Reasonable Damage?

[HansBolter]

Is three points of step loss on an eight strength corps in jungle terrain from a single tactical bomber run a reasonable result?

Seems extremely excessive to me. Troops in jungle terrain were notoriously difficult to inflict casualties on prior to the arrival of napalm on the scene.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

Is three points of step loss on an eight strength corps in jungle terrain from a single tactical bomber run a reasonable result?

Seems extremely excessive to me. Troops in jungle terrain were notoriously difficult to inflict casualties on prior to the arrival of napalm on the scene.

It probably depends on a lot of factors. Was the Tac Bomber experienced or not? Also if it was attached to a HQ with high experience, that would generally lead to higher probabilities of damage.

Also what was the readiness and morale of the defending unit. Was it attached to an Hq or not. Unattached units generally get way higher losses. Also if the defending corps was in low supply, that can amplify the loss. Not having full entrenchment on top of other factors could result in higher losses

Granted being in jungle terrain usually gives fair to good protection from tac air attacks...

[HansBolter]

As I'm playing with fog of war, I have no info regarding the attacking aircraft other than its type.

The target unit was out on a limb with low supply and low readiness so perhaps the result wasn't as out of whack as I perceived.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

As I'm playing with fog of war, I have no info regarding the attacking aircraft other than its type.

The target unit was out on a limb with low supply and low readiness so perhaps the result wasn't as out of whack as I perceived.

Oh, a unit in low supply definitely would be a factor. Because of the moment penalties through jungle and other rough terrain (supply paths track the same way as a unit trying to move), its real common for units in that type of terrain to have really low supply.