The mobile immovable object

[cathar1244]

Lobster,

Define it as you wish. In terms of a game experience, one side will put an air unit on an interdiction mission. That air unit will attempt to complete its mission. If it does not complete the interdiction mission by attacking moving units, it -may- (not guaranteed) attack what Bob calls a "static target of opportunity".

Lesson for the targeted side is, not moving a unit is not proof against attacks by enemy air units placed on interdiction missions. How much value one places on such information is in the eyes of the beholder.

Cheers

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Guys, you know this: At the end of the player-turn, if the interdiction force hasn't done enough interdicting in the player-turn, they are used to attack static targets of opportunity.

Just wanted to contradict this. The opportunity attack during my game of FitE 5.0 takes place every time the resolve battles button is pushed. Not just at the end of turn push. This tells me interdiction is well broken. The German player was able to make 128 'end of turn' opportunity attacks before three different resolve battle sequences and then another at the end of turn push. That's over 170 bombardments!!! (Bob's quote bolded by me)

BTW, all of these bombardments were against static targets, not moving targets. It these opportunity attacks take place before all movement is completed, that is, before end of turn is activated, then how can they be opportunity attacks when there are still potential interdiction attacks?

[gliz2]

Also can confirm what Lobster posted on FITE2 bombardments.

@Cathar
Keep up the good work and don't bother with the grumpy folks (Bob and Lobster). Since the game is a sandbox it has a lot of simplifications, shortcomings and iterrations on the very old code. For me handling of time and space or air support is worse than at many old boardgames or V for Victory series. This does not mean the game is bad. It means people play it and question the the in-game solutions and wish it could be better. And that is a quite encouraging thought on an old title.
In the end everyone is protective of their children and the maker of the game (Norm) had some shitty approach to criticism himself.

[cpt flam]

Lobster, it could be good too to follow incentive from designer of FITE.
He clearly tell to don't do interdiction of any sort.
I tried it myself and saw HQ unit arriving as reinforcement moving few hexes by rail and then interdicted and no more move possible.
If you are moving a full division, HQ will stay there and units continue until other INT occur.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: cpt flam

Lobster, it could be good too to follow incentive from designer of FITE.
He clearly tell to don't do interdiction of any sort.
I tried it myself and saw HQ unit arriving as reinforcement moving few hexes by rail and then interdicted and no more move possible.
If you are moving a full division, HQ will stay there and units continue until other INT occur.

You are talking about FitE2. There is no such rule in FitE5.0. These are two different scenarios. Interdiction is fine. It's the opportunity attacks that need to be fixed. They are supposed to only take place at the end of the turn. Not before every attack resolution.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Also can confirm what Lobster posted on FITE2 bombardments.

@Cathar
Keep up the good work and don't bother with the grumpy folks (Bob and Lobster). Since the game is a sandbox it has a lot of simplifications, shortcomings and iterrations on the very old code. For me handling of time and space or air support is worse than at many old boardgames or V for Victory series. This does not mean the game is bad. It means people play it and question the the in-game solutions and wish it could be better. And that is a quite encouraging thought on an old title.
In the end everyone is protective of their children and the maker of the game (Norm) had some shitty approach to criticism himself.

If you are saying I like this game yes, I do. If you are saying I never criticize anything about this game...I'll let that go because you are a rookie here and have not been around longer than a two day old baby so how can you possibly know what has gone on before. [:D]

[sPzAbt653]

10.4.8. InterdICtIon mIssIons
Interdiction only affects over-land movement of ground units.

Based on that Rule, I thought maybe there should be something added because there is no mention of Interdiction affecting units that do not move. I also could find no instance of 'targets of opportunity' in the Manual, nor of anything stating that these attacks take place at the end of the turn, when in fact they occur at the beginning of each combat round.

I needed to run tests in III and IV to confirm consistency. Using the Normandy 44 scenario [one of the worst cases of Interdiction] - with III there were 49 to 75 Air Unit attacks on non-moving units at the beginning of every combat round [not at the end of the turn]. The pop-up says 'Air Strike' so no way of knowing what aircraft and which mission triggered it. I switched over to IV and got a shock as Interdiction was calculated differently and was barely effective. Note the screen shots from III below, compared to the screen shots from IV in the next post.

[sPzAbt653]

So it seems that Interdiction is not working properly in IV, or it didn't work properly in III. Or I am missing something. Either way it does appear that the Manual should be amended to read:
10.4.8. InterdICtIon mIssIons
Interdiction affects over-land movement of ground units during the movement phase. Interdiction affects static targets of opportunity at the beginning of each combat round.

[cathar1244]

Based on that Rule, I thought maybe there should be something added because there is no mention of Interdiction affecting units that do not move. I also could find no instance of 'targets of opportunity' in the Manual, nor of anything stating that these attacks take place at the end of the turn, when in fact they occur at the beginning of each combat round. --sPzAbt653

Agree the documentation could be better.

About these 'opportunity' air strikes, my take is that striking "static" units is not so bad, but priority for strikes should be for entire units moving. I write "entire" because even with the "static" units, in reality, there is plenty of small scale movement occurring even if the entire unit isn't on the move. Beyond that, real air-ground missions don't strike only units on the move. I also think it would be better if the strikes on static units occurred at the end of each combat round as that would tend to strike moving units more unless the targeted side was deliberately not moving units for some reason.

Cheers

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Guys, you know this: At the end of the player-turn, if the interdiction force hasn't done enough interdicting in the player-turn, they are used to attack static targets of opportunity.

1) As the Soviet player I had four combat rounds. It was simply two units attacking a German recon unit. Before each combat round there were 43+ opportunity attacks. That's 172 air bombardment attacks. Then there were another 40+ air attacks at the end of the turn for a grand total of over 212 air bombardment attacks. I have no idea what the effect on the German air units were. If they were treated as air interdiction (no use of supply) or if they were treated as bombardment attacks. If I were the German player I would never have my aircraft on anything but interdiction especially if the opportunity attacks were treated as interdiction instead of bombardment.

2) If you want to avoid interdiction attacks don't enter a hex that has an airfield. That simple thing will dramatically affect the number of interdiction attacks.

3) The only 'documentation' concerning opportunity attacks is the blurb by Bob. Even that is incorrect.

4) Given 1 and 2 I would say interdiction is well broken and has been for some time. Not only broken but not even well understood. We just took it like a man and never said anything. [:D]

The game code needs to be examined to determine exactly what it going on and how to make it right, whatever right is. Personally I feel these huge numbers of free air bombardments are very wrong. If supply isn't used then where do the bombs and petrol come from? If it isn't treated as bombardment by air units then why don't the attacking air units suffer the same kind of AAA as your typical air bombardment mission? Why is there air?

BTW, thanks Cathar for starting this thread and making us take a closer look at opportunity attacks. [;)]

[sPzAbt653]

For the Supply thing, I watched it when I was running those tests with Normandy 44, and for what it's worth some of the Allied planes were well into the Orange from just those 'Air Strikes'.

[76mm]

Agreed, very interesting thread, please keep up the good work!

[cathar1244]

I'm learning as well. Looking for this in large scenarios brought out aspects I didn't consider.

Cheers

[cathar1244]

If they were treated as air interdiction (no use of supply) or if they were treated as bombardment attacks. --Lobster

This is a fragment from an attack on a static target I got from the TOAW Log file.

AIRCombat:
AIRCombat:Target of opportunity: Air Defenders 1st Formation, Infantry Bn.
Combat :Removing available equipment from combat inventory.
AIRCombat:Begin Air Unit frictional air support (ground attack).
AIRCombat:Air Support: Air Unit 1st Formation, Aircraft.
AIRCombat:Begin frictional anti aircraft fire.
.
.
.
AIRCombat:Interdiction attack (bombardment): Air Defenders 1st Formation, Infantry Bn.
AIRCombat:bombard:26900,defend:310
Combat :
.
.
.
Combat :
AIRCombat:Interdiction attack (anti armor): Air Defenders 1st Formation, Infantry Bn.
AIRCombat:antiArmor:6200,defend:892
Combat :
.
.
.
Combat : End smite...
Combat :
News :SwitchSides

A player-directed air bombardment includes this bit:

ARTCombat:2035 kg/min weight of long range fire suppress entrenchment level in location 4,6 by 28%.
Combat : Defending unit under fire: ADA Battery (attrit: 16)

So, if the routines mentioned in the Log File are in fact the same, air units on interdiction missions employ the same code for attacks on both moving and static targets. Directed bombardment attacks appear to draw on artillery routines for, at the least, determination of the reduction of the target's entrenchment level. Entrenchment reduction calculation is not being logged in the TOAW log file for attacks by air units on interdiction missions, although that does not mean it is not happening. I have not looked at that yet.

Cheers

[Lobster]

This is simply an opinion but...

First the opportunity attacks need to be limited to after the end of turn is reached, never before.

The logic for this is:
Opportunity attacks are when an air unit on an interdiction mission has not found a valid interdiction target and so drops it's ordinance on a target of opportunity. If the end of turn has not been reached by whatever method then there are still potential valid interdiction targets, supply not being the least of them. As long as there are potential valid interdiction targets there should be no reason to move to the opportunity portion of the interdiction mission. The first thing that needs to be fixed is moving the opportunity attacks to the end of turn like Bob thinks they work (they don't). The supply question is the minor portion of this and becomes almost moot once the opportunity attacks are conducted the way Bob thinks they are.