The operational art of bombardment?

[ChuckBerger]

Just a question about the game... in observing some of the AARs, it appears that bombardments (artillery, naval, air) are potentially way too powerful. In the desert campaign, in one AAR, it looks like a division plus of entrenched defenders at Tobruk were basically vaporised by bombardment, with the follow-up "assaults" being a mere formality. The only hiccup for the attacking Axis was the Royal Navy, which in retaliation vaporised whole battalions of troops.

It seems in that scenario at least that bombardments are very efficient at destroying troops, and actual attacks by ground troops relatively rare.

Air power also seems far too powerful in a ground attack role, one of the players noted that his movement during some turns was totally locked down by air power, and his ground troops suffering horribly. This is something neither side really was capable of at this stage in the desert war, when air power was mostly about recon and disruption of C&C/supply, not outright destruction of ground forces.

So my question is... is this a common issue throughout TOAW IV scenarios, or is it specific to settings in the Desert War one?

[aperfecturkel]

Honestly most of my bombardment attempts do at best 1-3% enemy losses, so I'd...maybe call that an aberration, or at least a situation that may be explained by something under the hood.

[Pax25]

Bombardments are really not that effective. I rarely use them. Instead I leave my artillery units on tactical support so they will engage more targets (however at half stength) and not expend too much. Doing a bunch of bombardments wears your artillery units fast.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ChuckBerger

Just a question about the game... in observing some of the AARs, it appears that bombardments (artillery, naval, air) are potentially way too powerful. In the desert campaign, in one AAR, it looks like a division plus of entrenched defenders at Tobruk were basically vaporised by bombardment, with the follow-up "assaults" being a mere formality. The only hiccup for the attacking Axis was the Royal Navy, which in retaliation vaporised whole battalions of troops.

It seems in that scenario at least that bombardments are very efficient at destroying troops, and actual attacks by ground troops relatively rare.

Air power also seems far too powerful in a ground attack role, one of the players noted that his movement during some turns was totally locked down by air power, and his ground troops suffering horribly. This is something neither side really was capable of at this stage in the desert war, when air power was mostly about recon and disruption of C&C/supply, not outright destruction of ground forces.

So my question is... is this a common issue throughout TOAW IV scenarios, or is it specific to settings in the Desert War one?

CFNA has an Attrition Divider of 4 (compared to the default value of 10), so combat is 2.5 times as bloody as normal. This is due to the half-week turn interval. (More time = more blood).

If you bombard long enough, anything will eventually be whittled to zero, and the guys playing CFNA seem to be enamored with bombardment. The Axis player probably spent over 50 turns bombarding Tobruk. I think they'll eventually figure out that artillery is more effective supporting attacks than bombarding.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Pax25

Bombardments are really not that effective. I rarely use them. Instead I leave my artillery units on tactical support so they will engage more targets (however at half stength) and not expend too much. Doing a bunch of bombardments wears your artillery units fast.

warspite1

You should try CFNA!

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ChuckBerger

Just a question about the game... in observing some of the AARs, it appears that bombardments (artillery, naval, air) are potentially way too powerful. In the desert campaign, in one AAR, it looks like a division plus of entrenched defenders at Tobruk were basically vaporised by bombardment, with the follow-up "assaults" being a mere formality. The only hiccup for the attacking Axis was the Royal Navy, which in retaliation vaporised whole battalions of troops.

It seems in that scenario at least that bombardments are very efficient at destroying troops, and actual attacks by ground troops relatively rare.

Air power also seems far too powerful in a ground attack role, one of the players noted that his movement during some turns was totally locked down by air power, and his ground troops suffering horribly. This is something neither side really was capable of at this stage in the desert war, when air power was mostly about recon and disruption of C&C/supply, not outright destruction of ground forces.

So my question is... is this a common issue throughout TOAW IV scenarios, or is it specific to settings in the Desert War one?

CFNA has an Attrition Divider of 4 (compared to the default value of 10), so combat is 2.5 times as bloody as normal. This is due to the half-week turn interval. (More time = more blood).

If you bombard long enough, anything will eventually be whittled to zero, and the guys playing CFNA seem to be enamored with bombardment. The Axis player probably spent over 50 turns bombarding Tobruk. I think they'll eventually figure out that artillery is more effective supporting attacks than bombarding.

warspite1

This makes sense. The % losses in the daily turn STBP is way lower.

Enamoured with bombardment? We are a couple of newbies learning as we go (and having great fun doing so). If we haven't figured out the best tactics yet, well I'm sure we'll get there eventually.

[Pax25]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Pax25

Bombardments are really not that effective. I rarely use them. Instead I leave my artillery units on tactical support so they will engage more targets (however at half stength) and not expend too much. Doing a bunch of bombardments wears your artillery units fast.

warspite1

You should try CFNA!

I'm playing devoncop in Tobruk 1941. I imagine it's somewhat similar.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Pax25

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Pax25

Bombardments are really not that effective. I rarely use them. Instead I leave my artillery units on tactical support so they will engage more targets (however at half stength) and not expend too much. Doing a bunch of bombardments wears your artillery units fast.

warspite1

You should try CFNA!

I'm playing devoncop in Tobruk 1941. I imagine it's somewhat similar.

warspite1

Why? They are daily turns as opposed to half weekly as per Curtis Lemay's post above.

[devoncop]

As the other "newbie" in Warspites CFNA AAR I can confirm that both the Tobruk and STBP scenarios being daily turns have consequently much lower % losses per turn from artillery barrages. I have no issue with the CFNA model and much of the losses have been my own fault.

As an example, until I got my JU87's working properly v the CW fleet it had totally free reign to bomb multiple barely dug in Italian infantry with predictable results. It has been a very long slog to take out effectively 4 fortified hexes using the majority of the artillery assets of 10th Army and the Africa Korps and only once combined with armoured attacks did I make any sort of progress ( I am a slow learner!)

I will do a full Post Mortem at the end of Warspites AAR once I can see it after the game has finished but the inefficient nature of the siege of Tobruk using massed artillery has caused numerous issues elsewhere . Another game would see very different tactics ( from both of us I suspect [:)])

It is an absolute blast to play and learn from. Do not be put off by my blundering !

[sPzAbt653]

Two points in case you newer guys aren't aware - overstacked hexes will suffer more losses, and 150mm or larger guns have better effect against entrenchment.

[devoncop]

Thanks for that sPzAbt653

I was aware of the overstacking issue and to my knowledge I haven't been guilty of it but the 150mm guns info is useful.

Cheers

Ian

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: devoncop

Thanks for that sPzAbt653

I was aware of the overstacking issue and to my knowledge I haven't been guilty of it but the 150mm guns info is useful.

Cheers

Ian

19.2.2. Artillery vs.Entrenchments
Artillery can lower the effectiveness of prepared
defensive positions during combat. The effect is
intended to model the earth-churning tendencies
of heavy Artillery and is tied to the weight of
individual shells. Heavier pieces are much more
effective than lighter pieces. MRL’s (Multiple
Rocket Launchers) generally do not receive this
advantage. While the Anti-Personnel strengths of
heavy Artillery may seem weak (due to very low
rates of fire), weapons of 150mm or larger can be
very effective against entrenched enemies.

[cantona2]

FITE2 gives you a range of 1-10% depending on the denisty level on the hex. Red dots = more casualties in bombardment

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Two points in case you newer guys aren't aware - overstacked hexes will suffer more losses, and 150mm or larger guns have better effect against entrenchment.

warspite1

I've searched stack, stacking, over etc etc - where does the definition of overstacked appear in the manual please?

EDIT: Ignore - couldn't find it as overstacking isn't mentioned - its under Target Density

[sPzAbt653]

where does the definition of overstacked appear in the manual please?

Oops, sorry I used the non-manual term there [:(]

[ChuckBerger]

Again, all I can say is based on Warspite's AAR, but it certainly seems like the Axis is simply rolling forward in that game with highly effective bombardments decimating whole divisions of Commonwealth troops. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but something just isn't right. The Axis simply did not have the supply, ever, to sustain week after week of full-intensity bombardment by their entire artillery force. Neither did the Commonwealth. Monty had to save up for months to have the shell power he wanted at 2d Alamein. I understand what the scenario has done in terms of increasing intensity due to the longer time scale, but it feels like the supply system hasn't been adjusted accordingly. The result is uber-artillery.

[rtropp]

I have two related questions that remain unanswered after about an hour searching through the manual.

1. For HQ's, I understand the two symbols that indicate whether it will be an attack or a bombardment. Is there a way for the player to choose which the HQ will initiate? If not, what conditions underlay the simulation's choice?

2. When looking at the unit report for HQ, I do not see any artillery listed. How does it perform ranged attacks?

Thanks,
Richard

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: rtropp

I have two related questions that remain unanswered after about an hour searching through the manual.

1. For HQ's, I understand the two symbols that indicate whether it will be an attack or a bombardment. Is there a way for the player to choose which the HQ will initiate? If not, what conditions underlay the simulation's choice?

2. When looking at the unit report for HQ, I do not see any artillery listed. How does it perform ranged attacks?

Thanks,
Richard

See post #3 in this thread:

tm.asp?m=4436034

[Gandalf]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

See post #3 in this thread:

tm.asp?m=4436034

If its range setting is 0, it will assault. If it is >0, it will bombard. If it is -1 (default) it will assault if less than 50% of its equipment is ranged, bombard if more than that.

Per part of your answer in your referred to post above.

Is that "dynamic"? (meaning is it reflective of current combat equipment status after losses/replacements?)
Or is it set "permanently" due to its' designed TOE?

[Cabido]

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

See post #3 in this thread:

tm.asp?m=4436034

If its range setting is 0, it will assault. If it is >0, it will bombard. If it is -1 (default) it will assault if less than 50% of its equipment is ranged, bombard if more than that.

Per part of your answer in your referred to post above.

Is that "dynamic"? (meaning is it reflective of current combat equipment status after losses/replacements?)
Or is it set "permanently" due to its' designed TOE?

It's set by the player in the unit report (upper right corner). Default is -1, yet the designer can preset another value.