From: Secret Underground Lair
ORIGINAL: JAMiAM There may be a fundamental misunderstanding you have here, with respect to the Unit Health Indicators. If you've made a couple of ignore loss bombardments of enemy units and lost a few pieces, then you should be in orange, or at best yellow. This is because the Unit Health Indicator is an average of the unit's Supply, Readiness, and the fraction of assigned vs. authorized equipment.
So...just a seat of my pants calculation here, the actual numbers may vary slightly, but assuming that the B-52 unit is some 30 planes, starts off with 100% Supply and Readiness, makes two Ignore loss bombardments, taking losses of 1-2 pieces each attack (total of 3 over the two attacks), then the following is true:
Unit Health = [((100-60)/100)+((100-60)/100)+(.9)]/3 = [(.4)+(.4)+(.9)]/3 = .58
Cross-referencing that with the ranges shown on page 16 of the manual, you'll see that it is almost out of the Yellow range, and into the Orange. If your readiness was reduced to the minimum of 33% due to the losses, and your supply started as anything less than 100, then your numbers would be even lower.
Mmm. I DID misunderstand that. Still need to go back and memorize that manual a bit more-better
One thing that really clarified the fundaments of the game engine to me was when I finally re-noticed that "evaporated" components go back into the replacment pool UNLESS they are isolated from supply. This is so much more realistic than most turn-based strategy games, it takes a while to really appreciate what this means! And how much more realistic it is too.
Just to clarify, I suppose it is possible that a B-52 wing would suffer "casualties" even if they were attacking a platoon of cave men caught unawares and sunbathing on a bald knoll, right? Such casualties being through accidents, mechanical failures, mid-air collisions, stoned-pilots grinding the gears, unexpected breakdowns, etc.? Meaning, even in the UTTER absence of any AA capability in the target, some "casualties" (which may constitute damaged or disabled sub-units, not simply destroyed sub-units) may nonetheless occur?
I remember looking back at the Iraq Coalition casualties at one point when the fighting was not too intense and noting that, the casualties from simple day-to-day "risk" (catching the flu, getting hit by a car, helicopter crashes, car crashes, accidental weapon discharges, etc.) was seemingly rather high compared to rate of casualties in action!
This raises another question for me, which the Vietnam campaign made me wonder about. It SEEMS like bombers are more effective attacking opponents in open terrain, and in particular when the open terrain is elevated?