1979 the next war -Combat results (Full Version)

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



Message

fulcrum28 -> 1979 the next war -Combat results (2/22/2022 2:33:48 PM)

I was testing the first turn of the "The Next War 1979" scenario for TOAWIV, and I was surprised how bloody the combat is for armor forces. I was playing the Soviet side against NATO PO, and the first turn (consumed 60% only) already amount for more than 3200 tanks (t-62, T-72) destroyed.

I saw some battles in which almost an entire Soviet Tank division of 250 tanks loses more than 90% of its armor. Nato side also loses similar amount of tanks.

Is that feasible? or the parameters of this specific scenario are too bloody?

[image]local://upfiles/34192/00515ADA212E4F8AA164203CF8B1AD51.jpg[/image]



Curtis Lemay -> RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results (2/22/2022 2:56:43 PM)

And you haven't even gone nuclear yet! (Which this scenario tends to do).

AD is 4, making everything 2.5 times bloodier than normal to begin with. Lots of AT and air stuff makes this situation bad news for tanks.



fulcrum28 -> RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results (2/22/2022 3:03:51 PM)

thank you for your feed-back. My question is whether this kind of bloody combat results for armor are expected in a real conflict at 1979 or it was increased for design reasons?



fulcrum28 -> RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results (2/22/2022 3:04:48 PM)

"everything 2.5 times bloodier than normal" so why we dont play it with normal settings? or you mean 2.5 bloodier than WW2 tank battles?



rhinobones -> RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results (2/22/2022 3:18:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

"everything 2.5 times bloodier than normal" so why we dont play it with normal settings? or you mean 2.5 bloodier than WW2 tank battles?


The TO&Es of modern armies are loaded with weapons specifically designed to destroy armor. Doesn’t help that armor is also the priority target. So, it doesn’t surprise me that in three and a half days (length of one turn) a significant number of armored vehicles are destroyed. After they’re gone it becomes an infantry war.

Regards



cathar1244 -> RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results (2/22/2022 3:21:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

"everything 2.5 times bloodier than normal" so why we dont play it with normal settings? or you mean 2.5 bloodier than WW2 tank battles?


I think he meant 2.5 times more than the standard TOAW scenario setting.

Cheers



cathar1244 -> RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results (2/22/2022 3:23:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

thank you for your feed-back. My question is whether this kind of bloody combat results for armor are expected in a real conflict at 1979 or it was increased for design reasons?


High losses of vehicles were expected. Lots of systems capable of firing antitank projectiles. I don't think I've seen any loss projections, though. T. N. Dupuy in his work "Numbers, Predictions, and War" modeled a Fulda Gap clash that may have included the projected losses.

Cheers



Curtis Lemay -> RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results (2/22/2022 3:27:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

"everything 2.5 times bloodier than normal" so why we dont play it with normal settings? or you mean 2.5 bloodier than WW2 tank battles?

Turns are half-week. So...if we use the default AD for Whole-Day turn length, these turns have, on average, 3.5 times the combat as Whole-Day turns.

Now wait for Ben to chime in and wag his finger at that. [:D]



golden delicious -> RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results (2/23/2022 10:24:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Turns are half-week. So...if we use the default AD for Whole-Day turn length, these turns have, on average, 3.5 times the combat as Whole-Day turns.

Now wait for Ben to chime in and wag his finger at that. [:D]


I only even see this because fulcrum pointed to this thread from somewhere else.

Ultimately "design for effect" is my motto and if this produces the right effect for you then have at it. For myself I find the results become extreme when the AD is moved too far from the middle of the dial.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: 1979 the next war -Combat results (2/23/2022 2:44:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Turns are half-week. So...if we use the default AD for Whole-Day turn length, these turns have, on average, 3.5 times the combat as Whole-Day turns.

Now wait for Ben to chime in and wag his finger at that. [:D]


I only even see this because fulcrum pointed to this thread from somewhere else.

Ultimately "design for effect" is my motto and if this produces the right effect for you then have at it. For myself I find the results become extreme when the AD is moved too far from the middle of the dial.

I agree with the first statement. But take a look at the first post above: 4.5% losses for squads shown vs. 16.5% losses for tanks shown. Of course, that doesn't account for all factors, but it sure looks like your old claim that armored combat is not affected by the AD is wrong, Ben.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.3125