Artillery Testing

[Jaroen]

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

I am the developer on the land team and my results come straight from the code. As to the results, it would appear that a saturation level has not been reached which means you would need more arty to acheive the same results prior to patch 3 which is extremely fine by me.

I am grateful to both Shark7 and BigJ62. They made an effort and showed us what expectations we should have from bombardments under these specific conditions. I also do understand Shark7's lack of enthousiasm after all his effort. I may be mistaken but I believe he didn't recognize BigJ62 as one of the developers.

But at least I really did learn something new. Bombardments should overcome something like that saturation level to have any effect. Whether this is a good measure in relationship to expectations of bombarments being demoralizing I'm unsure. I can think of arguments pro and contra. But I don't have any problems with the examples shown in the tests and am happy with the artillery results in my game against the AI.

Now to figure out how I can work with that saturation level.

My 2cts, Jaroen.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: pompack

Shark

I found your tests enlightening, helpful, and even inspiring[:)]

BigJ62 ran more test using a neutral baseline and tools not readily available to us and got the same result,

Actually I thought the results were opposite?

In Sharks test the non-combat group had a bigger difference between starting and ending supply than the combat group...whereas in BigJ's test the non-combat group had a smaller delta between starting and ending supply than the combat group. Which implies that in Sharks test the non-combat group consumed more supply than the combat group whereas in BigJ the combat group had the bigger delta and thus consumed more supply.

Using round numbers in Sharks test the noncombat group started with 18900 and ended with 18500 a 400 point drop with industry. In BigJ's test the non-combat group without industry started with 22200 and ended up with 22000 - only a 200 point drop.

I would have expected the opposite....given equal rates of consumption the group with industry should have experienced a smaller drop than the group without industry, because presumably the industry would be manufacturing supply.

although he left it up to the reader to do the addition (and I really, really wish that the forum was Excel friendly so I wouldn't have to transcribe the numbers manually [:@])

AIUI, he said that it is WAD and WAI. However if you had not run your test I certainly would not have realized exactly what that meant.

After thinking about it overnight and reading some of Kull's excellent posts (both here and in the other thread), I am beginning to lean toward actually liking this IF artillery still has some affect in assaults. The "inspiration" that I got from your test is an urge to run some tests of my own, using your methodology, to determine if this affect still exists.

As Kull pointed out, there were no WWI type multi-day extended bombardments in the Pacific. In fact, even the Russians usually attacked the same day they bombarded for effect. In the Pacific there seemed to be probing attacks with less than full force accompanied by rapid bombardment just before and just after the probe with call fire during the probe. I intend to run a series of tests with attacks WITHOUT INDEPENDENT ARTILLERY IN THE HEX to establish a baseline; I found several suspect hints in your tests that suggest to me that independent artillery may take part even if you told it not to. I then will run the same series of attacks with the independent units in the hex and participating. If I get results that can imply that artillery causes significant casulties in the attack I will be satisfied.

So hang in there Shark

P.S. And my tests are primarily for my benifit so I am not going to spend a lot of time typing in tons of numbers. I will post if anyone is interested
P.P.S. Correction: I will post if anyone is interested and I can get automatic updates, automatic backups, and automatic defrags to stop automating this morning long enough to set up the test!!! [8|]

If you can build a sandbox I will be glad to test as well...which I was planning on doing this weekend.

Although it appears the bombardment is causing the defender to consume more supply from BigJ's test ...something else was at work in Shark's test...possibly related to industry...that caused a result opposite from what was expected IMO.

[PresterJohn001]

I graphed the supply remaining in Hong Kong from BigJ's data. Clearly - in that run - the bombardment is causing more supply to be used. Although there is an ?anomalous jump in supply usage from day 1 to day 2 of the bombardment. (day 4 to 5 in the data)

Other effects are neglible, very minor disruption and fatigue, no apparent losses to devices.

Supply is a logistical constraint, especially where units are not cut off and can draw supply from reserves.



Blue Line - No Bombardment
Red Line - Bombardment

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn

I graphed the supply remaining in Hong Kong from BigJ's data. Clearly - in that run - the bombardment is causing more supply to be used. Although there is an ?anomalous jump in supply usage from day 1 to day 2 of the bombardment. (day 4 to 5 in the data)

Other effects are neglible, very minor disruption and fatigue, no apparent losses to devices.

Supply is a logistical constraint, especially where units are not cut off and can draw supply from reserves.



Blue Line - No Bombardment
Red Line - Bombardment

Do not forget to add in the SupA value for the units...

I do not think anyone is questioning BigJ's results...

Howver there is a discrete difference between BigJ's and Sharks...give me an hour to slap together the figures and graphs and I will try and illustrate what I am talking about...I believe it is related to the industry.

[treespider]

Ok this is a graph of Sharks results.

This is a TOTAL of all supply in the hex from Turn to Turn - note how the Non-Combat with Industry (the blue line) ends up below the Combat with Industry (the red line)

Which means the combat group finished the cycle with more supplies than the non-combat group.

[treespider]

Now by contrast here is a graph of Big J's results without industry.

Note in this graph the Combat group (the red line) ends up below the non-combat group (the blue line)

Which means the combat group finished the cycle with less supplies than the non combat group. This is the result I would have expected to find from years of playing WitP and AE.

[treespider]

This is interesting ...

Here is a graph of the daily difference in supply from one turn to the next.... for the groups that experienced combat in both tests.

This value is calculated, for example, by subtracting the total supply in the hex on Turn 3 from the total supply in the hex on Turn 2

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: treespider
This is a TOTAL of all supply in the hex from Turn to Turn - note how the Non-Combat with Industry (the blue line) ends up below the Combat with Industry (the red line)

A possible explanation could be that combat or the mere presence of the enemy somehow affects the flow of resources to industry and thus interupts or hinders supply production somehow.

Jim

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: treespider
This is a TOTAL of all supply in the hex from Turn to Turn - note how the Non-Combat with Industry (the blue line) ends up below the Combat with Industry (the red line)

A possible explanation could be that combat somehow affects the flow of resources to industry and thus interupts or hinders supply production somehow.

Jim

Except the opposite happened as the Combat group actually ended up with more supply than the non-combat group.

It would appear that the industry actually would have had to produce even more during the combat turns...

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: treespider
Except the opposit happened as the Combat group actually eneded up with more supply than the non-combat group.

Yeah sorry, I worded my statement wrong, see the edited comment above. What I should have said is enemy presence (not actual combats) in the hex may have a random factor on production each turn. Sort of like a die roll to see if resources get delivered.

Jim

[treespider]

One final graph I find interesting -

This is the Cumulative Difference in supply from Turn to Turn.

I would have expected both Combat groups to have been paired and the non combat groups to be paired...

However Shark's Non-Combat Group appears to be paired with BigJ's Combat Group

and Shark's Combat group is paired with Big J's Non-Combat Group.

What is most surprising to me is that Shark7's Non-Combat Group resulted in having the largest difference between starting and ending supply - in spite of the presence of industry.

I would have expected that they should have the least difference as they would not be expending supply like the combat group and would presumably be having supply added by the industry.

[pompack]

Ok, finally finished the test runs

This is also HK but I added the additional infantry available in Canton and the artillery in the Pescadores that is programed for the PI.

There are three runs, the first is the force with no independent artillery assaulting each turn until HK falls. The second is the same force with independent artillery added. The third is a sport with only a single infantry unit assaulting with the artillery, once the full division and once only a security force.

Here is the first run. HK fell in six days and the Japanese took a nominal loss of 3587 troops

10Mar10
Setup: Scen1, FOW OFF, H2H, All ops cancelled except HK assault,
Normal extra inf from Canton & art from Pescadores

Run 1: No Artillery in HK

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 12, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 31070 troops, 260 guns, 130 vehicles, Assault Value = 1012

Defending force 6625 troops, 132 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 225

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Japanese adjusted assault: 1229

Allied adjusted defense: 453

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 2)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1063 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 77 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 63 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 15 disabled
Vehicles lost 3 (0 destroyed, 3 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
328 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 22 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 50 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Vehicles lost 13 (0 destroyed, 13 disabled)


Assaulting units:
20th RGC Division
38th Division
66th Infantry Regiment
20th Ind. Engineer Regiment
21st Ind. Engineer Regiment
19th Ind. Engineer Regiment
3rd Ind. Engineer Regiment
104th/A Division
104th/C Division
9th Field AF Construction Battalion
14th Army
56th Const Co
3rd Engineer Construction Battalion

Defending units:
Hong Kong Fortress
1st Middlesex Battalion
Winnipeg Grenadiers Battalion
Rifles of Canada Battalion
Kowloon Brigade
102nd RN Base Force

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 13, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 30126 troops, 260 guns, 130 vehicles, Assault Value = 933

Defending force 6185 troops, 132 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 202

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 670

Allied adjusted defense: 517

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 1)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
530 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 24 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 25 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 19 disabled
Vehicles lost 5 (0 destroyed, 5 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
392 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 35 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 38 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Vehicles lost 11 (1 destroyed, 10 disabled)

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 14, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 29687 troops, 260 guns, 130 vehicles, Assault Value = 907

Defending force 5732 troops, 132 guns, 79 vehicles, Assault Value = 171

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 1142

Allied adjusted defense: 585

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
438 casualties reported
Squads: 7 destroyed, 20 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 26 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 13 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 5 (0 destroyed, 5 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
614 casualties reported
Squads: 15 destroyed, 34 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 52 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 9 (2 destroyed, 7 disabled)

FTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 15, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 29332 troops, 260 guns, 130 vehicles, Assault Value = 891

Defending force 5084 troops, 132 guns, 76 vehicles, Assault Value = 131

Japanese adjusted assault: 978

Allied adjusted defense: 589

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
938 casualties reported
Squads: 6 destroyed, 53 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 50 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 10 disabled
Vehicles lost 6 (0 destroyed, 6 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
496 casualties reported
Squads: 44 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 50 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 4 (0 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 14 (13 destroyed, 1 disabled)

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 16, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 28541 troops, 260 guns, 130 vehicles, Assault Value = 841

Defending force 4519 troops, 132 guns, 63 vehicles, Assault Value = 129

Japanese adjusted assault: 484

Allied adjusted defense: 169

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Hong Kong !!!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
No Allied losses

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
572 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 34 disabled
Engineers: 7 destroyed, 44 disabled
Vehicles lost 8 (3 destroyed, 5 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
7101 casualties reported
Squads: 274 destroyed, 32 disabled
Non Combat: 510 destroyed, 97 disabled
Engineers: 25 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 196 (190 destroyed, 6 disabled)
Vehicles lost 87 (82 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Units destroyed 6

Nominal Japanese Losses: 3587

[pompack]

Here is the second run with the artillery added. HK fell in three days and the Japanese took a nominal 1632 losses. Artillery is clearly a life saver.
Note that the results will vary slightly in the runs because of random effects. However the change is sufficiently large that I think we can conclude that artillery does indeed help the attack substantially

Setup: Scen1, FOW OFF, H2H, All ops cancelled except HK assault,
Normal extra inf from Canton & art from Pescadores

Run 2: Independent Artillery in HK

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 12, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 35076 troops, 587 guns, 354 vehicles, Assault Value = 1025

Defending force 6615 troops, 132 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 227

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Japanese adjusted assault: 673

Allied adjusted defense: 265

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 2)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
885 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 57 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 54 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 21 disabled
Vehicles lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
522 casualties reported
Squads: 14 destroyed, 37 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 42 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 22 (6 destroyed, 16 disabled)


Assaulting units:
20th Ind. Engineer Regiment
20th RGC Division
104th/A Division
19th Ind. Engineer Regiment
66th Infantry Regiment
3rd Ind. Engineer Regiment
38th Division
21st Ind. Engineer Regiment
104th/C Division
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd RF Gun Battalion
2nd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
21st Mortar Battalion
56th Const Co
2nd Mortar Battalion
15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
8th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
1st Hvy.Artillery Regiment
14th Army
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
5th RF Gun Battalion
9th Field AF Construction Battalion
3rd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
48th Field Artillery Regiment
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
10th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
3rd Engineer Construction Battalion

Defending units:
1st Middlesex Battalion
Winnipeg Grenadiers Battalion
Hong Kong Fortress
Rifles of Canada Battalion
Kowloon Brigade
102nd RN Base Force

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 13, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 34296 troops, 587 guns, 354 vehicles, Assault Value = 963

Defending force 5888 troops, 132 guns, 74 vehicles, Assault Value = 176

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 1

Japanese adjusted assault: 1053

Allied adjusted defense: 385

Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 1)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
349 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 12 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 31 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 15 disabled
Vehicles lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
487 casualties reported
Squads: 20 destroyed, 18 disabled
Non Combat: 18 destroyed, 38 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 17 (12 destroyed, 5 disabled)

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 14, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 34059 troops, 587 guns, 353 vehicles, Assault Value = 953

Defending force 5300 troops, 132 guns, 62 vehicles, Assault Value = 150

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 841

Allied adjusted defense: 229

Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Hong Kong !!!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
No Allied losses

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(-), preparation(-), morale(-)
experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
398 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 15 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 30 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 16 disabled
Vehicles lost 3 (0 destroyed, 3 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
8419 casualties reported
Squads: 307 destroyed, 54 disabled
Non Combat: 583 destroyed, 98 disabled
Engineers: 28 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 195 (191 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 83 (81 destroyed, 2 disabled)
Units destroyed 5

Nominal Japanese Losses: 1632

[pompack]

Here are a couple of one-offs demonstrating the effect of reduced infantry in the attack. The first (run #3) uses the single infantry division with all of the independent artillery. The artillery effect is substantial. The next (run#4) uses a single security unit with an AV of 43. The results are only slightly better than a bombard except for the much larger attacker losses; note that the single assaulting infantry LCU was virtually destroyed.

10Mar10
Setup: Scen1, FOW OFF, H2H, All ops cancelled except HK assault,
Normal extra inf from Canton & art from Pescadores

Run 3: Independent Artillery in HK, assault by largest inf LCU ONLY
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 12, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 17937 troops, 451 guns, 293 vehicles, Assault Value = 1025

Defending force 6615 troops, 132 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 227

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2

Japanese adjusted assault: 373

Allied adjusted defense: 317

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 2)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(-), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
770 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 42 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 74 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 34 (3 destroyed, 31 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
185 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 14 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 15 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)


Assaulting units:
3rd Ind. Engineer Regiment
19th Ind. Engineer Regiment
38th Division
20th Ind. Engineer Regiment
104th/A Division
21st Ind. Engineer Regiment
20th RGC Division
66th Infantry Regiment
104th/C Division
5th RF Gun Battalion
14th Army
2nd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
21st Mortar Battalion
2nd RF Gun Battalion
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
9th Field AF Construction Battalion
8th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
56th Const Co
10th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
3rd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
48th Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
2nd Mortar Battalion
1st Hvy.Artillery Regiment
15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
3rd Engineer Construction Battalion

Note that the Assaulting Units list and the Attacking Force summary are counting the total units in the hex, not just the ones assaulting.

10Mar10
Setup: Scen1, FOW OFF, H2H, All ops cancelled except HK assault,
Normal extra inf from Canton & art from Pescadores

Run 4: Independent Artillery in HK, assault by smallest inf LCU ONLY
FTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 12, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Hong Kong (77,61)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 5084 troops, 339 guns, 224 vehicles, Assault Value = 1025

Defending force 6615 troops, 132 guns, 80 vehicles, Assault Value = 227

Japanese adjusted assault: 0

Allied adjusted defense: 321

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99 (fort level 3)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
442 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 37 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 52 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 27 (1 destroyed, 26 disabled)


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

[pompack]

My Conclusions:

While others may not agree [:)], I have come to the conclusion that the current artillery rules are very close to perfect [:D]

If you bombard moderate entrenchmemts in urban terrain, you mostly just burn up ammunition. As Kull stated elsewhere, if you use your artillery in conjunction with your infantry and engineers (anybody say "combined arms"?) you get a very substantial improvement in combat effectiveness over simple infantry assaults.

Furthermore, these results are comforting to me because even with quite heavy artillery support for an infantry assult it is certainly not a "Death Star". It still requires multiple days of assulting with infantry, engineers, and artillery to reduce urban fortifications.

[Shark7]

Guys I over-reacted earlier, for that I apologize.

I have nothing else to add to this discussion.

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Guys I over-reacted earlier, for that I apologize.

I have nothing else to add to this discussion.

I just want to add my thanks for your work Shark. You started the ball rolling and now many of us have a much better understanding of how things work.

[pompack]

And I want to second that. Shark, without your work I would still be wasting ammo bombarding all over the map.

[chesmart]

Thanks Shark for the testing and the patience and thankyou to everybody who contributed to this thread. Shark showed us how to prove if something is working or not. BigJ62 can you post your Sandbox scenario so we can all use a standard testing method ? 

[SqzMyLemon]

I just think it's great that everyone is being rational here discussing this issue. We'll learn if there is or is not a problem. If there is one it will be addressed in due time. [&o] If not...suck it up princess's [:D] (myself included!)