Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The operational art of bombardment?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> The operational art of bombardment? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The operational art of bombardment? - 2/20/2018 11:17:54 PM   
ChuckBerger

 

Posts: 221
Joined: 8/10/2006
Status: online
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?
Post #: 1
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 2/21/2018 1:05:34 AM   
aperfecturkel

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 11/17/2017
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to ChuckBerger)
Post #: 2
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 2/21/2018 3:57:41 AM   
Pax25

 

Posts: 111
Joined: 4/2/2007
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to ChuckBerger)
Post #: 3
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 2/21/2018 4:29:32 AM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 10849
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to ChuckBerger)
Post #: 4
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 2/21/2018 4:33:48 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 37602
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

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!


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Pax25)
Post #: 5
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 2/21/2018 4:49:57 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 37602
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

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.




_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 6
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 2/21/2018 5:18:56 AM   
Pax25

 

Posts: 111
Joined: 4/2/2007
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

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.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 7
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 2/21/2018 5:21:28 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 37602
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pax25


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

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.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Pax25)
Post #: 8
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 2/21/2018 7:15:10 AM   
devoncop


Posts: 941
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline
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 !

_____________________________

"I do not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it"

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 9
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 2/21/2018 8:18:58 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 7756
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to devoncop)
Post #: 10
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 2/21/2018 8:22:05 AM   
devoncop


Posts: 941
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

"I do not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it"

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 11
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 2/21/2018 2:24:18 PM   
Lobster


Posts: 1889
Joined: 8/8/2013
From: Third rock from the Sun.
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/

"Getting back to reality...I'll only go as a tourist!"

(in reply to devoncop)
Post #: 12
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 2/21/2018 2:39:32 PM   
cantona2


Posts: 3608
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline
FITE2 gives you a range of 1-10% depending on the denisty level on the hex. Red dots = more casualties in bombardment


_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born


(in reply to Lobster)
Post #: 13
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 2/21/2018 4:36:13 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 37602
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

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

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 2/21/2018 4:52:51 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 14
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 2/21/2018 7:48:45 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 7756
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

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

Oops, sorry I used the non-manual term there

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 15
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 3/2/2018 11:23:20 PM   
ChuckBerger

 

Posts: 221
Joined: 8/10/2006
Status: online
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.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 16
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 3/5/2018 1:56:18 PM   
rtropp

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 2/12/2011
Status: offline
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

_____________________________

Richard

(in reply to ChuckBerger)
Post #: 17
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 3/5/2018 2:58:04 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 10849
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

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:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4436034

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to rtropp)
Post #: 18
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 3/5/2018 7:54:03 PM   
Gandalf


Posts: 349
Joined: 12/15/2010
From: Jefferson City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

See post #3 in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4436034


quote:


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?

_____________________________

Member since January 2007 (as Gray_Lensman)

Wargaming since 1971 (1st game Avalon Hill's Stalingrad)

Computering since 1977 (TRS-80) (adhoc programming & game modding ever since)

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 19
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 3/5/2018 8:14:49 PM   
Cabido

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 12/11/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

See post #3 in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4436034


quote:


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.

(in reply to Gandalf)
Post #: 20
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 3/5/2018 8:25:45 PM   
Gandalf


Posts: 349
Joined: 12/15/2010
From: Jefferson City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

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


Nice to know

but I'm still curious about the "dynamic" effect of a -1 setting in regards to a dynamically changing TOE status?


< Message edited by Gandalf -- 3/5/2018 9:15:46 PM >


_____________________________

Member since January 2007 (as Gray_Lensman)

Wargaming since 1971 (1st game Avalon Hill's Stalingrad)

Computering since 1977 (TRS-80) (adhoc programming & game modding ever since)

(in reply to Cabido)
Post #: 21
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 3/5/2018 9:33:18 PM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 547
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
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).


What is the rational for increasing the bloodiness of the combat "due to the half-week turn", especially in light of the "(More time = more blood)" comment. ("half-week" would suggest "less time")

Combat is not scaled by the program for the length of turn like movement is, correct? It's on a "per instance" basis, right?

Is your comment to indicate the default Attrition Divider of 10 is nominally for weekly turns?

Is there systematic manner to approach setting the Attrition Divider? There doesn't seem to be any pattern in established scenarios. You seem to be consistent with CNA, France 1944 and Next War half-week turn scenarios having a divider of 4. However, FITE2 and Dir 21 with half-week turns both use 6. Most scenarios (ranging from 6 hour to full day to weekly,etc) leave it at 10. Red Thunder II is an exception with daily turns and an Attrition Divider of 30.

Any light you could shed would be appreciated.

Thank you.









(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 22
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 3/5/2018 10:10:40 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 10849
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
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).


What is the rational for increasing the bloodiness of the combat "due to the half-week turn", especially in light of the "(More time = more blood)" comment. ("half-week" would suggest "less time")

Combat is not scaled by the program for the length of turn like movement is, correct? It's on a "per instance" basis, right?

Is your comment to indicate the default Attrition Divider of 10 is nominally for weekly turns?

Is there systematic manner to approach setting the Attrition Divider? There doesn't seem to be any pattern in established scenarios. You seem to be consistent with CNA, France 1944 and Next War half-week turn scenarios having a divider of 4. However, FITE2 and Dir 21 with half-week turns both use 6. Most scenarios (ranging from 6 hour to full day to weekly,etc) leave it at 10. Red Thunder II is an exception with daily turns and an Attrition Divider of 30.

Any light you could shed would be appreciated.

Thank you.


My general rule:

AD 2 for full week (Soviet Union 1941, Germany 1945)

AD 4 for half week (CFNA, France 1944, The Next War)

AD 14 for full day (Cambrai 1917, Kaiserschlacht 1918)

AD 28 for half day

AD 56 for quarter day (Leipzig 1813 - actually AD 50, Waterloo 1815 - actually 40)

Like any recipe, adjust for taste.

_____________________________

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 23
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 3/5/2018 10:50:10 PM   
Cabido

 

Posts: 130
Joined: 12/11/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gandalf

quote:

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


Nice to know

but I'm still curious about the "dynamic" effect of a -1 setting in regards to a dynamically changing TOE status?



Oh, ok. I think I've misinterpreted your question. It is dynamic, since it is based on the part of the combat strength that comes from ranged units and combat strength changes with losses and replacement. From the manual:

"Adjacent ranged units may also bombard if they
have more that 50% of their combat strength
coming from ranged equipment or if their range
has been changed from nominal."

(in reply to Gandalf)
Post #: 24
RE: The operational art of bombardment? - 3/5/2018 11:52:44 PM   
Gandalf


Posts: 349
Joined: 12/15/2010
From: Jefferson City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cabido
<cut>

Oh, ok. I think I've misinterpreted your question. It is dynamic, since it is based on the part of the combat strength that comes from ranged units and combat strength changes with losses and replacement. From the manual:

"Adjacent ranged units may also bombard if they
have more that 50% of their combat strength
coming from ranged equipment or if their range
has been changed from nominal."


Thanks!

< Message edited by Gandalf -- 3/5/2018 11:53:47 PM >


_____________________________

Member since January 2007 (as Gray_Lensman)

Wargaming since 1971 (1st game Avalon Hill's Stalingrad)

Computering since 1977 (TRS-80) (adhoc programming & game modding ever since)

(in reply to Cabido)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> The operational art of bombardment? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.156