ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
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.
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.
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805