Page 1 of 1
finding the right assault (without artillery)
Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:16 am
by laska2k8
I wish to comment with you this results (several attempts of the two types).
1) First assault only men (+ engineers) no arty
in 80-90% of trials I got this result (in the worst case at least 2 enemy steps were destroyed)
2) Second assault men + engineers + arty (two or more on the same time)
percentage reduced to 20-30% (unit destroyed), one or two steps randomly. I had the similar results reducing men.
(in this case no report of hits in the combat window)
I don't understand why artillery reduce my potential (I thought it was the opposite)
RE: finding the right assault (without artillery)
Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:34 am
by Fred98
Funny I never noticed this post before.
You don't know the details of the enemy unit so perhaps thats the variable factor.
.
RE: finding the right assault (without artillery)
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:49 pm
by sabre1
Yep this is a good question. So he is saying that artillery did not aid in his attac?
Tim, Michael, care to comment on this. LOL[8|]
RE: finding the right assault (without artillery)
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:19 pm
by sabre1
bump
RE: finding the right assault (without artillery)
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:40 am
by Fred98
BTW the ground troops and the artillery attack separately.
I don't know which attacks first.
When the artillery attacks it can cause the disruption to increase and or it can destroy a step.
So logically the artillery attacks first but we will never know because who will tell us?
.
.
RE: finding the right assault (without artillery)
Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 2:33 pm
by sabre1
And another unanswered "game" question. Yohoo, Matrix, you have some "old" customers that are being mishandled here on a "new" game at least to us. Nice real nice.
Bump
RE: finding the right assault (without artillery)
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:48 am
by Magpius
bumpedy bump!
(okay it's another gratuitous post count)
[:D]
RE: finding the right assault (without artillery)
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:02 pm
by Fred98
Bump
RE: finding the right assault (without artillery)
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:50 pm
by Fred98
We have now been told how a combined attack works:
Artillery ( if any) attacks first and the target might take some damage
Off board support ( if any) attacks second. It makes its attack AFTER the target has taken it's damage. The target might take more damage as a result of this attack.
The ground troops attack third. They make the attack on AFTER the the target has taken damage in the 2 attacks above.
.
.
RE: finding the right assault (without artillery)
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:39 pm
by jjdenver
Joe this sequence is interesting but it doesn't explain why the results (percent of unit destroyed) falls when artillery is included right? That seems like a bug. A bad bug.
RE: finding the right assault (without artillery)
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:12 am
by Fred98
A new patch was released the other day. I have used it in this test.
Note the first screen shot of the original poster. Two arty units have a bombard value of 3 and the other two have bombard values of 6. In his test he used those with a bombard value of 3.
Note I have found the same hex on the Carentan map and I have now tested this.
In my first test I too used the same 10 units that he used.
In test 2, I added the same 2 artillery units that he did, those with a bombard value of 3.
In test 3, I added in the other 2 artillery units for a total of 4 artillery units.
The results are shown below in spread sheet format. As you add more artillery the damage increases.
Note allso, where you see a Withdrawl result, he cannot withdraw due to the ZOC of the enemy units so he takes another hit. Which means 2 hits and Withdrawl = the unit was destroyed.
.
.
.
RE: finding the right assault (without artillery)
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:45 am
by PirateJock
Thanks for testing Joe - nicely done. Looking at the numbers it's exactly what you'd want to see; increasing attack power having more effect.
No bug here ... keep moving please ... nothing to see [;)]
Cheers