Can the GM look into a war pop damage issue please? (Fearless Blue)

Population 445,152 of city
The target is completely destroyed. On the side of The Republic of Leopola there were 24096 casualties and 43978 civilians were wounded. Chester is very severely damaged. Weapons based at Chester may have been destroyed. The unit Nakisaa of War Slave lost 2 heavy artillery. The attack may have been reduced or eliminated by Anti Missile Missiles. Nakisaa lost 1 or more trucks, gasoline and military supplies. The Republic of Leopola defense was assisted by the Garrison TG29 unit.

Population 220,217 of city
The target is completely destroyed. On the side of The Republic of Leopola there were 5086 casualties and 3681 civilians were wounded. Opona is very severely damaged. Weapons based at Opona may have been destroyed. On the War Slave side no losses were reported. The attack may have been reduced or eliminated by Anti Missile Missiles. The Republic of Leopola defense was assisted by the Garrison TG64 unit.

--------------------------------------------------

Can the deaths done we consistent please?. Like 5 in 100die, 10 in 100 wounded, 20 in 100 are displaced. Can something be done to wheres it consistant? When trying to do pop damage its hard when some cities do 25K deaths and some around 5K. With weapons becoming more expensive its not a great feeling knowing you waste ammo learning a garrison when it gets you almost no WI damage.

It is consistent.
it is the same program code computing it in both cases but the cases are different.

The attacker does not use the same force, the defense is not the same, uses more or less weapons, ammunition and air defense,
the population density is different, quality on both sides may differ.

If the cases were identical results would be too.

this is nearly never the case.

Population density is a factor? Does this mean targets away from any other target have less pop damage than targets that are clustered? or is this just saying larger pops in a particular target will result in a larger death toll?

The rest I entirely understand, I just didnt realise pop density was a factor if you mean by map area rather than individual target population.

Usually the more populated a country is the more casualties per target. I say this from my experience fighting different sized countries.

The map area density is an interesting thought though. I would like to know the answer to that as well.

I agree id love to hear a response

If the more pop dense an area is the more damage makes a big difference and id love to hear a GM response. Since we have Andy commenting.

Is there any way to increase damage per weapons.

After some looking 125cruise missile batteries in one attack(375missiles)
1000tanks and 1000artillery in one attack destroy a city(thousands of shells). Any chance of increase the damage they do to targets maybe more kills?
(stated in the game docs)
Ammunition Artillery shells
Use per action 15 rounds per attack

Personally i see 15000 artillery shells + tanks killing more of people

Density: Larger cities suffer higher casualties.

Do your own math and find out which type of attack kills more or less.
the point was consistency. it is consistent but there are far too many parameters to make two attacks identical.

At the micro level, a weapons has a certain chance to hit a target and if it hits the target it causes a certain damage,

If the chance to hit the target is 40%, it means that out of 1000 pieces of ammunition used, probably 400 will hit.

so what about the first one. it may hit and it may not hit.

attacks are by design never identical.

Knowledge is best when earned, not given.

Nice detail Andy, but you really didn't have to go that far into it I think.

I think CC and I just wanted to know if we attack a city that has for example 5 other cities next to it. Will that population density mean there will be higher casualties when attacking that one city. I think your answer to that question is no.

Thanks

I totally agree with you Andy
I dont want you to think in anyway am i saying all weapons should hit. That is true even in the real world mistakes happen and not everything hits it mark. I also agree with you in the fact attacks should never be "identical".
-----(Read below)-----

Population 445,152 of city
The target is completely destroyed. On the side of The Republic of Leopola there were 24096 casualties and 43978 civilians were wounded.

Population 220,217 of city
The target is completely destroyed. On the side of The Republic of Leopola there were 5086 casualties and 3681 civilians were wounded.
(in the event this city had 2times more pop it would have only seen 10K death).

In both cases same tactics, same weapons, same Q. The difference was 15K deaths.
-----(some facts)-----
If you look at the Iraq war the country is 30M in size. From the highest estimates i found they said 100-120K civilians/military where killed. In SC we need that many in a nation half the size. If the US military/Nato forces streamrolled though Iraq cities like in SC there would be nothing nothing left. My point was that pop must be killed to win a war. You can destory forts/paint and get it to 80WI, 85 if you blow up all the military but you'll need to "kill population" to get it higher.

Even @ 25K killed i still need to attack 5 cities and that is rare to get large amount of deaths like that(excluding the capital). Maybe adding something to it allowing us more diversity in war.

When attacking the target of a city you get 3 opitions.

Focus on General Population(kills more pop/less assest)
Focus on Infrastructure(does more assest damage/less pop die)
Focus on General area(does and equal amount of both)

In my last C3 war i attacked all cities/destory the cap(2times) and all 13factories and i only got 10 of 30WI points due to civilian deaths. My point i was making by consistent numbers was that if you give us a chance to do 30WI damage we need a way to do it. I blow up around 30civilian targets and got 10WI points. On the same note i would have attacked 30forts and done 30WI damage. Both require same ammo/time and all but forts give a much higher return. Long story short what i'm getting @ is that something should be done to increase the amount of deaths done per attack or maybe decrease how many people die in war. Cutting the total number of people needed to "die" would give a player 20 out of 30. The prob can be removed this way to. Also adding a way to do more assets damage would be nice

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Knowledge is best when earned, not given. <!-/Quote-!>

Horseshit.

What about learning from others mistakes?
What about education?
Weren't you recently 'given' knowledge to complete your course LG?

Do they teach the equation of happiness and it's maximization in schools these days? I wasn't aware.

Do not confuse games which are finite and deterministic, with the world which is infinite, difficult to measure and therefore rather uncertain. And even if both were finite and deterministic, one is still a game and one is still real life.

It then comes that in social sciences what you learn is instruments. And the interesting and precious knowledge, the one you want, is gained by observation and deductive reasoning. You don't have God coming down from Mount Sinai telling you exactly what you need to do to have a successful, happy life.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought the teachings of any religion/social conformity/set of ethics was to achieve the end game of a successful, happy life.
God/Allah (insert appropriate diety) did supposedly come down from a Mount Sinai or equivalent to tell his believers how to achieve this. See the Bible or Koran or other. A vast proportion of the world still live by these creeds.

Yes, I believe the equation of happiness is taught to all through schools, parents, worthy art forms, religions etc. To say knowledge of this equation is best earned than taught is nonsense, going against thousands of years of human experience and accumulated understanding.