 PM)

One more question with respect to bombarding, I appreciate all of the discussion.

When bombarding, should you always select "ignore losses"? I realize that the losses mechanic more applies to the direct ground attacks, and even to air (as you can lose planes), but for artillery with range, should I always be selecting ignore, and if not, why not?

Thanks!



Lobster -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/22/2021 3:06:40 PM)

Ignore losses the artillery will use more supply. Makes sense because the bombardment is more intense.t



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/22/2021 10:53:56 PM)

quote:

When bombarding, should you always select "ignore losses"?

I think you have to use what works best, as each scenario can be different in several aspects, such as unit composition, terrain, proficiencys, MRPB, supply level, AD, etc. Try different settings to see which best achieves your goals.

For example, if you really want a hex that is defended well and dug in, I would blast away with Ignore Losses for several rounds to see if I can some de-entrenchment results. If that never works in a particular scenario, then why bother? Just put your Bombarding Units on Support and go about your business. [:)]



rhinobones -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/23/2021 1:22:24 AM)

To add on to sPzAbt's reply, when conducting preparatory artillery attacks adding a single ground unit to the attack is supposed to amplify the defender losses. The attack capability of the ground unit isn’t a factor, just that a ground unit is in some way involved. In this manner most people use a small unit (engineering/AT/AA) that would not be necessary for the main assault.

Of course, this is considered “gamey”, so use with discretion. Try it first in a PO/solo game to see how it works.

Regards



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/23/2021 2:16:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

To add on to sPzAbt's reply, when conducting preparatory artillery attacks adding a single ground unit to the attack is supposed to amplify the defender losses. The attack capability of the ground unit isn’t a factor, just that a ground unit is in some way involved. In this manner most people use a small unit (engineering/AT/AA) that would not be necessary for the main assault.

Of course, this is considered “gamey”, so use with discretion. Try it first in a PO/solo game to see how it works.


This has been rendered obsolete by the Assault Ratio rules: See 13.20.



rhinobones -> RE: Bombard/Air interface? (4/23/2021 3:52:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
This has been rendered obsolete by the Assault Ratio rules: See 13.20.


Didn't know that . . . thanks.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.563477