Combat odds manually

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Combat odds manually

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] >> Decisive Campaigns: Ardennes Offensive >> Combat odds manually

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Combat odds manually - 1/3/2022 1:25:02 PM

vege1

Posts: 22
Joined: 8/19/2021
Status: offline

I have had this situation that I had known that the enemy unit in the hex is most likely an armoured battalion (I was 95% sure as I had seen it there in the previous turn). However, the enemy was sitting in a heavy forest tile and I was not able to gather sufficient recon to reveal the unit this turn (I just saw the question mark in the unit card). I wanted to move the enemy away from the hex, so I planned for an attack. My combat odds for an attack from three sides supported by antitank guns and hetzers were 8:1 in my favor. So, I launched the attack, as I was confident with those odds. The result was a complete disaster, 400 men lost and not a single tank taken out. I realized that the game probably gave me those odds as if I was going to fight a basic infantry unit.

So, I got this idea that could it be possible to manually set the enemy type/strength when the enemy unit is not recognized to estimate the combat odds more accurately? Like nothing too fancy, but just pick a standard unit type from a few possible ones and then input the combat strength (of course kampfgruppen could not really be well estimated, but just telling the game that it is an armoured unit not infantry would already help). This would be useful for situation when you can make an educated guess about the enemy forces, but the game gives you unrealistic combat odds, as it does not share the same information as you do as a player.

Post #: 1

RE: Combat odds manually - 1/3/2022 3:02:05 PM

Jagger2002

Posts: 674
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline

As a side note, it seems armor without infantry may be too powerful in forests. Certain environments are very dangerous for armor if they lack infantry protection but I am not really seeing armor w/o infantry suffering penalties in low or close visibility situations. They are still very powerful.

(in reply to vege1)

Post #: 2

RE: Combat odds manually - 1/3/2022 3:29:02 PM

vege1

Posts: 22
Joined: 8/19/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagger2002

As a side note, it seems armor without infantry may be too powerful in forests. Certain environments are very dangerous for armor if they lack infantry protection but I am not really seeing armor w/o infantry suffering penalties in low or close visibility situations. They are still very powerful.

This was also my intuition that tanks cannot maneuver and open fire at long distances when they are in heavy forest, where visibility is very limited. Of course tanks can be concealed and used as limited mobility bunkers, but still my expectation was that infantry attack with AT-guns could at least challenge them. It would also make the placement of tanks more interesting.

Now you almost always want to conceal them in forests (minimize the damage from air/arty attacks) without any penalty. Making tanks vulnerable (to some degree) against infantry attacks would make it an interesting trade-off whether you want to protect them against against indirect fire or close quarter attacks. I like this idea.

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 3

RE: Combat odds manually - 1/3/2022 3:40:34 PM

Vic

Posts: 8262
Joined: 5/17/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagger2002

As a side note, it seems armor without infantry may be too powerful in forests. Certain environments are very dangerous for armor if they lack infantry protection but I am not really seeing armor w/o infantry suffering penalties in low or close visibility situations. They are still very powerful.

Armour suffers -50% attacking into heavy forest and -32% defending heavy forest. But i hear what you say. I'll give it some thought. It might be a good idea to nudge things a little bit more.

best wishes,
Vic

_____________________________

Visit www.vrdesigns.net for the latest news, polls, screenshots and blogs on Shadow Empire, Decisive Campaigns and Advanced Tactics

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 4

RE: Combat odds manually - 1/3/2022 3:41:16 PM

Jagger2002

Posts: 674
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline

quote:

Now you almost always want to conceal them in forests (minimize the damage from air/arty attacks) without any penalty. Making tanks vulnerable (to some degree) against infantry attacks would make it an interesting trade-off whether you want to protect them against against indirect fire or close quarter attacks. I like this idea.

Tanks are very useful offensively everywhere. The problem is their vulnerability is higher under conditions in which infantry can easily approach to close range. Friendly infantry keeps enemy infantry at distance and reduces that risk but my general impression is that close/low visibility armor risk may not be modeled. Although I haven't tested to confirm.

(in reply to vege1)

Post #: 5

RE: Combat odds manually - 1/3/2022 3:48:22 PM

Jagger2002

Posts: 674
Joined: 5/20/2002
Status: offline

quote:

Armour suffers -50% attacking into heavy forest and -32% defending heavy forest. But i hear what you say. I'll give it some thought. It might be a good idea to nudge things a little bit more.

Maybe give low recce values to tanks? Tanks by themselves have difficulty locating targets but if targets identified, they are very powerful almost everywhere. Infantry provide the recce and tanks the hitting power? Would encourage tanks and recce/infantry working together. Although that idea wouldn't cover the defensive vulnerability of tanks without infantry when in low visibility and/or close quarter type environments.

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 6