Comprehensive Wishlist

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
See item 8.12 in the wishlist. But it would seem to me that if a plane is sent to the "on hand" pool by Flak, then that's a similar effect, just less subtle. The planes weren't destroyed, they just didn't get to drop their bombs.

That's a pretty lame rationalization. This happens with all losses. What I'm talking about is that even if -- say -- only 5% percent of the planes on a sortie become OPART 'losses' due to flak, bombing effectiveness should drop by 50% or so.

An excellent example is those sorties against the British warships off Crete. Now, I haven;t been able to locate German losses to flak -- but they apparently weren't severe. Certainly nothing like what OPART III would produce. However, as long as the British were able to keep up their flak umbrella, their losses were fairly modest. Once they ran out of ammunition, though, they were promptly slaughtered.

Flak doesn't shoot down planes: it wrecks their aim. That's an overstatement -- but it's the gist of what needs to be simulated.

As I said, there may be a case for a more subtle effect. But no one knows exactly what that effect should be. You haven't provided any hard data on that. And the effect that exists now (that I mentioned above) will be mixed in with it.

The bottom line is what kind of losses are effected on both the defenders and the air units under flak conditions. We need test scenarios that model known situations. (And, for the record, I've posted one on the development board - I can't really do that here).

Make a designer option barring AA units from participating in ground battles or reducing their effectiveness in that role by some percentage.

You can delete the Flak equipment's AP value in the equipment editor if you want.

Yeah -- and I do. Ideally, however, one shouldn't have to resort to the editor for what was in fact a common situation -- flak not being used at the front, either out of doctrinal rigidity or because it had better things to do.

Above you say it should be a designer option. Here you say it should be imposed by fiat. Which is it?

As I see it, it must be a designer option. And that's exactly what the equipment editor provides. Nothing else is required.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
See item 8.12 in the wishlist. But it would seem to me that if a plane is sent to the "on hand" pool by Flak, then that's a similar effect, just less subtle. The planes weren't destroyed, they just didn't get to drop their bombs.

That's a pretty lame rationalization. This happens with all losses. What I'm talking about is that even if -- say -- only 5% percent of the planes on a sortie become OPART 'losses' due to flak, bombing effectiveness should drop by 50% or so.

An excellent example is those sorties against the British warships off Crete. Now, I haven;t been able to locate German losses to flak -- but they apparently weren't severe. Certainly nothing like what OPART III would produce. However, as long as the British were able to keep up their flak umbrella, their losses were fairly modest. Once they ran out of ammunition, though, they were promptly slaughtered.

Flak doesn't shoot down planes: it wrecks their aim. That's an overstatement -- but it's the gist of what needs to be simulated.

As I said, there may be a case for a more subtle effect. But no one knows exactly what that effect should be. You haven't provided any hard data on that. And the effect that exists now (that I mentioned above) will be mixed in with it.

The bottom line is what kind of losses are effected on both the defenders and the air units under flak conditions. We need test scenarios that model known situations. (And, for the record, I've posted one on the development board - I can't really do that here).

Make a designer option barring AA units from participating in ground battles or reducing their effectiveness in that role by some percentage.

You can delete the Flak equipment's AP value in the equipment editor if you want.

Yeah -- and I do. Ideally, however, one shouldn't have to resort to the editor for what was in fact a common situation -- flak not being used at the front, either out of doctrinal rigidity or because it had better things to do.

Above you say it should be a designer option. Here you say it should be imposed by fiat. Which is it?

As I see it, it must be a designer option. And that's exactly what the equipment editor provides. Nothing else is required.

I'm not going through this again. To me, the problems with flak are roughly as obvious as sunrise. If you insist on denying them, knock yourself out. OPART III will be that much worse a game, but realistically, there's not much I can do about that.

[a white rabbit]

..British figures give 10% losses on bombing raids as heavy, from all causes..

..British estimates are for most of WW2 it takes 18,500 shells to down one bomber, divide confirmed AA kills by shells used (pre proximity fuse)

..given the deterrent option i'd say the toaw figures are in the right area, for everything except bridge attacks and airfield attacks. It can't be hard to program AA to know when its in a bridge/airfield hex, other unit types know where they are, why not AA ?..

..oh and 2 Swordfish downed at Tarranto, despite the available AA..

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..British figures give 10% losses on bombing raids as heavy, from all causes..

..British estimates are for most of WW2 it takes 18,500 shells to down one bomber, divide confirmed AA kills by shells used (pre proximity fuse)

..given the deterrent option i'd say the toaw figures are in the right area, for everything except bridge attacks and airfield attacks. It can't be hard to program AA to know when its in a bridge/airfield hex, other unit types know where they are, why not AA ?..

..oh and 2 Swordfish downed at Tarranto, despite the available AA..

There you go. TWO Swordfish downed at Taranto. OPART losses of four. Now, go ahead and set up some AA guns at 10% proficiency. See how few you'll need to shoot down down four. It'll be something like ten barrels. Say, maybe a fiftieth of the flak the Italians probably had, between the ships and the port defences.

See the Seelowe thread at TDG. The figures are way out of line. If one reran the 1940 strike on the Meuse bridges, for example, it wouldn't be a matter of a third of the strike aircraft being shot down between the fighters and the flak -- the fighter pilots can go get coffee. In OPART, the German flak would suffice to shoot down every attacking aircraft ten times over by itself -- and I don't think that's an exaggeration.

For the time being, I've divided the AA values by anywhere from three to five, and losses are still suspiciously heavy.

The essence of the problem is that OPART doesn't reflect the primary effect of flak -- it plays hell with the aim. So we get flak that either (a) has little value at all, or (b) achieves its effect in entirely the wrong way. Flak in OPART is never going to work right if it simply functions by shooting down planes.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
I'm not going through this again. To me, the problems with flak are roughly as obvious as sunrise. If you insist on denying them, knock yourself out. OPART III will be that much worse a game, but realistically, there's not much I can do about that.

The solution is certainly not "as obvious as sunrise". Someone is actually going to have to program exactly what it is you want. If you can't even spell that out it's never going to happen. And whatever change we make will have to first demonstrate that it produces historical results in rigourous test scenarios before it is released.

Whatever effect we implement for flak vs aircraft, it will have to demonstrate that the right number of planes are lost and the right number of targets are destroyed in a suite of test situations.

As to zeroing the AP of flak, I don't want that imposed on my scenarios, unless I specifically choose to do so in the editor (and that we can do now with the equipment editor). There are other, better, ways to deal with it:

1. See Germany 1945. Units are split between front-line and rear-area components. The rear-area part has the AAA and, in the Allied case, is debilitated from being useful in the front lines (via movement allowance). So Allied AAA can't be used offensively. But, if the Germans break into the Allied rear (say in a Bulge offensive) they will bump into the rear-area forces, where their defense strength will be augmented by AAA equipment.

2. See CFNA or France 1944. Very high movement allowances mean high cost to convert enemy hexes - unless the unit has significant recon included. Rear-area units like flak and HQs lack it, while front-line units like armor and recon have it. Again, spearheads have to be front-line elements while enemy penetrations still run into rear-area strength.

If, instead, you zero the AP of AAA, then if the enemy ever hits the rear-areas there won't be as much strength in that area as there should be.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..British figures give 10% losses on bombing raids as heavy, from all causes..

..British estimates are for most of WW2 it takes 18,500 shells to down one bomber, divide confirmed AA kills by shells used (pre proximity fuse)

..given the deterrent option i'd say the toaw figures are in the right area, for everything except bridge attacks and airfield attacks. It can't be hard to program AA to know when its in a bridge/airfield hex, other unit types know where they are, why not AA ?..

..oh and 2 Swordfish downed at Tarranto, despite the available AA..

There you go. TWO Swordfish downed at Taranto. OPART losses of four. Now, go ahead and set up some AA guns at 10% proficiency. See how few you'll need to shoot down down four. It'll be something like ten barrels. Say, maybe a fiftieth of the flak the Italians probably had, between the ships and the port defences.

See the Seelowe thread at TDG. The figures are way out of line. If one reran the 1940 strike on the Meuse bridges, for example, it wouldn't be a matter of a third of the strike aircraft being shot down between the fighters and the flak -- the fighter pilots can go get coffee. In OPART, the German flak would suffice to shoot down every attacking aircraft ten times over by itself -- and I don't think that's an exaggeration.

For the time being, I've divided the AA values by anywhere from three to five, and losses are still suspiciously heavy.

The essence of the problem is that OPART doesn't reflect the primary effect of flak -- it plays hell with the aim. So we get flak that either (a) has little value at all, or (b) achieves its effect in entirely the wrong way. Flak in OPART is never going to work right if it simply functions by shooting down planes.

Some things to keep in mind for this debate...

TOAW III does abstract the aiming issue that Colin raises, by the different proportion applied to "return to inventory:losses" in the disabled results for airframe equipment. That higher proportion of returned equipment, relative to other equipment, represents damaged airframes, as well as those pilots who drop their loads off target.

Much testing needs to be done to get the numbers "right".

The "right" numbers are themselves in question. The cases being raised are, in themselves, statistical "outliers" which do not represent normal operations. The attack on Taranto achieved a good level of tactical surprise. Saying that the results, in losses to ships and or aircraft is somehow typical is like claiming that the Pearl Harbor attack was typical of WWII Pacific naval operations. How to model these eminently historical, but atypical tactical results in an operational game might generate an entire new subsection in the Wishlist.

Further regarding the right numbers, the testing must be set up rigorously and take into account a variety of AA values, proficiency, readiness, environmental, attrition divider, and hex-scale (density) settings. They must take into account, losses and return to inventory. They must be run with enough repetition to generate a good base of results. Averages and the range of the data is important, as well as the distribution of the outliers. The funny thing is though, the test data would likely be more comprehensive than the historical results of the last century, and as above, interpretation of what should be considered a "good correlation" is subject to some debate.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..British figures give 10% losses on bombing raids as heavy, from all causes..

..British estimates are for most of WW2 it takes 18,500 shells to down one bomber, divide confirmed AA kills by shells used (pre proximity fuse)

..given the deterrent option i'd say the toaw figures are in the right area, for everything except bridge attacks and airfield attacks. It can't be hard to program AA to know when its in a bridge/airfield hex, other unit types know where they are, why not AA ?..

..oh and 2 Swordfish downed at Tarranto, despite the available AA..

There you go. TWO Swordfish downed at Taranto. OPART losses of four. Now, go ahead and set up some AA guns at 10% proficiency. See how few you'll need to shoot down down four. It'll be something like ten barrels. Say, maybe a fiftieth of the flak the Italians probably had, between the ships and the port defences.

I'm going to see if I can get my AAA thread moved here from the development board. I actually simulated Taranto (sort of). It's difficult because the ships were in port and it was at night. Hard to know just how to model those factors. Regardless, it didn't really work until the AD was up to 50.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..British figures give 10% losses on bombing raids as heavy, from all causes..

..British estimates are for most of WW2 it takes 18,500 shells to down one bomber, divide confirmed AA kills by shells used (pre proximity fuse)

..given the deterrent option i'd say the toaw figures are in the right area, for everything except bridge attacks and airfield attacks. It can't be hard to program AA to know when its in a bridge/airfield hex, other unit types know where they are, why not AA ?..

..oh and 2 Swordfish downed at Tarranto, despite the available AA..

There you go. TWO Swordfish downed at Taranto. OPART losses of four. Now, go ahead and set up some AA guns at 10% proficiency. See how few you'll need to shoot down down four. It'll be something like ten barrels. Say, maybe a fiftieth of the flak the Italians probably had, between the ships and the port defences.

I'm going to see if I can get my AAA thread moved here from the development board. I actually simulated Taranto (sort of). It's difficult because the ships were in port and it was at night. Hard to know just how to model those factors. Regardless, it didn't really work until the AD was up to 50.

Done.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..British figures give 10% losses on bombing raids as heavy, from all causes..

..British estimates are for most of WW2 it takes 18,500 shells to down one bomber, divide confirmed AA kills by shells used (pre proximity fuse)

..given the deterrent option i'd say the toaw figures are in the right area, for everything except bridge attacks and airfield attacks. It can't be hard to program AA to know when its in a bridge/airfield hex, other unit types know where they are, why not AA ?..

..oh and 2 Swordfish downed at Tarranto, despite the available AA..

There you go. TWO Swordfish downed at Taranto. OPART losses of four. Now, go ahead and set up some AA guns at 10% proficiency. See how few you'll need to shoot down down four. It'll be something like ten barrels. Say, maybe a fiftieth of the flak the Italians probably had, between the ships and the port defences.

See the Seelowe thread at TDG. The figures are way out of line. If one reran the 1940 strike on the Meuse bridges, for example, it wouldn't be a matter of a third of the strike aircraft being shot down between the fighters and the flak -- the fighter pilots can go get coffee. In OPART, the German flak would suffice to shoot down every attacking aircraft ten times over by itself -- and I don't think that's an exaggeration.

For the time being, I've divided the AA values by anywhere from three to five, and losses are still suspiciously heavy.

The essence of the problem is that OPART doesn't reflect the primary effect of flak -- it plays hell with the aim. So we get flak that either (a) has little value at all, or (b) achieves its effect in entirely the wrong way. Flak in OPART is never going to work right if it simply functions by shooting down planes.

Some things to keep in mind for this debate...

TOAW III does abstract the aiming issue that Colin raises, by the different proportion applied to "return to inventory:losses" in the disabled results for airframe equipment. That higher proportion of returned equipment, relative to other equipment, represents damaged airframes, as well as those pilots who drop their loads off target.

Are you stating that more aircraft are returned to the pool if losses are inflicted by flak than if by other aircraft? More than the half that is returned for losses suffered by other types of equipment?

It did just occur to me that if reducing the effectiveness of aircraft by the amount of flak in a hex imposed insuperable programming problems, that increasing the proportion of 'losses' returned to the pool might offer an alternative approach?

Much testing needs to be done to get the numbers "right".

The "right" numbers are themselves in question. The cases being raised are, in themselves, statistical "outliers" which do not represent normal operations. The attack on Taranto achieved a good level of tactical surprise. Saying that the results, in losses to ships and or aircraft is somehow typical is like claiming that the Pearl Harbor attack was typical of WWII Pacific naval operations. How to model these eminently historical, but atypical tactical results in an operational game might generate an entire new subsection in the Wishlist.

I don't think the results at Taranto are especially atypical. The message seems the same as that in the results obtained at the Sedan bridgehead and everywhere else I've looked: flak losses are way too heavy. Just set up the Schweinfurt raid or something. I'll bet the Germans won't need to put a fighter into the sky: I imagine the flak at Schweinfurt will blow all three hundred B-17's out of the sky.

Yeah. I'm certainly not arguing that numbers should just be pulled out of a hat. However, I'd insist that the results we're getting now are totally out to lunch: we've got nowhere to go but up.

Anyway, I see three approaches.

1. As you seem to imply currently happens, a gretly increased proportion of all 'losses' could be returned to the pool. 90%? 95%? The number would need to be researched.

2. Divide the attacking strength by the amount of flak in the target hex. As I discussed, the effect should not be linear: even a few flak pieces should seriously attenuate the effectiveness of bombers, or to put the same point differently, troops without any flak at all are really at the mercy of attacking aircraft.

3. If this is impossible, it should be practical to make the presence of any unit with a flak icon have the same effect on bombing effectiveness as clouds. Obviously, this would be a rough approximation, but it would be an improvement over the current situation, and the programming requirements would seem to be minimal.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Are you stating that more aircraft are returned to the pool if losses are inflicted by flak than if by other aircraft? More than the half that is returned for losses suffered by other types of equipment?

It did just occur to me that if reducing the effectiveness of aircraft by the amount of flak in a hex imposed insuperable programming problems, that increasing the proportion of 'losses' returned to the pool might offer an alternative approach?

The amount returned to on hand for other types of equipment is approximately 33%. The amount returned to on hand for air and naval is approximately equal to the unit proficiency. All are subject to randomization, and differences induced by unsupplied conditions and evaporation dumps.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Are you stating that more aircraft are returned to the pool if losses are inflicted by flak than if by other aircraft? More than the half that is returned for losses suffered by other types of equipment?

It did just occur to me that if reducing the effectiveness of aircraft by the amount of flak in a hex imposed insuperable programming problems, that increasing the proportion of 'losses' returned to the pool might offer an alternative approach?

The amount returned to on hand for other types of equipment is approximately 33%. The amount returned to on hand for air and naval is approximately equal to the unit proficiency. All are subject to randomization, and differences induced by unsupplied conditions and evaporation dumps.

Illuminating. Aside from the subject at hand, that puts the notion that naval losses are excessive in a whole new light.

What happens with 'evaporation dumps'?

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

..British figures give 10% losses on bombing raids as heavy, from all causes..

..British estimates are for most of WW2 it takes 18,500 shells to down one bomber, divide confirmed AA kills by shells used (pre proximity fuse)

..given the deterrent option i'd say the toaw figures are in the right area, for everything except bridge attacks and airfield attacks. It can't be hard to program AA to know when its in a bridge/airfield hex, other unit types know where they are, why not AA ?..

..oh and 2 Swordfish downed at Tarranto, despite the available AA..

There you go. TWO Swordfish downed at Taranto. OPART losses of four. Now, go ahead and set up some AA guns at 10% proficiency. See how few you'll need to shoot down down four. It'll be something like ten barrels. Say, maybe a fiftieth of the flak the Italians probably had, between the ships and the port defences.

I'm going to see if I can get my AAA thread moved here from the development board. I actually simulated Taranto (sort of). It's difficult because the ships were in port and it was at night. Hard to know just how to model those factors. Regardless, it didn't really work until the AD was up to 50.

..some where i found the number of guns and the ammo expenditure for Taranto, whilst trying for AAA kill-rates. Sorry al i can remember was the that number of guns firing was incredible, and that all they could manage was 2 out 6 slow flying illuminated targets..

..you might try on the Axis History Forum..

http://forum.axishistory.com/index.php?sid=c8c5e7b3b04c21c23389953a1aad486a

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright




There you go. TWO Swordfish downed at Taranto. OPART losses of four. Now, go ahead and set up some AA guns at 10% proficiency. See how few you'll need to shoot down down four. It'll be something like ten barrels. Say, maybe a fiftieth of the flak the Italians probably had, between the ships and the port defences.

I'm going to see if I can get my AAA thread moved here from the development board. I actually simulated Taranto (sort of). It's difficult because the ships were in port and it was at night. Hard to know just how to model those factors. Regardless, it didn't really work until the AD was up to 50.

..some where i found the number of guns and the ammo expenditure for Taranto, whilst trying for AAA kill-rates. Sorry al i can remember was the that number of guns firing was incredible, and that all they could manage was 2 out 6 slow flying illuminated targets..

..you might try on the Axis History Forum..

http://forum.axishistory.com/index.php?sid=c8c5e7b3b04c21c23389953a1aad486a

That raises another point. The fewer planes there are, to some extent, the fewer will get shot down. As often as working by aiming at the specific planes, AA works by just filling an appropriate quarter of the sky with flak bursts. If a hundred planes strike a target and five get shot down by flak, it doesn't follow that if five planes strike the same target, that they will all get shot down.

Happily, the current system seems to reflect this. In Seelowe, losses start rising sharply if one attacks RN targets with too many planes at once.

[Jo van der Pluym]

Additional Equipment types.

Radar.

Signal:

Maintenance: Decrease Breakdown value Vehicles/Guns

ARV: Decrease some losses in vehicles

Medical: Decrease men losses.

Chemical/NBC: Decrease NBC losses

EW:

AA/Sams

In the AA value is now also included the Guidance/Fire Control. Made this like the AT Targeting. Say optica, IR, Radar, Microwave, Laser.

SAMS/ATGW/Missiles etc

Speed of the Missile

[ColinWright]

Anyway...can we look forward to an attempt to simulate this on the next patch?

"Pioneering research into a "gay bomb" that makes enemy troops "sexually irresistible" to each other has scooped one of this year's Ig Nobel Prizes."

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

Additional Equipment types.

Radar.

Signal:

Maintenance: Decrease Breakdown value Vehicles/Guns

ARV: Decrease some losses in vehicles

Medical: Decrease men losses.

Chemical/NBC: Decrease NBC losses

EW:

AA/Sams

In the AA value is now also included the Guidance/Fire Control. Made this like the AT Targeting. Say optica, IR, Radar, Microwave, Laser.

SAMS/ATGW/Missiles etc

Speed of the Missile

Great suggestions Jo - I like them all!

Currently TOAW only models the specific SAM "launcher" or "TEL." Not explicitly modeled are the support complex(es) which are integral to almost all SAM systems. (For example, the once ubiquitous Soviet-made SA-2 Guideline (S-75 Dvina) SAM was always accompanied by a complex of early warning and target acquisition radars at the battery, battalion, and regiment-levels.) Obviously if these supporting radars are damaged or destroyed the SAM unit will be much less effective or even completely useless. It would be very nice if TOAW could be enhanced to simulate this, even in an abstract manner.

[Jo van der Pluym]

Additional Equipment types, or equipment options.

Radar.

Signal:

Maintenance: Decrease Breakdown value Vehicles/Guns

ARV: Decrease some losses in vehicles

Medical: Decrease men losses.

Chemical/NBC: Decrease NBC losses

EW:

FIST/MFC/FDC: Increase the effective of firesupport from Mortars, Artillery, planes, helicopters, ships

AA/Sams

In the AA value is now also included the Guidance/Fire Control. Made this like the AT Targeting. Say optica, IR, Radar, Microwave, Laser.

SAMS/ATGW/Missiles etc

Speed of the Missile

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

Additional Equipment types, or equipment options.

Radar.

Signal:

Maintenance: Decrease Breakdown value Vehicles/Guns

ARV: Decrease some losses in vehicles

Medical: Decrease men losses.

Chemical/NBC: Decrease NBC losses

EW:

FIST/MFC/FDC: Increase the effective of firesupport from Mortars, Artillery, planes, helicopters, ships

AA/Sams

In the AA value is now also included the Guidance/Fire Control. Made this like the AT Targeting. Say optica, IR, Radar, Microwave, Laser.

SAMS/ATGW/Missiles etc

Speed of the Missile

I'd dread seeing a lot of these as units. Particularly ones like 'medical.' It reminds me of the little guys in the various 'Age of Empires' games who restore health. You move your 'medical unit' to the battered battalion and the condition light turns green again? No thanks.

Really, a lot of these functions you describe -- Signal, Maintenance, ARV, Medical, Chemical/NBC -- are performed by units whose personnel are dispersed all over the map. They're not in one place, nor should they be represented as being in such. Their role seems best reflected in such elements as supply proficiency, replacement levels, supply stockpile, etc.

I suppose one could have panzer repair workshops and hospitals -- but how would they work in detail, and would we really get a net improvement this way? I suppose some monumentally complex formula for adjusting certain types of replacements could get worked out so that players would (a) have these units, and (b) be motivated to put them in some location that was reasonably secure and reasonably near rails and other infrastructure and yet reasonably close to the front. But why? Where's the great benefit that will justify all the work?

Radar I was thinking about in connection with Seelowe. Hard to see how it would work, though. I dunno about modern stuff -- but did radar matter in WW2 when it came to tactical air support and the other roles OPART is concerned with?

In general, if these things were to be added, I'd want to see them done right -- which would call for a lot of work that I'd argue should go elsewhere. However, it would be worse if we just got them thrown in with some sort of slap-dash effect that didn't represent the way they functioned at all.

Take MP units and the way they work in the game now. Well, it's not a big deal -- but is that unit hopping along one hex ahead of the panzer division to cut the density penalties really all that realistic? Do we want more of that sort of thing?

[ColinWright]

I'm not sure whether to call this a bug, or a wish, or an anomaly.

However...you know those interdiction strikes on units that haven't moved? I've never liked that -- it seems to me that it's movement that is precisely what interdiction should target. The Germans in Europe in 1944-45 did okay -- as long as they didn't move. If you don't move, you should be okay -- or at any rate, let the opponent bombard you if he wants to have an effect.

Anyway, there's apparently another problem with the strikes on non-moving units. They come after each round -- and sometimes the number of rounds is largely discretionary. I was playing an early turn in Seelowe. S-1 and the Germans are stacked up offshore, waiting to land. The British have only one small coastal defence battery that can still fire.

So they fire it, as they should. But should they? They can get off two or three salvos and kill perhaps three rifle squads and a truck -- but each salvo will lead to another wave of interdiction strikes. It's really not a good idea to take the shots -- it'll upset the Luftwaffe. Not exactly realistic.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I suppose one could have panzer repair workshops and hospitals -- but how would they work in detail, and would we really get a net improvement this way? I suppose some monumentally complex formula for adjusting certain types of replacements could get worked out so that players would (a) have these units, and (b) be motivated to put them in some location that was reasonably secure and reasonably near rails and other infrastructure and yet reasonably close to the front. But why? Where's the great benefit that will justify all the work?

..agreed, are we talking quick repairs here ? man or machine, or back to the central workshop ? man or machine..

..nahh s'ok as is..