Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

You're slipping JWE, when I opened the thread I was hoping to read another gem like "officious fewmets" boy, did the brother in law and I laugh at that over the weekend. [:)][8D]

I'm an air training fan boy although I'd love to see a toggle for the training since some find it cumbersome but I believe training is great as it stands and just to contribute to the thread, I just finished up Touched with Fire , while reading it I really got the remember thinking that artillery as currently modelled is pretty darn good.

Sulu, how can you say that the current artillery model is a good one? Almost always, the side doing the bombarding sustains higher casualties than the side that is bombarded! I am glad to see artillery toned down from earlier versions, but to have the expected casualties reversed is quite silly.

Earlier I posted this:

Even "when the other side has no artillery (or practically none), how is it possible that the counterfire will cause more casualties than the attacker's fire does? This is the part that I find ridiculous - the side with the bombarding artillery almost always takes more casualties than the defender. Even if the defender is a decimated engineer unit with a single aviation support squad and the attacker has 5 heavy artillery regiments, the attacker takes more casualties. What are the defenders doing in this case, throwing wrenches and hammers 5+ km and taking out the crews of the bombarding guns?"

This model is just crazy. My guys have 50+ heavy artillery pieces, your cooks have a few forks and spoons to throw at me - and my guys sustain higher casualties! I guess those cooks are "Kill Bill" style ninjas or something!

ORIGINAL: SuluSea
You're slipping JWE, when I opened the thread I was hoping to read another gem like "officious fewmets" boy, did the brother in law and I laugh at that over the weekend. [:)][8D]

I'm an air training fan boy although I'd love to see a toggle for the training since some find it cumbersome but I believe training is great as it stands and just to contribute to the thread, I just finished up Touched with Fire , while reading it I really got the remember thinking that artillery as currently modelled is pretty darn good.

Thank you SuluSea.
Sy'mon says I miss de Marley avatar. Mebbe I teach de boy some more old stuff to say so you can laugh over more of de weekends.

The thing about air training is that it doesn't need to be done. It's an enhancement and works fine under the circumstances, when it is done, but the game progresses just as it is expected to without any clicky, clicky training whatsoever. It's a matter of scope and scale. One can train for this and that, and obtain marginal increases in effectiveness, for this and that. My group has been playing for a couple years now without doing any of that and have been getting results well within the envelope, at all times.

Arty is something different. Differet code algorithm and different results. Can't be compared effectively.

Sy'mon says; I like dis Arty ting. If you stupid, you suck. If you smart, I suck. So what be stupid and what be smart? Well den dat be what de game be about, yeah?

"If you stupid, you suck. If you smart, I suck. So what be stupid and what be smart?"

This is the best thing I have read online..........EVER!!!!! I feel like my life changed... or at least I really crave some space-cake...

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

You're slipping JWE, when I opened the thread I was hoping to read another gem like "officious fewmets" boy, did the brother in law and I laugh at that over the weekend. [:)][8D]

I'm an air training fan boy although I'd love to see a toggle for the training since some find it cumbersome but I believe training is great as it stands and just to contribute to the thread, I just finished up Touched with Fire , while reading it I really got the remember thinking that artillery as currently modelled is pretty darn good.

Sulu, how can you say that the current artillery model is a good one? Almost always, the side doing the bombarding sustains higher casualties than the side that is bombarded! I am glad to see artillery toned down from earlier versions, but to have the expected casualties reversed is quite silly.

Earlier I posted this:

Even "when the other side has no artillery (or practically none), how is it possible that the counterfire will cause more casualties than the attacker's fire does? This is the part that I find ridiculous - the side with the bombarding artillery almost always takes more casualties than the defender. Even if the defender is a decimated engineer unit with a single aviation support squad and the attacker has 5 heavy artillery regiments, the attacker takes more casualties. What are the defenders doing in this case, throwing wrenches and hammers 5+ km and taking out the crews of the bombarding guns?"

This model is just crazy. My guys have 50+ heavy artillery pieces, your cooks have a few forks and spoons to throw at me - and my guys sustain higher casualties! I guess those cooks are "Kill Bill" style ninjas or something!

Maybe it's not the combat model which is crazy, but the display which is not correctly interpreted.

You speak about "casualties", but are they destroyed squads, or disabled squads ? The question matters a lot, as destroyed squads would really represent deaths, and with such circumstances, it's indeed a bit crazy. But "disabled" ? I guess not. Disabled squads might simply be squads that suffer from nervous breakdown, false starts, disorganization, dysentery, and Idon'tknowwhatelse. Just picture having a dozen infantry divisions in the area, and only using artillery ? What's a few squads being disorganized in some way, when they don't know for sure where the (nearly nonexistent) enemy lies, when they have to provide forward controllers for the arty, make patrols and fall into crude traps, genuine accidents due to the ambient nervosity of expecting assault (or banzai charge), etc ?

IMVHO, disabled squads are the normal result of operations. Even if the opposition is nonexistent, I can't conceive sending troops in -enemy- territory without suffering from any kind of casualty, in the sense of "disabled squads".

Regards,
Lionel

EDIT: and I didn't even think at first of the guns jamming, supporting trucks needing repairs, logistics strained to the point where soldiers sleep while standing up, etc.

This is an excellent point. People make way too much of an issue about casualty numbers, which actually mean absolutely nothing in game terms. It is the squads destroyed/damaged which matter, and remember that if you have supply, damaged ones return at the rate of one per day per line item. So if you have 20-30 damaged spread over several units, in practical terms nothing really happened. Maybe if we had an attack that was 'skirmish' instead of 'bombard' people would feel better.

Well, the artillery model is much, much better than it was during the 'deathstar' days.
As a long time ex-gunner (OP, CP, recce, gun bunny, etc.) I can tell you it would not be the model I would use to represent indirect fire.
But I understand compromises must be made, especially with the scale we are dealing with.

"Self-inflicted" casualties: not sure exactly what this represents, but it is somewhat curious. If the regiment I worked with kept getting casualties by executing a bombardment mission, I'm sure the commander would be relieved PDQ.
Some attrition would occur, but mostly disruption through equipment breakdowns, being forced to move, etc.
Enemy counterbattery fire was mostly ineffective in this theater, especially for the Japanese - the main effect would be to force the attacking unit to engage the counterbattery fire (counter-counterbattery fire) or move to a new position.
Counterbattery could only realistically occur if the defending unit(s) had an artillery unit of similar type or better.
So, if an artillery unit was attacking a game stack that did not contain artillery (either inherent or independent), attacking casualties should be near nil, except for some possible attacker disruption.

Ok, this is from PBEM. I am the Allies and we are using the Beta patch

Japanese laned at Chittagong

After a week or so there his bombardments turn deadly for him


Ground combat at Chittagong (55,41)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 25658 troops, 418 guns, 139 vehicles, Assault Value = 718

Defending force 50234 troops, 863 guns, 1980 vehicles, Assault Value = 1851

Japanese ground losses:
548 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 23 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
24 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)


Assaulting units:
19th Division
6th Guards Division
4th Guards Division
16th Engineer Regiment
Guards Tank Division
48th Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
14th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
8th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment
26th Fld AA Gun Co

Defending units:
Chittagong Fortress
50th Tank Brigade
2nd British Division
26th Indian Brigade
63rd Indian Brigade
7th Armoured Brigade
73rd Motorised Brigade
268th Motorised Brigade
3rd Carabiniers Regiment
267th Armoured Brigade
32nd Army Tank Brigade
2/9th Field Regiment
XV Indian Corps
21st Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
24th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
8th Medium Regiment
21st Light AA Regiment
RAF 222 Group Base Force


Then

Ground combat at Chittagong (55,41)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 23264 troops, 415 guns, 137 vehicles, Assault Value = 551

Defending force 49677 troops, 862 guns, 1981 vehicles, Assault Value = 1822

Japanese ground losses:
700 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 19 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 38 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 21 (1 destroyed, 20 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
9 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled


Assaulting units:
4th Guards Division
19th Division
16th Engineer Regiment
6th Guards Division
Guards Tank Division
14th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment
8th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
48th Field Artillery Regiment
26th Fld AA Gun Co

Defending units:
Chittagong Fortress
26th Indian Brigade
268th Motorised Brigade
63rd Indian Brigade
3rd Carabiniers Regiment
267th Armoured Brigade
50th Tank Brigade
73rd Motorised Brigade
7th Armoured Brigade
2nd British Division
32nd Army Tank Brigade
21st Light AA Regiment
24th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
8th Medium Regiment
21st Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
XV Indian Corps
2/9th Field Regiment
RAF 222 Group Base Force


It gets worse


Ground combat at Chittagong (55,41)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 19800 troops, 405 guns, 130 vehicles, Assault Value = 361

Defending force 49272 troops, 862 guns, 1981 vehicles, Assault Value = 1796

Japanese ground losses:
1067 casualties reported
Squads: 17 destroyed, 27 disabled
Non Combat: 54 destroyed, 13 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 6 (1 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Vehicles lost 7 (4 destroyed, 3 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
17 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
19th Division
16th Engineer Regiment
6th Guards Division
4th Guards Division
Guards Tank Division
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment
8th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
14th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
48th Field Artillery Regiment
26th Fld AA Gun Co

Defending units:
2nd British Division
73rd Motorised Brigade
3rd Carabiniers Regiment
50th Tank Brigade
268th Motorised Brigade
Chittagong Fortress
26th Indian Brigade
63rd Indian Brigade
267th Armoured Brigade
7th Armoured Brigade
32nd Army Tank Brigade
24th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
21st Light AA Regiment
21st Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
8th Medium Regiment
XV Indian Corps
2/9th Field Regiment
RAF 222 Group Base Force


And even more worse


Ground combat at Chittagong (55,41)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 12083 troops, 303 guns, 70 vehicles, Assault Value = 89

Defending force 48986 troops, 862 guns, 1984 vehicles, Assault Value = 1783

Japanese ground losses:
1544 casualties reported
Squads: 38 destroyed, 15 disabled
Non Combat: 130 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 9 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 35 (33 destroyed, 2 disabled)



Assaulting units:
6th Guards Division
19th Division
4th Guards Division
Guards Tank Division
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
7th Armoured Brigade
268th Motorised Brigade
26th Indian Brigade
3rd Carabiniers Regiment
63rd Indian Brigade
Chittagong Fortress
73rd Motorised Brigade
2nd British Division
267th Armoured Brigade
50th Tank Brigade
32nd Army Tank Brigade
8th Medium Regiment
XV Indian Corps
2/9th Field Regiment
21st Light AA Regiment
21st Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
24th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
RAF 222 Group Base Force


I am sure he was very low on supply and I destoryed all of his troops soon after these turns.

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

Ok, this is from PBEM. I am the Allies and we are using the Beta patch

Japanese landed at Chittagong

After a week or so there his bombardments turn deadly for him



I am sure he was very low on supply and I destroyed all of his troops soon after these turns.

Hardly surprising. He had less than half the troops, less than half the guns, less than half the AV, and as the defender you were probably fortified. He got his teeth kicked in, and deservedly so.

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

You're slipping JWE, when I opened the thread I was hoping to read another gem like "officious fewmets" boy, did the brother in law and I laugh at that over the weekend. [:)][8D]

I'm an air training fan boy although I'd love to see a toggle for the training since some find it cumbersome but I believe training is great as it stands and just to contribute to the thread, I just finished up Touched with Fire , while reading it I really got the remember thinking that artillery as currently modelled is pretty darn good.

Sulu, how can you say that the current artillery model is a good one? Almost always, the side doing the bombarding sustains higher casualties than the side that is bombarded! I am glad to see artillery toned down from earlier versions, but to have the expected casualties reversed is quite silly.

Earlier I posted this:

Even "when the other side has no artillery (or practically none), how is it possible that the counterfire will cause more casualties than the attacker's fire does? This is the part that I find ridiculous - the side with the bombarding artillery almost always takes more casualties than the defender. Even if the defender is a decimated engineer unit with a single aviation support squad and the attacker has 5 heavy artillery regiments, the attacker takes more casualties. What are the defenders doing in this case, throwing wrenches and hammers 5+ km and taking out the crews of the bombarding guns?"

This model is just crazy. My guys have 50+ heavy artillery pieces, your cooks have a few forks and spoons to throw at me - and my guys sustain higher casualties! I guess those cooks are "Kill Bill" style ninjas or something!

I can only use my gaming experience, Like most I play multiple turns a day. From what I see the troops behind forts get some protection from bombardments as they should. I haven't seen cooks causing casualties so you and I must be playing a different game.

I'm far from an expert but there is so much more to this game than piece x is better than piece z, leadership qualitiy, supply, forts, fatigue, disruption, morale, HQ, prep points, terrain to name some all are factors that need to be accounted for in an attack.

ORIGINAL: JWE

Sy'mon says I miss de Marley avatar.

He' Sy'mon slo down on th' Red Stripes mon,

I m sportin' a Bob Marley three little birds avatar right now[:)]

Click and enjoy mon. [;)]

remember that if you have supply, damaged ones return at the rate of one per day per line item.

More or less. Can be highly variable depending on support, supply, I assume HQs, I assume base size, fatigue, operations mode, I assume leaders, and who knows what else.

You can repair 0 items/day, so that's the lower bound.

The highest I can readily find objective evidence for in one of my games (based on 10 minutes of looking, but I kind of knew where to look) is repairing 18 infantry squads (single line item) in a two day turn, so there was at least 9 in one day. From my experience, that's more the exception than the rule but it illustrates that if you do the right stuff you can repair disrupted units at rates significantly in excess of 1/day.

Wow, I had no idea it could be that high! So people are getting wound up for even less than I thought, I thought it was nothing!

ORIGINAL: Budman

Well, the artillery model is much, much better than it was during the 'deathstar' days.
As a long time ex-gunner (OP, CP, recce, gun bunny, etc.) I can tell you it would not be the model I would use to represent indirect fire.
But I understand compromises must be made, especially with the scale we are dealing with.

"Self-inflicted" casualties: not sure exactly what this represents, but it is somewhat curious. If the regiment I worked with kept getting casualties by executing a bombardment mission, I'm sure the commander would be relieved PDQ.
Some attrition would occur, but mostly disruption through equipment breakdowns, being forced to move, etc.
Enemy counterbattery fire was mostly ineffective in this theater, especially for the Japanese - the main effect would be to force the attacking unit to engage the counterbattery fire (counter-counterbattery fire) or move to a new position.
Counterbattery could only realistically occur if the defending unit(s) had an artillery unit of similar type or better.
So, if an artillery unit was attacking a game stack that did not contain artillery (either inherent or independent), attacking casualties should be near nil, except for some possible attacker disruption.

This part that I've emphasized is exactly my point. In the real world, bombardments had a purpose - damage/disrupt the enemy while having little effect on the attacker. And, as long as the defender didn't have superior artillery, this was the most common effect of bombardments. In the game, the bombarding side pretty much always receives the greater negative effect. So, as Budman correctly states, if bombardment consistently caused more damage to the bombarding side, the commanding officer would be relieved of command for ordering bombardments.

I understand the bit about disruption of the attacking stack, but, in real life, how often would that disruption be greater than the disruption sustained by the defender? In the game it is basically ALWAYS. This is the part that drives me nuts. Artillery bombardments are akin to suicide. Just doesn't make sense to me.

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

Ok, this is from PBEM. I am the Allies and we are using the Beta patch

Japanese landed at Chittagong

After a week or so there his bombardments turn deadly for him



I am sure he was very low on supply and I destroyed all of his troops soon after these turns.

Hardly surprising. He had less than half the troops, less than half the guns, less than half the AV, and as the defender you were probably fortified. He got his teeth kicked in, and deservedly so.

Have to agree here. Hate to paint with a broad brush but I sometimes think failing to grasp some of the finer nuances of the game leads to unexpected results. When this happens it is easy to say the game mechanics are broken rather then examine the neural pathways attached to the finger on the left mouse button.

I am not saying there are not bugs.issues within the system, but instead pointing out again that reliable data needs to back up any claim that something is wrong. Just saying, "I am seeing xxxx all the time" is not really a premise that could be dealt with by the AE team. Just in this thread we have had people say, "I see this all the time" while others chime in, "I never see that!"

Always????

Why doesn't that hold for everyone? Could it be that there are things happening that
you don't see or don't understand?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 82,39

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 2113 troops, 271 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 3054

Defending force 132453 troops, 804 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3966

Japanese ground losses:
13 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Allied ground losses:
148 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
32nd Division
12th Tank Regiment
36th Division
3rd Mobile Infantry Regiment
39th Division
35th Division
37th Division
6th Division
13th Tank Regiment
9th Armored Car Co
20th Engineer Regiment
17th Division
71st Engineer Regiment
27th Division
17th Ind.Mixed Brigade
26th Engineer Regiment
14th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
3rd Mobile Field Artillery Regiment
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment
6th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
1st Army
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
1st Mortar Battalion
11th Army
11th Field Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
43rd Chinese Corps
92nd Chinese Corps
3rd Chinese Corps
41st Chinese Corps
96th Chinese Corps
15th Chinese Corps
4th Chinese Cavalry Corps
1st Chinese Corps
38th Chinese Corps
76th Chinese Corps
34th Chinese Corps
36th Chinese Corps
98th Chinese Corps
33rd Chinese Corps
19th Chinese Corps
57th Chinese Corps
47th Chinese Corps
61st Chinese Corps
80th Chinese Corps
16th Chinese Corps
90th Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Cavalry Corps
7th New Chinese Corps
34th Group Army
22nd Group Army
2nd War Area
36th Group Army
8th Group Army
5th War Area
7th Group Army
4th Group Army
6th Group Army
39th Group Army
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at 82,39

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 87391 troops, 964 guns, 449 vehicles, Assault Value = 4279

Defending force 138333 troops, 803 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 4369

Japanese ground losses:
25 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Allied ground losses:
107 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 5 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
71st Engineer Regiment
39th Division
20th Engineer Regiment
32nd Division
17th Ind.Mixed Brigade
3rd Mobile Infantry Regiment
37th Division
36th Division
6th Division
13th Tank Regiment
12th Tank Regiment
17th Division
27th Division
35th Division
26th Engineer Regiment
11th Army
1st Army
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment
14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
14th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
1st Mortar Battalion
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
3rd Mobile Field Artillery Regiment
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
6th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
11th Field Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
76th Chinese Corps
36th Chinese Corps
34th Chinese Corps
96th Chinese Corps
61st Chinese Corps
41st Chinese Corps
47th Chinese Corps
98th Chinese Corps
15th Chinese Corps
4th Chinese Cavalry Corps
90th Chinese Corps
33rd Chinese Corps
92nd Chinese Corps
80th Chinese Corps
57th Chinese Corps
3rd Chinese Corps
43rd Chinese Corps
38th Chinese Corps
19th Chinese Corps
1st Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Cavalry Corps
16th Chinese Corps
7th New Chinese Corps
22nd Group Army
4th Group Army
8th Group Army
5th War Area
6th Group Army
36th Group Army
2nd War Area
7th Group Army
34th Group Army
39th Group Army

It appears that the worst of the "own side" bombardment losses come when hitting opponents well provided with their own guns?

Is it possible some sort of counterbattery fire is being modeled?

ORIGINAL: a_gonatas

It appears that the worst of the "own side" bombardment losses come when hitting opponents well provided with their own guns?

Is it possible some sort of counterbattery fire is being modeled?

Yes.

Usually one gets hit worst when doing Bombardment Attack on fortified enemy, which would make sense. It doesn't really explain all quirks that can happen, but count for a lot.

So, unless having big superiority with guns (and not only with numbers, but with caliber and range too, do not do Bombardments. Not only you cause attrition to your own guns, but also burn supply. This is less critical in siege situations, which is where bombardment can be decently useful. Also, Bombardment can be used as reconnaissance tool, to see what enemy has in hex.

I found this interesting in Touched with Fire from pages 329-330

However, Japanese infantry divisions on the move relied upon
70mm howitzers and 75mm guns for most of their support. Whereas
the Allies used howitzers in most cases, guns were much more popular
with Japanese forces. Imperial doctorine stressed forward
employment of artillery in direct-fire mode. guns with their low
trajectory were ideal for this. The tactic yieded a certain advantage.
Because their tubes were placed up front, the Japanese could afford to
sacrifice range. Consequently, designers made as many comprimises as
possible to lighten their artillery. Japanese divisions had less vehicle
transport under the best of circumstances. Consequently, the Japanese
could not keep the costly and elaborate supply train required for sustained
artillery fire. Japanese guns were shock weapons, used for a brief period
to soften up a point in the line in preparation for assault. They did not have
the support required to make them mass producers of death and injury.

The book goes on to say much more on the subject but I'm too lazy to type it,
I can only go off the gameplay I see and what I read and I feel modelling is pretty good
at this stage.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: SuluSea
You're slipping JWE, when I opened the thread I was hoping to read another gem like "officious fewmets" boy, did the brother in law and I laugh at that over the weekend. [:)][8D]

I'm an air training fan boy although I'd love to see a toggle for the training since some find it cumbersome but I believe training is great as it stands and just to contribute to the thread, I just finished up Touched with Fire , while reading it I really got the remember thinking that artillery as currently modelled is pretty darn good.

Thank you SuluSea.
Sy'mon says I miss de Marley avatar. Mebbe I teach de boy some more old stuff to say so you can laugh over more of de weekends.

The thing about air training is that it doesn't need to be done. It's an enhancement and works fine under the circumstances, when it is done, but the game progresses just as it is expected to without any clicky, clicky training whatsoever. It's a matter of scope and scale. One can train for this and that, and obtain marginal increases in effectiveness, for this and that. My group has been playing for a couple years now without doing any of that and have been getting results well within the envelope, at all times.

Arty is something different. Differet code algorithm and different results. Can't be compared effectively.

Sy'mon says; I like dis Arty ting. If you stupid, you suck. If you smart, I suck. So what be stupid and what be smart? Well den dat be what de game be about, yeah?

me thinks Sy'mon may be a little harsh...he may be using the terms "stupid" and "smart" when "ignorant" and "knowledgeable" may be more apropro...[;)]...but, then again, Sy'mon always did march to a different steel drummer...

to those that think the bombardment model is borked, i recommend you check out the T&OE's of each unit ON BOTH SIDES of the bombardment battle...specifically, check out the tubes, tanks, etc that can contribute to indirect fire, compare effectiveness of both sides, then make your conclusion...

Hi all,

I loaded up my sandbox scenario for testing (all units are delayed, so it's a blank map.)

I took a standard IJA division and made it pretty average (60 exp, 95 morale, no disablements, 100% toe, etc) I put it in the hex where Lingayen is, and activated the Lingayen base (open terrain).

Then I copied the IJA division and changed the nationality to US army. I did the same thing with 2 IJA mountain gun regiments.
So, I have 3 allied and 3 IJA units at the same base (us owned), that are IDENTICAL in all regards (ok, I forgot to give them identical leaders.)

I had the IJN side bombard for 5 turns (Lingayen was set at 0 forts). The casualties were almost identical each round. There were very slight differences, but nothing that looked weird. I expected to see close to identical results.

Then I had the allied side bombard for 5 turns (started the scenario over), and saw IDENTICAL casualties again.

Then I changed the forts at Lingayen to 9 and repeated the two trials.

When the IJN bombarded, they took 400ish casualties and the Allied side took almost zero, each round.

When the Allied side bombarded, they took zero casualties and the IJN side took 40ish casualties, each round.

I expected to see identical casualties in the 2nd set of runs, so I'm a little confused.

My take on this limited test is:

If all details are identical, you will see identical results. My guess on the OP's issue of too many casualties from the bombarding side is that his opponent is behind some forts. Forts were all I changed in my tests and they made significant contributions to casualties taken by the side in them.

My only concern with my tests was the difference in casualties in the 2nd set of tests. I don't know why the fort owner would dish out fewer casualties when on the offensive than when they were on the defensive. Anyway, it is what it is.