Sorry this response took so long Nick. I was referring to multiple infantry UNITS in the same hex. I realize larger squads take more casualties than small ones, all other things equal.
E.g you can load up a hex with multiple units so that the density of men in a hex is so large that it would be "in real life" a "can't miss" proposition. I have tested this, particularly with artillery and the only conclusion I can draw from the data is that the DENSITY of men in a hex plays little if any part in resultant casualty calculations.
IRL more densley packed areas generate casualties at a PROPORTIONALLY higher rate than sparsely populated areas. This is because of the good old pi r^2 deal, with blast defined as a radius (proportionally more men clsoer to the center of the blast). This is why terrorist bombers go for high personnel-density targets.
What appears to happen in the game is that each UNIT checks to see if it's IN a hex that receives fire and causalties are assessed BUT no adjustment is made for the fact that unit members are more densely arranged because of other units in the hex.
So, for example, in the game 4 infantry squads in the SAME hex will suffer the same TOTAL casualties from an artillery hit as they would if each squad were ALONE in a hex each of which was hit by artillery round. IRL causalties would be significantly higher in the case of the "packed" hex versus 4 squads spread around. Brings to mind the phrase "target rich environment".
In testing this I have gone to extremes, literally packing a hex with infantry squads (the equivalent of shoulder-to-shoulder). [I think all this testing is a sign I need to "get a life".
]
There is a penalty for putting multiple units in a hex, namely one "shot" affects mutliple units. But the RATE of casualties caused aren't any worse than if the units were alone in a hex.
This may have been done to enhance playability, making more of the fire-and-maneuver aspect. The game (compared to actual combat stats) diminishes casualties from fragmentation weapons (arty, mortars etc.) while enhancing rifle fire lethality. Also, given the limitations of computer hardware and software at the time the original game was developed the designer(s) may have had little choice in omitting more complex modeling (e.g. also MG fire).
The other point is of course this started life as a "tank" game with an emphasis on point targets and vehicle-to-vehicle fire. The infantry was shoe-horned in to the vehicle model. With all these limitations considered, the Camo guys have done a remarkably good job in bringing the game along to its current level. And all purely for the love of the game, wow.
Best,
Vic
Re: WINSPWW2 Sub-Tactical?
Threaded Mode