Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

I have just finished my first turn of first winter blizzard after the last patch was released.

I was pretty surprised to find that I have actually destroyed a number of Soviet formations with localized counterattacks.

Is this caused by the patch or has it been like this always (remember, I have never really played the Germans before, and I haven't suffered this as the Soviets)?

I have attached a file showing one of the battle reports.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

I have just finished my first turn of first winter blizzard after the last patch was released.

I was pretty surprised to find that I have actually destroyed a number of Soviet formations with localized counterattacks.

Is this caused by the patch or has it been like this always (remember, I have never really played the Germans before, and I haven't suffered this as the Soviets)?

I have attached a file showing one of the battle reports.

Inexperienced units thrown in the front of my main line with Experience under 25 and no place to retreat too. I throw them out front for a reason. You should see when you open up turn 26 what I am doing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

I have just finished my first turn of first winter blizzard after the last patch was released.

I was pretty surprised to find that I have actually destroyed a number of Soviet formations with localized counterattacks.

Is this caused by the patch or has it been like this always (remember, I have never really played the Germans before, and I haven't suffered this as the Soviets)?

I have attached a file showing one of the battle reports.

Inexperienced units thrown in the front of my main line with Experience under 25 and no place to retreat too. I throw them out front for a reason. You should see when you open up turn 26 what I am doing.

Basically I'm going for casualties to you. You also suffer higher loses when you do attack & I don't care about my loses as you see for turn 26

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

I have just finished my first turn of first winter blizzard after the last patch was released.

I was pretty surprised to find that I have actually destroyed a number of Soviet formations with localized counterattacks.

Is this caused by the patch or has it been like this always (remember, I have never really played the Germans before, and I haven't suffered this as the Soviets)?

I have attached a file showing one of the battle reports.

Inexperienced units thrown in the front of my main line with Experience under 25 and no place to retreat too. I throw them out front for a reason. You should see when you open up turn 26 what I am doing.

Basically I'm going for casualties to you. You also suffer higher loses when you do attack & I don't care about my loses as you see for turn 26

I also see that the bane of attacking German Regiments is to attack them with Russian tank Brigades. The tank brigades do awesome damage to them. and after the 3rd attack it is normally pro Soviet damage. But still if I attack the German Regiment with a Division it is basically murder by firing squad damage. So for now on those pesky regiments are getting fired up by Tank brigades and or Inf brigades which do like damage to those pesky German Regiments.

quote:

(v1.08.05)
Reworked the fire penalty for large attacking forces, introduced in 1.04.28. It is no longer based on
abstract stack points tied to unit's nominal size, but to the number of men in the attacking and defending
forces. It is also applied evenly to all elements, instead of being partially random, and affecting elements
firing at shorter ranges. When the ratio of attacking to defending men exceeds 3:1, the penalty will be
applied. However, the ratio is affected by the strength of enemy fortifications and terrain. So it's possible
to attack strong positions with more troops than enemy than in the open, and not suffer from the penalty.

The actual formula is ROUNDDOWN(SQRT(MIN(1,mend*(fl+2)/mena)),2) where mend is the number of
defending men, fl is fort level (including terrain bonus, equal to 1 in clear terrain with no fortifications), and
mena is the number of attacking men. The resulting multiplier is never larger than 1, and is applied to the
number of attacker's firing elements.

On the other hand, when fort level will exceed 1 and the attackers will outnumber defenders, defending forces will be able to fire more times. The actual formula is ROUNDDOWN(MAX(1,SQRT(MIN(fl-1,mena/menb))),2). The resulting multiplier is never less than 1, and is applied to the number of defender's firing elements.


These two multipliers work together to represent a few things. First, the diminishing returns when using
overwhelming forces to accomplish an objective that could be achieved by using much less forces.
Second, the bloodier nature of combat in defensible terrain and/or fortifications. Third, the higher
effectiveness of smaller forces that are of better quality, which will be able to deal more damage when
defending, and retain most (or all) of their strength when attacking. On the other hand (comparing to older
rules) these multipliers will allow to attack with hordes of poor quality troops, and they will be able to deal
some significant damage too, albeit suffering increased losses. Ammo restrictions apply as before, so
elements won't be able to fire if they exhaust unit's ammo. However, usually only a fraction of elements
gets to fire due to other multipliers that are applied, thus there are natural limits to how many elements
will fire, even if the defender's multiplier will be large.

In a sample battle where 109641 men attacked
22870 in clear terrain with level 5 fort, attacker's multiplier was 1.0 and defender's multiplier was 2.18.

In another battle, where 52213 men attacked 8672 men in level 1.4 fort (level 1 and 40% of next level),
attacker's multiplier was 0.85 and defender's multiplier was 1.18. So in the second battle the effectiveness
of attacking elements was 85% and of defending elements 118%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
So it's possible to attack strong positions with more troops than enemy than in the open, and not suffer from the penalty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

I guess my tank brigades need more training.

Also, nice to see 1,200 aircraft flying and nobody gets hurt. lol.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
So it's possible to attack strong positions with more troops than enemy than in the open, and not suffer from the penalty.

Once the lines of approach were limited, the defender could then pre register fire on the still open approaches and inflict carnage on attacking troops.

quote:

These two multipliers work together to represent a few things. First, the diminishing returns when using overwhelming forces to accomplish an objective that could be achieved by using much less forces. Second, the bloodier nature of combat in defensible terrain and/or fortifications. Third, the higher effectiveness of smaller forces that are of better quality, which will be able to deal more damage when defending, and retain most (or all) of their strength when attacking. On the other hand (comparing to older rules) these multipliers will allow to attack with hordes of poor quality troops, and they will be able to deal some significant damage too, albeit suffering increased losses. Ammo restrictions apply as before, so elements won't be able to fire if they exhaust unit's ammo. However, usually only a fraction of elements gets to fire due to other multipliers that are applied, thus there are natural limits to how many elements will fire, even if the defender's multiplier will be large.

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

I guess my tank brigades need more training.

Also, nice to see 1,200 aircraft flying and nobody gets hurt. lol.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nix77

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

I have just finished my first turn of first winter blizzard after the last patch was released.

I was pretty surprised to find that I have actually destroyed a number of Soviet formations with localized counterattacks.

Is this caused by the patch or has it been like this always (remember, I have never really played the Germans before, and I haven't suffered this as the Soviets)?

I have attached a file showing one of the battle reports.

Inexperienced units thrown in the front of my main line with Experience under 25 and no place to retreat too. I throw them out front for a reason. You should see when you open up turn 26 what I am doing.

Basically I'm going for casualties to you. You also suffer higher loses when you do attack & I don't care about my loses as you see for turn 26

I also see that the bane of attacking German Regiments is to attack them with Russian tank Brigades. The tank brigades do awesome damage to them. and after the 3rd attack it is normally pro Soviet damage. But still if I attack the German Regiment with a Division it is basically murder by firing squad damage. So for now on those pesky regiments are getting fired up by Tank brigades and or Inf brigades which do like damage to those pesky German Regiments.

I'm guessing the German regiments are good because of this:

quote:

(v1.08.05)
Reworked the fire penalty for large attacking forces, introduced in 1.04.28. It is no longer based on
abstract stack points tied to unit's nominal size, but to the number of men in the attacking and defending
forces. It is also applied evenly to all elements, instead of being partially random, and affecting elements
firing at shorter ranges. When the ratio of attacking to defending men exceeds 3:1, the penalty will be
applied. However, the ratio is affected by the strength of enemy fortifications and terrain. So it's possible
to attack strong positions with more troops than enemy than in the open, and not suffer from the penalty.

The actual formula is ROUNDDOWN(SQRT(MIN(1,mend*(fl+2)/mena)),2) where mend is the number of
defending men, fl is fort level (including terrain bonus, equal to 1 in clear terrain with no fortifications), and
mena is the number of attacking men. The resulting multiplier is never larger than 1, and is applied to the
number of attacker's firing elements.

On the other hand, when fort level will exceed 1 and the attackers will outnumber defenders, defending forces will be able to fire more times. The actual formula is ROUNDDOWN(MAX(1,SQRT(MIN(fl-1,mena/menb))),2). The resulting multiplier is never less than 1, and is applied to the number of defender's firing elements.


These two multipliers work together to represent a few things. First, the diminishing returns when using
overwhelming forces to accomplish an objective that could be achieved by using much less forces.
Second, the bloodier nature of combat in defensible terrain and/or fortifications. Third, the higher
effectiveness of smaller forces that are of better quality, which will be able to deal more damage when
defending, and retain most (or all) of their strength when attacking. On the other hand (comparing to older
rules) these multipliers will allow to attack with hordes of poor quality troops, and they will be able to deal
some significant damage too, albeit suffering increased losses. Ammo restrictions apply as before, so
elements won't be able to fire if they exhaust unit's ammo. However, usually only a fraction of elements
gets to fire due to other multipliers that are applied, thus there are natural limits to how many elements
will fire, even if the defender's multiplier will be large.

In a sample battle where 109641 men attacked
22870 in clear terrain with level 5 fort, attacker's multiplier was 1.0 and defender's multiplier was 2.18.

In another battle, where 52213 men attacked 8672 men in level 1.4 fort (level 1 and 40% of next level),
attacker's multiplier was 0.85 and defender's multiplier was 1.18. So in the second battle the effectiveness
of attacking elements was 85% and of defending elements 118%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think success of multiple attacks lies in the fact that ammo is exhausted because units can't conserve ammo and fire with all they got, even on a weak target.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
So it's possible to attack strong positions with more troops than enemy than in the open, and not suffer from the penalty.

Once the lines of approach were limited, the defender could then pre register fire on the still open approaches and inflict carnage on attacking troops.

Exactly this is shown in the examples. In the first example with higher fort defender has a mighty 2.18 multiplier, and the attacker 1.00. Attacker has no negative multiplier, but the relative ratio is 2.18:1 in favour of the defender. Defender should kill more attackers.
In the second example with lower fort the relative ratio is 1.39:1, though defender has only 1.18 multiplier.

It's all here:

quote:

These two multipliers work together to represent a few things. First, the diminishing returns when using overwhelming forces to accomplish an objective that could be achieved by using much less forces. Second, the bloodier nature of combat in defensible terrain and/or fortifications. Third, the higher effectiveness of smaller forces that are of better quality, which will be able to deal more damage when defending, and retain most (or all) of their strength when attacking. On the other hand (comparing to older rules) these multipliers will allow to attack with hordes of poor quality troops, and they will be able to deal some significant damage too, albeit suffering increased losses. Ammo restrictions apply as before, so elements won't be able to fire if they exhaust unit's ammo. However, usually only a fraction of elements gets to fire due to other multipliers that are applied, thus there are natural limits to how many elements will fire, even if the defender's multiplier will be large.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
I'm doing this in my current game with Mild Blizzard. I had over 200+ attacks in my turn. Had 30,000+ German attrition losses and almost 30,000 casualties. I'm hoping for many more casualties for turn 27 from these attaks, we shall see.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
So why do German Regiments seem to inflict substantial more losses than German Divisions in like situations?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
So why do German Regiments seem to inflict substantial more losses than German Divisions in like situations?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
I'm doing this in my current game with Mild Blizzard. I had over 200+ attacks in my turn. Had 30,000+ German attrition losses and almost 30,000 casualties. I'm hoping for many more casualties for turn 27 from these attaks, we shall see.

A small question. You do not fear to raise the morale of the enemy with so many attacks ?
Maybe there is something i'am missing, but with so many victories the enemy divisions could quickly reached 99 ?

I'am currently wondering if causing damage but raising morale of the enemy worth it.

99 morale ennemy divisions are very nasty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
I'm doing this in my current game with Mild Blizzard. I had over 200+ attacks in my turn. Had 30,000+ German attrition losses and almost 30,000 casualties. I'm hoping for many more casualties for turn 27 from these attaks, we shall see.

A small question. You do not fear to raise the morale of the enemy with so many attacks ?
Maybe there is something i'am missing, but with so many victories the enemy divisions could quickly reached 99 ?

I'am currently wondering if causing damage but raising morale of the enemy worth it.

99 morale ennemy divisions are very nasty.

Yes, he's killing his morale and manpower (and maybe some leaders who are sacked and/or executed because of loss counts), while vastly improving enemy morale (and his leaders win numbers which help them stay in charge) only to burn German manpower pool (and equipment pools to a degree) at higher rate. Manpower is the single most important factor for Germany, so this may be a good strategy. Or it may be very bad strategy, if Germans will make proper use of morale advantage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think new tactical bombers may be shown as utility aircraft if someone plays scenario with new data but old exe. I really must add a mechanism to block this, even for minor version increase.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
If you handle the soak off attacks with attaks that win & coupled with the Blizzard it works out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
If you handle the soak off attacks with attaks that win & coupled with the Blizzard it works out.

Then I'd create special Kamikaze Armies with bad leaders (who cares if they will be executed or sacked), not to hurt the stats of good leaders. But they will all still have to be attached to STAVKA, so the man at the top will still be blamed for their results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

As morale is not really morale but more "strategic organisation and manpower qualities&shape + battle efficiency doctrine", i'am wondering if it is a good thing to ever allow the increase of morale after a battle.