Why is bombardment so weak?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Perhaps in WW2, but modern aircraft are quite capable of killing enemy armor (and especially soft vehicles). And in that role, they are utterly ineffective in the game. Airpower should be able to hammer units without the need for the enemy to on the line and subject to ground attack.

Modern? MODERN!?!

OK, but note that we've not actually had a proper modern war- one in which both sides were at the state of the military art- since 1945. That an F-15 can knock out an Iraqi T-55 without any danger to itself is not an interesting fact. Perhaps you should look at the results of the purely air campaign in Kosovo. Airpower was very ineffective there, it seems.

In any case, try Saddam's Final Gamble. The Iraqi player very rapidly finds himself without any armoured units at all- they all get destroyed from the air.

Bombardments seem dicey as well. In smaller scale battles they seem to be OK, but at the divisional level, they are also quite ineffective. Again, I think this is a problem with the modeling. Despite claims of individual shots and whatnot, it still seems like bombardment attacks are simply using ratios of combat factors. If I bombard a divisional sized unit with a few arty units (HQs actually, but full of Corps/Army assets), I rarely score many kills. If those same units hit a brigade or battalion sized unit, the kills tend to be higher. Note that this is net kills, not the percentage listed on the report (which will naturally be higher on the smaller units).

I don't think this is true. I ran a quick test;

Ten units of 100 155mm ER Guns each bombarded a unit of 10 rifle squads. Total rifle squads lost: 29
Ten units of 100 155mm ER Guns each bombarded a unit of 100 rifle squads. Total rifle squads lost: 115

This at 5km/hex. I think the 100 squad units produced a green density light, but the impact of that would be minimal.

[Uncle_Joe]

That an F-15 can knock out an Iraqi T-55 without any danger to itself is not an interesting fact. Perhaps you should look at the results of the purely air campaign in Kosovo. Airpower was very ineffective there, it seems

But it sure cant in the game. So you are saying that game postulates that airpower between equal opponents will be ineffective? Thats a pretty big supposition.

Kosovo was not a general war. There were not massed formations moving to the attack. There were no concentrations of vehicles at crossroads or crossing points etc etc.

What makes no sense is that planes seem to be able to destroy vehicles if added to a ground attack (although its harder to differentiate what is killing what). But they cant have the same effect when they attack solo? That is ridiculous.

[Uncle_Joe]

I don't think this is true. I ran a quick test;

Ten units of 100 155mm ER Guns each bombarded a unit of 10 rifle squads. Total rifle squads lost: 29
Ten units of 100 155mm ER Guns each bombarded a unit of 100 rifle squads. Total rifle squads lost: 115

This at 5km/hex. I think the 100 squad units produced a green density light, but the impact of that would be minimal.

This is showing exactly the problem! Look at the aggregate damage. A far higher proportion of the 10 rifle units is destroyed than the 100 rifle units. Almost 3 to 1! Why would that be the case?

[PDiFolco]

Maybe the WW2 planes weren't that effective, but the last example I had in play was laughable : I had some 60+ Mosquitos, Typhoons and Marauders bomb a panzer unit with 2 dozens (total) of StuGs and StuH in the "2 weeks in Normandy" scenario turn 1. There was absolutely no Luftwaffe planes nor AA units.
What were the results ? Guess what ... there was *1* panzer destroyed for ... 18 planes shot down !!!! [X(][:@]
It's totally ludicrous, that kind of results had absolutely no chance of realistically happen, please fix it yesterday !!! [8|]

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

I don't think this is true. I ran a quick test;

Ten units of 100 155mm ER Guns each bombarded a unit of 10 rifle squads. Total rifle squads lost: 29
Ten units of 100 155mm ER Guns each bombarded a unit of 100 rifle squads. Total rifle squads lost: 115

This at 5km/hex. I think the 100 squad units produced a green density light, but the impact of that would be minimal.

This is showing exactly the problem! Look at the aggregate damage. A far higher proportion of the 10 rifle units is destroyed than the 100 rifle units. Almost 3 to 1! Why would that be the case?

The 100 Rifle Squad units are receiving more losses than the 10 Rifle Squad units from the same artillery bombardment. Why would that be the case? Perhaps it is easier to pinpoint where 100 Rifle Squads are then where 10 Rifle Squads are in a given hex.

[Uncle_Joe]

No, the 100 squad units are suffering less, not more, which is the problem that I see (and the reason I suspect simply attack/defense ratios at work).

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

No, the 100 squad units are suffering less, not more, which is the problem that I see (and the reason I suspect simply attack/defense ratios at work).

It seems to me the 100 squad units are taking more net losses from the same amount of artillery. Perhaps Golden Delicious can clarify.

[JAMiAM]

Let's look at it, this way...

One man is standing in the area represented by a hex. An artillery bombardment of x shells strikes the hex. The man is in the "wrong spot, at the wrong time" and is incapacitated. The proportional loss is 100%.

Ten men are standing in the area represented by a hex. An artillery bombardment of x shells strikes the hex. Some number y1 of the men are incapacitated, and the proportional loss is y1/10.

A thousand men are standing in the area represented by a hex. An artillery bombardment of x shells strikes the hex. Some number y2 of the men are incapacitated, and the proportional loss is y2/1000.

A million men are standing in the area represented by a hex. An artillery bombardment of x shells strikes the hex. Some number y3 of the men are incapacitated, and the proportional loss is y3/10^6.

In each of these cases, a probabilistic function determines where these men are (to be hit), based on the size of the hex, the number of men, and the number of firing pieces of equipment, the terrain and deployment. An assumption is built in that the firing equipment is actively targeting the deployed men, instead of simply firing blindly and randomly into the hex.

Depending on these variables, this may make the proportional losses to the cannon fodder be either higher, or lower, and this is represented by the attrition rate that the engine uses to derive the losses.

[Chuck2]

OK, I agree with your analysis. Anyway, I'd hate to see what the opening pure bombardment in Road to Rimini would look like if the suggestion to increase artillery power is taken.

[Uncle_Joe]

Regardless of how you analyze it, the end results do not match reality. Aircraft should be able to inflict losses when they strike and at the moment, they cannot (and they take ridiculous losses in the process). This should be especially true for 'Mobile' units. Perhaps when everyone is dug in and fortified and dispersed, airstrikes can be less effective, but not inflicting casualties on units in mobile mode just seems wrong.
 
SOMEWHERE in there is a problem whether it be the data or the formulae used to calculate the effects.
 
 

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Regardless of how you analyze it, the end results do not match reality. Aircraft should be able to inflict losses when they strike and at the moment, they cannot (and they take ridiculous losses in the process). This should be especially true for 'Mobile' units. Perhaps when everyone is dug in and fortified and dispersed, airstrikes can be less effective, but not inflicting casualties on units in mobile mode just seems wrong.

SOMEWHERE in there is a problem whether it be the data or the formulae used to calculate the effects.

The problem for aircraft is that - currently - low altitude AAA fire is too strong, and that is causing the air units to suffer heavy losses, which then causes them to break off the attacks. This will be fixed in the next patch.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yes, in the course of my testing I'm losing 100s of A-10s to pure units of a few hundred T-55s!
 
Are you saying that the damage aircraft inflict as a result of reduced AA will dramatically increase as a result? If so, that might be all that is necessary.
 
In any case, I'll ask the obvious question...any ETA on that patch?
 
Thanks

[Captain Cruft]

I have yet to try any pure air bombardments, other than airfield attacks, which BTW seem pretty effective.

However, I have run quite a number of pure artillery bombardments, and they are definitely worth doing in the right circumstances. In one case I was destroying a reported 4% of the (dense and mobile) enemy units in a hex each turn. That's not to mention the reduced readiness the bombarded units undoubtedly suffered. The stated attack/defence values on the enemy counters dropped big time. OK, this was with a lot of 7.2in howitzers and 155mm guns, but still. It seems OK to me.

The only problem has been that my arty units are permanently at 1% supply ... [;)]

[Captain Cruft]

Surely one factor with air attacks is that enemy Air Superiority aircraft are causing most of your plane losses? To my mind it would help here if the combat dialog reported how many planes were lost in air-air and how many from ground fire.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

But it sure cant in the game. So you are saying that game postulates that airpower between equal opponents will be ineffective? Thats a pretty big supposition.

Actually it postulates it will be about as effective as it has been in previous conflicts.

Kosovo was not a general war. There were not massed formations moving to the attack. There were no concentrations of vehicles at crossroads or crossing points etc etc.

Quite. So just like when you make a pure air bombardment.

Try air attacks in support of a ground assault- like in the situation you describe. Works fabulously.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

This is showing exactly the problem! Look at the aggregate damage. A far higher proportion of the 10 rifle units is destroyed than the 100 rifle units. Almost 3 to 1! Why would that be the case?

Presumably the gunners know which part of the hex those 100 men are in.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Maybe the WW2 planes weren't that effective, but the last example I had in play was laughable : I had some 60+ Mosquitos, Typhoons and Marauders bomb a panzer unit with 2 dozens (total) of StuGs and StuH in the "2 weeks in Normandy" scenario turn 1. There was absolutely no Luftwaffe planes nor AA units.
What were the results ? Guess what ... there was *1* panzer destroyed for ... 18 planes shot down !!!! [X(][:@]
It's totally ludicrous, that kind of results had absolutely no chance of realistically happen, please fix it yesterday !!! [8|]

Lessee 4% * 60 = 2.4 hits. Of course, your Marauders and Mosquitoes probably don't have rockets so their to hit chance would be less. Then there's the fact they'd be under fire, unlike in the test...

Yeah, sounds about right. TOAW's great.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Regardless of how you analyze it, the end results do not match reality. Aircraft should be able to inflict losses when they strike

But not many. See the example of the test run from 1944. See the abysmal results posted from the Kosovo conflict (a classic case of "pure bombardment".

See also the First Gulf War. I recall hearing a remark from the commander of an Iraqi tank battalion. In weeks of air bombardment, he lost about ten tanks. The rest of his battalion was wiped out in ten minutes when the coalition ground forces showed up.

Airpower is a wonderful thing- when used in conjunction with ground forces.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
Are you saying that the damage aircraft inflict as a result of reduced AA will dramatically increase as a result? If so, that might be all that is necessary.

How dramatic it will be will be dependent on many factors, including - not the least - on your definition of "dramatic"...[;)]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe
In any case, I'll ask the obvious question...any ETA on that patch?

It'll definitely be on a Tuesday, or perhaps sooner...[:D]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Uncle_Joe

Yes, in the course of my testing I'm losing 100s of A-10s to pure units of a few hundred T-55s!

Note that for a modern scenario you need to set the Force Precision Guided Weapons level. This is a multiplier for the strength of aircraft using PGMs.