Air to Ground Rockets have been nerfed is that WAD?

[LiquidSky]

I have seen 'afv' losses before in my units. Out of your 53 losses, maybe only a quarter of them were real tanks. Most of them would be bren carriers, halftracks...that sort of thing. They are also armoured fighting vehicles, albeit with not much armour. Just like guns can be anything from a 200mm howitzer to a 37mm AT gun.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I received QBalls most recent turn and he flew 773 FB sorties against my American tanks and destroyed 53 of them. A ratio of 1 tank destroyed for every 15 sorties. He tells me his airplanes were armed with bombs. So maybe the answer is that bombs are now superior tank killers to rockets. I am really curious as to what everyone else is experiencing.

Which in it self is just prove how rediculous over stated tank losses(and manpower losses for that matter) to airpower is. Tried telling them internally for years but.....
53 is between 1/4 and 1/5 of all US tanks lost in june to all causes, lost in turn to a few FBs. Even if Qball isnt 100% clear and the 53 indeed are AFVs not all tanks per say the the overkill is obvious. Nuff said.
So yes currently bomb are more overstated than rocket after the bug fix, non the less its not a question of either giving to few just many 100(0)% times overstated either rockets and bombs/canons currently are.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: MechFO

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana



I am sure those AA had a lot to do with it. QBall is a very good player and he knows how to use his SUs effectively. In hindsight it was also admittedly unfair of me to choose this particular battle to focus on, when all of my other attacks were successful.

Rereading my posts I admit that I sound very sour grapish (is that a word?). That was not my intent. I believe the Air Game generally works very well, but it could use some tweaking. In particular:

1. I still think afv losses to air attack (especially rockets) have been nerfed too much.

Actual kills of AFV's were very low, at least during Normandy, which itself is arguably an aberration since extremely heavy concentrations of air power could be brought to bear on a comparatively small and compartmentalized area.

Long thread on the subject.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum ... 00010.html

and

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/rocket.txt

the original;

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... ode=fjss20

Again, I am not advocating that tank losses to air attacks should be anywhere near as great as they were before they were nerfed. I had seen cases where 100 tanks were destroyed by just 400 sorties; that was ridiculous. Without question far more tanks, on both sides, were destroyed by ground forces than were destroyed by air power. But I am saying that just 1 tank destroyed in 400 sorties (which is what I am experiencing) is way too little. Look at your very first thread on the Mortain Counter Attack. Here in just 4 days (ie 1/2 a turn) the Allies destroyed at least 9 tanks in 441 sorties (with another 4 to multiple causes and 11 abandoned). Even not giving the air force any credit for the tanks destroyed by multiple causes or the abandoned tanks (which by the way I think is unfair) that is still a rate of 1 tank destroyed for every 50 sorties. This is still far better than the 1 tank destroyed for 350+ sorties that I am experiencing.

Now maybe it is just my bad luck, if other people are experiencing 2 to 4 tanks destroyed by air power per 100 sorties than please advise.

The abandoned/damaged etc. is already covered by the additional losses a retreat or failed attack causes in the engine.


441 sorties is what the IX TAC alone flew in Mortain area 7-10 August with 200 of those on the 7th.
2nd TAF flew another 294 on the 7th alone with an unknown additional number of sorties on 8-10th.


Looking at Falaise, you have over 12500 sorties causing 33+ losses, so 350-400 sorties per kill.
Even Mortain, the ratio is at least 100:1 and that with what was arguably the most advantageous possible test case for CAS.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I received QBalls most recent turn and he flew 773 FB sorties against my American tanks and destroyed 53 of them. A ratio of 1 tank destroyed for every 15 sorties. He tells me his airplanes were armed with bombs. So maybe the answer is that bombs are now superior tank killers to rockets. I am really curious as to what everyone else is experiencing.

Which in it self is just prove how rediculous over stated tank losses(and manpower losses for that matter) to airpower is. Tried telling them internally for years but.....
53 is between 1/4 and 1/5 of all US tanks lost in june to all causes, lost in turn to a few FBs. Even if Qball isnt 100% clear and the 53 indeed are AFVs not all tanks per say the the overkill is obvious. Nuff said.
So yes currently bomb are more overstated than rocket after the bug fix, non the less its not a question of either giving to few just many 100(0)% times overstated either rockets and bombs/canons currently are.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

Absolutely agree.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: MechFO


The abandoned/damaged etc. is already covered by the additional losses a retreat or failed attack causes in the engine.


441 sorties is what the IX TAC alone flew in Mortain area 7-10 August with 200 of those on the 7th.
2nd TAF flew another 294 on the 7th alone with an unknown additional number of sorties on 8-10th.

I was just quoting the thread. Not sure where you got your numbers from.

Looking at Falaise, you have over 12500 sorties causing 33+ losses, so 350-400 sorties per kill.
Even Mortain, the ratio is at least 100:1 and that with what was arguably the most advantageous possible test case for CAS.

Again, not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but assuming they are accurate how many of the 12,500 sorties were with rocket armed (as opposed to bomb armed) aircraft, how many were FBs rather than LBs, does the 12,500 number include escorts, how many of the sorties were interdiction missions, how many were flown against non-motorized units? I am not suggesting that the kill ratio should be 1 AFV destroyed for every 25 sorties flown no matter what the mission or conditions. I am suggesting it should be 1 for every 25 sorties flown by a rocket armed FB in a Ground Attack or ground support mission in clear weather against an unentrenched panzer unit on a clear terrain hex. Given the fact that on most turns such opportunities will be few and far between and your FBs mostly will be flying other types of missions (ie interdiction) I believe that even if my idea is adopted tha overall kill ratio per sortie probably will be about 1 tank destroyed for every 400 or even 500 sorties flown of all types.

Part of the problem, I believe, is that that the game may have to give FBs a higher tank kill ratio then they had in real life simply because the game engine does not allow you to fly nearly as many sorties as were actually flown in real life. If IX TAC and 2nd TAF did fly 12,500 rocket armed FB sorties in the week and a half of Falaise that is an average of over 4150 per week for each Air Command. My own game experience is that anywhere from 1/3rd to 1/2 of these air commands need to be rested each week due to low morale. Accordingly, I don't think the game will generally allow this many sorties per week, and certainly not by the rocket armed Fbs.

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: MechFO


The abandoned/damaged etc. is already covered by the additional losses a retreat or failed attack causes in the engine.


441 sorties is what the IX TAC alone flew in Mortain area 7-10 August with 200 of those on the 7th.
2nd TAF flew another 294 on the 7th alone with an unknown additional number of sorties on 8-10th.

I was just quoting the thread. Not sure where you got your numbers from.

Looking at Falaise, you have over 12500 sorties causing 33+ losses, so 350-400 sorties per kill.
Even Mortain, the ratio is at least 100:1 and that with what was arguably the most advantageous possible test case for CAS.

Again, not sure where you are getting your numbers from, but assuming they are accurate how many of the 12,500 sorties were with rocket armed (as opposed to bomb armed) aircraft, how many were FBs rather than LBs, does the 12,500 number include escorts, how many of the sorties were interdiction missions, how many were flown against non-motorized units? I am not suggesting that the kill ratio should be 1 AFV destroyed for every 25 sorties flown no matter what the mission or conditions. I am suggesting it should be 1 for every 25 sorties flown by a rocket armed FB in a Ground Attack or ground support mission in clear weather against an unentrenched panzer unit on a clear terrain hex. Given the fact that on most turns such opportunities will be few and far between and your FBs mostly will be flying other types of missions (ie interdiction) I believe that even if my idea is adopted tha overall kill ratio per sortie probably will be about 1 tank destroyed for every 400 or even 500 sorties flown of all types.

Sorry, I can post sources and details from them, I can't read them for you, that you will have to do yourself. Many if not all your questions are answered.

art of the problem, I believe, is that that the game may have to give FBs a higher tank kill ratio then they had in real life simply because the game engine does not allow you to fly nearly as many sorties as were actually flown in real life. If IX TAC and 2nd TAF did fly 12,500 rocket armed FB sorties in the week and a half of Falaise that is an average of over 4150 per week for each Air Command. My own game experience is that anywhere from 1/3rd to 1/2 of these air commands need to be rested each week due to low morale. Accordingly, I don't think the game will generally allow this many sorties per week, and certainly not by the rocket armed Fbs.

A valid point. However any design has to go for averages, not outliers. Very high sortie rates were possible in this case because of the very close proximity of bases and targets but the effect:sortie ratio isn't affected by this.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I received QBalls most recent turn and he flew 773 FB sorties against my American tanks and destroyed 53 of them. A ratio of 1 tank destroyed for every 15 sorties. He tells me his airplanes were armed with bombs. So maybe the answer is that bombs are now superior tank killers to rockets. I am really curious as to what everyone else is experiencing.

Which in it self is just prove how rediculous over stated tank losses(and manpower losses for that matter) to airpower is. Tried telling them internally for years but.....
53 is between 1/4 and 1/5 of all US tanks lost in june to all causes, lost in turn to a few FBs. Even if Qball isnt 100% clear and the 53 indeed are AFVs not all tanks per say the the overkill is obvious. Nuff said.
So yes currently bomb are more overstated than rocket after the bug fix, non the less its not a question of either giving to few just many 100(0)% times overstated either rockets and bombs/canons currently are.

Kind regards,
Rasmus

To be fair to QBall, I had several armoured divisions all stacked in a confined area, in clear terrain, with cold/clear weather, no entrenchment and minimal AA attachments (I was counting on my AS Mission and the several fighter squadrons I had in the area). Had the attacking FBs been armed with rockets rather than bombs I would not, IMHO, have anything to complain of.

If I am reading you correctly you are saying that you believe rockets (and not just bombs) are still overrated as tank killers even with the most recent version. Is that correct? If so, than again I would really like to know what other people are experiencing. My personal experience is that rockets have been completely nerfed as tank killers. I'm not even sure now if the 1 tank I did kill in my 352 sorties was killed by a rocket as the P47s also carry 2 bombs. I know that typhoon and other pilots grossly overestimated the number of tanks they destroyed. I know that not nearly as many tanks were destroyed by rocket firing aircraft as were destroyed by other means. But still rockets destroy many tanks; not in the thousands, but certainly in the hundreds.

Here is a link to an article very critical of the role of aircraft in destroying tanks. A couple interesting things is that apparently not all of the destroyed German tanks were even inspected to see how they were destroyed. Still the article acknowledges that in the Normandy campaign at least 100 tanks were destroyed by aircraft fired ordinance. http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/comb ... r-in-wwii/

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


I have seen 'afv' losses before in my units. Out of your 53 losses, maybe only a quarter of them were real tanks. Most of them would be bren carriers, halftracks...that sort of thing. They are also armoured fighting vehicles, albeit with not much armour. Just like guns can be anything from a 200mm howitzer to a 37mm AT gun.

I think you are correct (as always) LiquidSky. In 1 attack I lost 25 "AFV"s, but of these only 9 were actual tanks (3 Shermans and 6 Stuarts). I also lost 12 M7 105mm HMCs (ie Priests), 2 M8 75mm HMCs, 2 M10 3in GMCs's and 4 M8 Greyhounds. I assume that all of these (except the Greyhounds) are included in the destroyed "AFV"s.

All of this raises another issue (at least for me) of what the game means by an "AFV" and is it the same thing as what everyone else means by an AFV.

[Harrybanana]

Since no one was providing their own current experience on the effectiveness of rocket attacks on armoured units I ran a test. I loaded up the June 1944 Campaign game and played both sides through to the June 6 turn (to get to clear weather). I then moved the 12th SS Panzer divison ( with over 200 tanks) by rail (so that there would be minimal disruption) to the hex NE of Rouen. So it was now sitting unentrenched in a clear terrain hex in clear weather well within range of 2nd TAC. It only had it's intrinsic flak (ie no AA/Flak support units). On the Allied turn I equipped every Mosquito FB, Typhoon and Tempest air group with rockets. I then set an Air Recon directive over the 12th SS position with all of 2nd Tacs recon aircraft. I then set all of the aforementioned rocket equipped air groups (381 aircraft in all) to "Unit" Ground attack the 12th SS position and then executed the air phase. I did this twice. The first time I achieved 1280 sorties killing 766 men and destroying 15 guns and 2 AFVs, only 1 of which was a tank. The second time I did better, killing 1091 men,destroying 15 guns and 5 AFVs, of which 2 were tanks. So does anyone actually think these results for tank kills by rocket armed aircraft are historically accurate? This is 1 turn using every rocket equipped plane of 2nd TAC with the sole mission of attacking 1 unit, and all they destroy are 1 or 2 tanks? I realize the pilots grossly over estimated the number of tanks they destroyed. I understand that rockets were not particularly accurate. I get all that. But even BOR credited the rockets with killing a lot more tanks than this. Having the typhoons destroy 100+ tanks in one week (as they were doing before the nerf) was fantasy, but, as Pelton would say, the current kill ratio is Middle Earth too.

For those who are interested I ran the same test but equipped the FBs with bombs rather than rockets. This time I killed 4151 men and destroyed 64 guns and 55 AFVs (of which 31 were tanks). Guess what I will be loading my planes with for unit attacks from now on?

In one final test I used both rockets and bombs for interdiction and the rockets did give better (27% better) interdiction numbers.

[RedLancer]

Those results don't upset me - bombing a static unit will have more of an effect as there is significantly more explosives being delivered and if you do get a direct hit then the top of an AFV is very vulnerable. For interdiction then rockets have the edge as its not about hitting them so much as stopping them moving or slowing them down and a direct fire capability has the edge.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

Those results don't upset me - bombing a static unit will have more of an effect as there is significantly more explosives being delivered and if you do get a direct hit then the top of an AFV is very vulnerable. For interdiction then rockets have the edge as its not about hitting them so much as stopping them moving or slowing them down and a direct fire capability has the edge.

What do you mean by a "static" unit. Just because the tanks were attacked by ground attack missions during my air phase doesn't mean they were all just parked together in an open field. Even without entrenchment I assume they were taking defensive advantage of whatever the terrain offered, had camouflage, and were maneuvering defensively. Either way, whether the tanks were parked or moving, the rockets would have destroyed more tanks than bombs. As inaccurate as the rockets were they were more accurate than bombs and each plane could carry 8 rockets as opposed to only 2 bombs.

According to the on ground investigators rockets destroyed more tanks than bombs (albeit far less than they claimed). So I have a problem with the bomb equipped air groups destroying at least 15X more tanks than the same air groups armed with rockets. My concern is that the developers will "fix" this problem by nerfing bombing results on tanks without increasing the effectiveness of rockets to a realistic level. To be clear, I am talking about tanks here, not AFVs in general.

Red lancer, enemy tanks were actually more vulnerable when they were moving/attacking than when they were "static". Accordingly, more enemy tanks should be destroyed by Ground Support Missions (both offensive and defensive) and enemy mobile units reserve reaction moving through interdicted hexes than by Air Ground Attack "unit" missions. But currently this is not happening, so the only real opportunity in the game that the Allied air force has to destroy enemy tanks is with Air Ground Attack "unit" missions. So if/when they nerf the bombs (as they have already done with the rockets) I believe the actual kills of tanks by air power will drop to less than 1% (and probably more like 0.1%) of the total kills. Is there any way to actually track how enemy tanks are destroyed?

[RedLancer]

You are missing my point and we are in the world of abstraction.

For starters you are comparing bombs with rockets which are quite different weapon systems. One is an unguided direct fire weapon and the other an unguided area weapon.

By static I mean static.

- The Gnd Attack Unit mission targets a 'static' unit in your air phase. As it is your air phase then the enemy must be static as we are in an IGOUGO.
- The Gnd Attack Interdiction places a nominal value on the hex which has an effect during movement or combat. If you don't move or fight you are unaffected.
- Gnd Support mission is employed during combat so there is some semblance of movement.

Things that move get seen - the human eye and brain is hardwired to react to movement as part of our hunting past. Area weapons don't need accuracy to be effective due to their blast radius, shaped charges do need accuracy to be effective in achieving a kill. As you say camouflage and concealment has an impact but that is inherently less a factor for area weapons as a direct hit is not required. That is why neutralisation and disruption is the key task of area weapons in a combat situation.

So what you should see is bombs more effective in Gnd Atk Units and Rkts in Gnd Atk Interdiction. Interdiction is not just about losses but slowing response rates so a hit is not a prequisite. That is what you posted from your test and I agree. Gnd Support should be a mix of the two but there are other factors in play as when combat occurs Gnd Atk Interdiction values also play a role. Your historic data is difficult to map to the game as historical reality is not abstracted - which of the historical losses relate to what sort of air mission? You are pushing the game's abstraction beyond its limits looking for a level of fidelity that is impossible to prove or disapprove.

Finally we did not nerf rockets - we fixed a bug in the code which I believe meant that rockets range was not a factor so they were inherently too accurate.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

You are missing my point and we are in the world of abstraction.

For starters you are comparing bombs with rockets which are quite different weapon systems. One is an unguided direct fire weapon and the other an unguided area weapon.

By static I mean static.

- The Gnd Attack Unit mission targets a 'static' unit in your air phase. As it is your air phase then the enemy must be static as we are in an IGOUGO.
- The Gnd Attack Interdiction places a nominal value on the hex which has an effect during movement or combat. If you don't move or fight you are unaffected.
- Gnd Support mission is employed during combat so there is some semblance of movement.

Things that move get seen - the human eye and brain is hardwired to react to movement as part of our hunting past. Area weapons don't need accuracy to be effective due to their blast radius, shaped charges do need accuracy to be effective in achieving a kill. As you say camouflage and concealment has an impact but that is inherently less a factor for area weapons as a direct hit is not required. That is why neutralisation and disruption is the key task of area weapons in a combat situation.

So what you should see is bombs more effective in Gnd Atk Units and Rkts in Gnd Atk Interdiction. Interdiction is not just about losses but slowing response rates so a hit is not a prequisite. That is what you posted from your test and I agree. Gnd Support should be a mix of the two but there are other factors in play as when combat occurs Gnd Atk Interdiction values also play a role. Your historic data is difficult to map to the game as historical reality is not abstracted - which of the historical losses relate to what sort of air mission? You are pushing the game's abstraction beyond its limits looking for a level of fidelity that is impossible to prove or disapprove.

Finally we did not nerf rockets - we fixed a bug in the code which I believe meant that rockets range was not a factor so they were inherently too accurate.

I disagree. Historically rockets were more effective than bombs at destroying tanks (but not at killing men) whether they were static or moving. Having it any other way is just wrong. But using your analogy, which do you say should be more effective at destroying tanks while flying ground support missions during the Ground Movement Phase, rockets or bombs? Do you have any problem with the fact that mobile units moving through interdicted hexes during the movement phase suffer a lot of disruption and some losses (I did a test and lost 5 tanks and several more damaged moving through six hexes of 8 and 9 level interdiction), but suffer no disruption or losses if making the same move in a Reserve activation?

I am trying not to be overly critical here. This a great game, I love it. But it is not perfect and I am just trying to suggest improvements. But it seems like everyone else is either happy with the way the game models the air to ground war, or at least can't be bothered to post here. So there is no point in me flogging a dead horse. I will just adapt to the way it is.

[RedLancer]

I'm not arguing which weapon system is better what I'm saying is that bombs and rockets are by their nature very different and that difference is reflected in the game.

Ground Support is complex as at the same time interdiction is playing a part too. Arguably if a bomb causes a tank M-Kill in a battle where the unit retreats the tank is lost. This level of fidelity is hidden in the game abstraction within the game scale. This has been debated on the Dev forum - how do you accurately factor retreat losses and repair of AFVs which take less than 7 days. By providing the immersion of individual tanks and planes within a 7 day / 10 mile scaling it is very difficult to find the precise answer. There is a point where pursuit of fidelity backed up by selected historical statistics becomes an unwinnable argument.

With regard to reserve activation - if you accept that interdiction lowers the chance of an activation then a further penalty is a double whammy. Getting the balance is very difficult and this is perhaps why Pavel (Helpless) requested a save.

[LiquidSky]

Unit bombing is an 'instant' gratification. The planes fly out, do their thing, and return...and you get a number. DONE.

But there are other things that need to follow. If you attack that unit right afterwards, you will in all likelihood...retreat it. And it will suffer retreat losses. Because of the Unit Bombing. And you may even get to attack it again, since it was severely weakened by the bombing...causing more retreat losses. Heck..it may even shatter at that point.

I look at unit bombing as a mission that wasn't flown very often. The allies just didn't track a german unit on a map and send repeated air strikes against it, ignoring all other targets along the way. A way I think of it is before D-Day....how many German tanks were lost to airstrikes? They knew where the panzer divisions were located (generally). Why didn't they fly over and destroy all of the 21st Panzer's afvs?

I mean...they could kill only 3 tanks a day and they could have wiped out the divisions armour in the month of May.

What the allies did do is Geographical region bombing. They would draw a line and send out fighter-bombers by area and let them destroy what they wanted (or by type, say bridges) on the other side of that line....with the hope being that friendly units wouldn't be on the other side.

That general interdiction is what should be most effective. And in game it is. I fly my Hurricanes and Typhoons, and lay a nice layer of 5-7's in and around the general battle area.

If the Germans move through it...they take damage. Lose AFV's. (and more importantly, trucks) These wont show up on a fancy report saying who did what. And if the Germans don't move..they don't take damage.

So you have to make them move. I do that in my games by using a combination of both unit bombing and interdiction.

Unit bombing is done not to try and 'destroy' the enemy, but to cause disruption..lower morale, and cause fatigue....all of which lowers CV. It also makes the unit use up AMMO since they are shooting at your planes.

All of which makes the hex easier to take. Interdiction around the area makes the enemy take disruption etc...on his turn when he tries to shore up the hole in his lines...in other words..when he moves.

At the end of a turn of such combat..you will notice a very large number of dead afvs on the combat report....all caused by the air force and ground guys together. But alone, the ground guys cant do it (unless they have three hexes, lots of artillery..etc.) and the air guys cant do it alone either.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

With regard to reserve activation - if you accept that interdiction lowers the chance of an activation then a further penalty is a double whammy. Getting the balance is very difficult and this is perhaps why Pavel (Helpless) requested a save.

I believe there should be a double whammy to a unit moving through interdiction during an attack. Even a triple or quadruple whammy if possible. Certainly there is a triple whammy to units moving through an interdicted hex during ground movement as, I believe, it costs them extra MPs, losses and disruption. Why should a unit moving through an interdicted hexes during ground movement suffer all of these effects when the same unit moving "through" the same hexes in a reserve reaction move suffers only the MP loss. Indeed I would argue that the units moving in a reserve reaction should suffer far worse effects than those moving during their own ground movement phase. In the latter case the units could often move at night or perhaps during a lull in the interdiction. But a unit moving as a reserve reaction often does not have this luxury and, of course, the Enemy FBs are expecting and thus waiting for this reinforcement of the combat area. It was this inability of the Germans, because of interdiction, to tactically react during a battle that often gave the Allies the decisive edge.The balance you talk about could be achieved by decreasing the negative effects of interdiction during the ground movement phase. Now maybe it is not possible to make my suggested changes for some reason. I am not a programmer and don't know how easy or difficult this would be to implement; but if that is the case just say so. But please don't try and tell me that the different ways interdiction effects ground movement and reserve reaction is historically justifiable. Again this is great game and maybe I am just asking for more historical reality here than is possible.

Again I'm not sure how a save would help Pavel. He made this request on a different thread and if I recall correctly he asked me to send him a save after the Air phase but before the Ground Phase. Well until I make an attack I don't know if there will be a reserve reaction, so what good does sending the save before the attack do? Besides I am not saying that there are too many reserve reactions (indeed there may not be enough), I am saying that the ones there are should be effected by moving through interdiction. I don't see how examining a save would "fix" this as I believe it is WAD. Unless units reserve reaction moving through interdiction are supposed to be adversely effected. Then yeah I think it is definitely broken.

[RedLancer]

What we need is a presave with everything setup. Pavel then can play the same battle again and again watching exactly what is happening when activations occur in areas of high interdiction which you have created so we don't have to.

[Harrybanana]

Ok. Too late now though as we are already in December 44 so the days of areas of high interdiction are pretty much over. I'll try and remember to send him a save from my next game.

Still not sure what he will be testing though. I assume he won't be testing the effects on reserve reaction units moving through interdicted hexes, as there are not any effects. So the only thing he can test is whether or not units are reserve reacting more or less often than they should be. Again, I don't think this is broken, but guess it would not hurt to check.

One thing I have noticed is that it seems like the reserve reaction by even a relatively weak unit can seem to have a significant effect on combat. For example, if I attack a clear terrain hex entrenched at level 3 which is showing a CV of 4-16 with a 50 CV strength force of my own, the defensive reserve reaction of a single panzer division of 6 CV will more often than not cause me to lose the battle. The effect of this reserve reaction is generally to reduce my own final CV more than it is to increase the enemy CV. So the battle summary screen (or whatever it is called) will show the Defenders initial and final CVs as something like 220:180 while my own initial and final CVs will be something like 500:250. While if the panzer did not reserve react the numbers would have been more like 160:100 and 500:460, so I would have won the battle. I assume this is because the firepower of the panzer unit is greater than it's CV so it reducing my CV. I am not saying there is anything wrong with this, except for the fact that if the panzer unit is moving through interdiction it's combat effectiveness should be reduced.