Effects of LCU bombardment ?

[Saso]

Allied units second phase

[el cid again]

This is correct but omits one other factor: a unit that has never been in combat in this hex in the near past is WEAKER on the first turn it attacks than a unit that HAS BEEN in combat is. It is cheaper (in terms of risk, losses, exhaustion, disruption etc) to bombard so the later higher combat values (called AV) are generated than to do a deliberate attack is. It is curious - but in a strange sense this simulates the idea of "bombard before going over the top" - although bombard didn't usually mean on a different day (at least not since WWI).

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Saso



Sorry, a question a bit off topic about this answer.

Which kind of HQ is necessary to increase the stockpile? (Army HQ or is enough Corp HQ)

Any kind will increase supply draw - command HQ usually draws more supplies - in my experience.

Well technically you can manipulate supply levels with bombardment attacks. Here is how :

Turn 1 - Bombard - the supply requirement of the unit will increase and the code will ship more supplies to the unit to meet demand.

Turn 2 Rest the unit - the supply requirement having been increased the previous turn by bombarding will drop back down this turn leaving the unit with excess supply over the units requirement.

Turn 3 Attack - When you look at the unit this turn the requirement will be less than supply on hand. When the attatck is executed the requirement will increase and the code will have to ship less supply to the unit to meet the new requirement that is established from launching the attack.


If you rest too long the excess supply will eventually be taken from the unit and distributed to other bases and units.

[rtrapasso]

i really don't think you can check the supply situation thoroughly unless this whole thing was conducted on an atoll... supplies tend to shift between bases, and it becomes practically impossible to find out what is going on when this happens.

[FeurerKrieg]

Very interesting guys, hope you can keep this up and provide some insight into bombarding. This looks to be pointing to a conclusion of don't bombard when there are green, well supplied enemy troops - as all you'll do is rapidly get them used to combat, so that when you start shooting rifles at them they don't cut and run.

[Saso]

I made the third phase:
- Japanese units in rest
- Allied units in bombardment attack every day

Additional info:
Japanese units leaders:
1) 65th Brigade: LGEN Nara A. Leadership: 65 Inspiration: 68
2) 8th Heavy Field Artillery Regiment: COL. Tsutsumi R. Leadership: 50 Inspiration: 54

Allied units:
1) 91st PA Division: MGEN Larangho T.I. Leadership: 45 Inspiration: 41
2) 31st USA Regimental Combat Team: COL Ramson H.B. Leadership: 46 Inspiration: 50

Japanese units in rest

[Saso]

Third Phase

Allied units in bombardment attack every day

[rtrapasso]

Odd - once again, these results contradict the prior testing (done under 1.6xx) - that showed the non-fatigued, non-disrupted units having rising fatigue and rising disruption when they conducted artillery attacks.

Once again - exp. rises for the (inexperienced) bombarding and bombarded units.

[Saso]

Odd - once again, these results contradict the prior testing (done under 1.6xx) - that showed the non-fatigued, non-disrupted units having rising fatigue and rising disruption when they conducted artillery attacks.

This should be the normal situation, instead...

Once again - exp. rises for the (inexperienced) bombarding and bombarded units.

Basically to do a bombardment attack don't effect nothing on the bombarded units, on the contrary increase their power (speaking of inexperienced units).

I'm making the fourth test [:)]

[Saso]

Ok, I finished all test [8D]

Fourth Phase

Japanese units in bombardment attack every day

[Saso]

Fourth Phase

Allied units in bombardment attack every day

[Saso]

Well, the test is finished and we have found some interesting things:

1. A bombarding LCU serves as a supply magnet and causes the game to push supply to the (unit?) (hex?)

Frankly, I don't know for sure because I didn't seen a big difference in the supply situation, anyhow it seems that bombarding/bombarded units recover their fatigue/disruption.
Japanese units that weren't bombarded/bombarding didn't recovered nothing (they were outside of the base).

2. Bombarding an enemy unit improves the experience level of the enemy unit.

Yes if his experience is <60.

3. Bombarding an enemy unit improves the experience level of the bombarding unit.

Yes if his experience is <60.

4. A bombarding unit is weaker on defense than a defending unit.

I don't know it.

5. A bombarding unit suffers increases in fatigue and some disruption.

No, the bombarded unit as well.

Basically a bombardment attack of ground units seems don't cause disruption or losses on the bombarded units, instead seem that they recover fatigue/disruption if there are enough supply, all this if the units don't conduct an assault in the same turn.

For the defender: he can training the green troops putting them under bombardment.
For the attacker: his units recover fatigue/disruption.

[Ambassador]

So, the conclusion would be that&nbsp;units not making a deliberate or shock attack, in the case of a multi-unit corps :
-&nbsp;should be put on bombardement rather than on defence, if they are disrupted/fatigued or have <60 XP : in either case, they'll get more benefits from the bombardment than from the defence
- should be put on defence rather than bombardment if they're neither heavily disrupted/fatigued and have >60 XP, while their enemy is dis/fat or of low XP : in this case, the unit would get no (or&nbsp;very few) benefits while the enemy would get more benefits ?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

So, the conclusion would be that units not making a deliberate or shock attack, in the case of a multi-unit corps :
- should be put on bombardement rather than on defence, if they are disrupted/fatigued or have <60 XP : in either case, they'll get more benefits from the bombardment than from the defence
- should be put on defence rather than bombardment if they're neither heavily disrupted/fatigued and have >60 XP, while their enemy is dis/fat or of low XP : in this case, the unit would get no (or very few) benefits while the enemy would get more benefits ?

Depends on your supply situtation... if you are heavily disrupted and fatigued, with low experience, but you are low on supplies, it might not be a good idea to burn of your the rest shooting at the enemy... of course, if you are in Manilla on defense, it might be a good idea... every situation is different and you have to weigh the costs and benefits.

[Ambassador]

However :

ORIGINAL: Saso

Ok, I made the test [:)]

BRIEFING

I put several Japanese units at Manila against several Allied units in defence.
[...]


[...]
I observed two Japanese units and two Allied units as reference

Have you by any chance looked at all the other units ? There're over a dozen LCUs on each side - from the experience I've got on other wargames, there's usually a spread/dispersal of the shots when numerous units are present. From a methodological POV, it'd be better if there only were two units on each side, each followed for reference. Given the rather unexpected results of your tests, I'd fear other factors skewed them...[:(]


I also wonder if the nature of the terrain (urban) doesn't impact the results too.

[rtrapasso]

Lots of factors could effect these tests, including (but not limited to ):

Supply (on both sides)
terrain
leaders (on both sides)
Absolute numbers of artillery (on both sides)
Absolute unadjusted AV (on both sides)
Date (in the game)
Relative strength of attacker/defender
etc., etc., etc.

The way the game engine interacts with different factors is extremely complex... and changes with each patch/mod.

EDIT: Heck - the game apparently plays differently on machine vs. another: many players see bugs that can't be replicated on another persons machine (i.e. - sub transport bug was apparent to me since 1.21, but couldn't be replicated by other beta tester... some devs just now having it hit them in 1.8xx, and some people are STILL not having it affect them.)

[Saso]

Have you by any chance looked at all the other units ? There're over a dozen LCUs on each side - from the experience I've got on other wargames, there's usually a spread/dispersal of the shots when numerous units are present.

I checked them, not each turn but often, and also them were in good shape.

From a methodological POV, it'd be better if there only were two units on each side, each followed for reference. Given the rather unexpected results of your tests, I'd fear other factors skewed them...


I also wonder if the nature of the terrain (urban) doesn't impact the results too.

Surely there are other factors involved but a dozen of units in bombardment attack that don't cause losses (or disruption at least) is a bit strange (with only one fortification point).

EDIT: Heck - the game apparently plays differently on machine vs. another: many players see bugs that can't be replicated on another persons machine (i.e. - sub transport bug was apparent to me since 1.21, but couldn't be replicated by other beta tester... some devs just now having it hit them in 1.8xx, and some people are STILL not having it affect them.)

I didn't know it...

[treespider]

One thing that wasn't tracked was the supply consumed by the defending units. A while ago I ran some tests on supply consumption. Note the increase in supply consumed by units that were subjected to Ground Attacks by aircraft. I would be willing to bet the effects are similar to Ground Bombardment attacks.

STOCK TEST


Using the Stock Tutorial I ran a 26 day test to see how supply is actually consumed by a LCU in the STOCK game. I found some things that surprised me...

The test unit was a Japanese base force on Ulithi. Undamaged it contained 193 squads / devices. It required 193 supply and had 0 supply in the unit at the start of the test.

Total Supply on the Island at the start of the test was 8154.

For the first 12 days of the test I allowed the unit to sit and do nothing.

On the first day the game moved 203 supply points from the island to the unit (+10 more than the 193 the unit required) to fill its required allotment. ZERO supply was consumed on the island this day...meaning that between the unit and the base there was still 8154 supply points.

Then for the next 11 days the supply in the unit would alternate from exactly matching requirements for the unit to going to +10 of required supply. Required supply for the unit alternated from a high of 193 to a low of 191, Average Req. = 191.9. On each day (except the first) exactly 7 supply points were consumed from the TOTAL supply on the island and in the unit....meaning there were 7 fewer supply points in the Total of the bases supply and the units supply.

My assumption was that the amount of supply consumed was the Req Supply divided by 28 rounded to the nearest whole number.

On Day 12 I bombed the unit with 18 or 19 B-24's and inflicted 149 Men lost and 1 Gun lost in damage.

Not surprisingly the required supply increased from 191 to 239. Roughly a 30% increase.

What was interesting is that each time the unit was bombed during the test the code would automatically allocate to the unit an amount of supply = the units required supply +10 points. So in this case the unit had 249 supply with it.

What was slightly more surprising is that the amount of supply consumed did not increase 30% as the requirement had ....the amount of supply consumed went from 7 to 21 a 3x increase. Which did not correspond to Requirements divided by 28 .....239/28 = 8.5

The next day I did not bomb and the required supply dropped to 202 and once again the supply consumed = 7.... 202/28 =7.2

Four days after the inital bombing another mission was flown and only inflicted 34 casualties. The supply consumed increased from 7 to 12 even though the required supply had again increased to 244. The next day with no bombing supply consumption returned to 7.

Then the unit was subjected to 4 straight days of bombing at the same intensity as the previous attacks. Losses varied from a high of 103 men and 4 guns to a low of 27 men and 1 gun. What is interesting is that the supply consumed ranged as 17, 18, 16, 18. The 16 pt day being the day of the weakest attack.

Then the unit was given a one day respite and the supply consumed immediately dropped back to 6.

The final three days of the test I included a B-29 group with the B-24 group. All launching Ground Attack missions...The first day the combined group inflicted 257 casualties. Supply requirements went from 174 to 256. Recall that after the very first attack requirements went from 193 to 239.

What was really surprising is that tyhe supply consumed jumped from 6 to 35.

The following two days the combined B-29 / b-24 group inflicted 90 and 121 casualties and the amount of supply consumed dropped to 22 and 23 respectively.

[Saso]

Thanks treespider, very very interesting&nbsp;[:)]

Therefore the amount of supply consumed change with the losses inflicted and maybe this amount depends by which kind of devices is hit...

More play this game and more I need to understand how it works, is a very long way...[:(]