Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shermanny

Dense urban terrain in TOAW is better defensive terrain than any other. Even so, it's not good enough. Take some historical examples. Stalingrad, 1942: Russians hold out for months against forces that would have whipped them in the open field in a week.

quote:

Berlin, 1945: Germans hold out for two weeks against forces that were mopping the floor with them everywhere else.

quote:

Fallujah: insurgents try their luck against the U.S. Army and marines. The fight takes weeks, when if it had been fought out in the open, it would have taken less than 24 hours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shermanny

Dense urban terrain in TOAW is better defensive terrain than any other. Even so, it's not good enough. Take some historical examples. Stalingrad, 1942: Russians hold out for months against forces that would have whipped them in the open field in a week.

I'd say you're missing some of the other details here. It's not like it's one unit sitting there and holding its ground. The Russians were continuously and heavily reinforcing the city- and the Germans were advancing anyway. This despite the very frontal nature of the German attack. If the Germans had been in the open field, they would have bypassed the city and kept on rolling.

quote:

Berlin, 1945: Germans hold out for two weeks against forces that were mopping the floor with them everywhere else.

The Germans managed to concentrate a big chunk of their surviving forces in the area of Berlin. Compare the Allied capture of places like the Ruhr and Hamburg. These went off without a hitch because the Germans didn't have the strength to hold them.

quote:

Fallujah: insurgents try their luck against the U.S. Army and marines. The fight takes weeks, when if it had been fought out in the open, it would have taken less than 24 hours.

This is because of the obsessive concern Western armies have about losses.

Anyway, you may be right that this needs a review- but I think some moderation is in order. There are other factors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Night and fog...

Wherever we are posting now, it's not a place that is visible from the main TOAW page.

We were moved into oblivion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

Uh, what might be done here..... increased stacking (well, less stacking penalty) for hexes with major defensive posibilites, like fortifications and dense urban. You could fit as many troops into an open area as in were in the examples there were given for the cities, but there's only so much defensive terrain in an open area, while in dense urban and fortifications, you could pack almost any number of defenders in there and there's still good defensive terrain for everyone.

This would be the simple solution, and may well be the best solution.

DiT

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Speaking of Poland, how hard is it to take Warsaw in your scenario,

quote:

Of course, if dense urban was seriously vicious stuff, then designers would have to stop this nonsense where a hex representing an area that is perhaps only 10% built-up urban area becomes 'dense urban.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

Uh, what might be done here..... increased stacking (well, less stacking penalty) for hexes with major defensive posibilites, like fortifications and dense urban. You could fit as many troops into an open area as in were in the examples there were given for the cities, but there's only so much defensive terrain in an open area, while in dense urban and fortifications, you could pack almost any number of defenders in there and there's still good defensive terrain for everyone.

This would be the simple solution, and may well be the best solution.

DiT

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

Hmmm.... I have been helping Eric Nygaard, kinda like a playtester, with an update to Double Eagle - Rising Sun (Russo-Japanese War) and, ironic that this subject has been brought up here seperatly, as this situation exists to a serious degree in DE-RS, when it comes to the siege of Port Arthur.

I played this out once, and am doing it a second time, and I don't see things going anyways like they should.

First, the problem with fortified in dense urban not being what it should be.

Next, the Japanese have this siege artillery, and some of it has range of two and some pretty significant attack factors. But, at least from my last experience with this, bombarding at rage of two, is almost worthless. If you are lucky you will maybe inflict 1% or 2% losses, and with the way the game system is, the Russians will just replace these losses from the replacement pool.

The point here, and this applys to 2 hex ranged naval bombardment as well, is that the penalty for bombarding at range 2, is really severe, maybe a 20% or 25% modifier (my guess) to the point of making these attacks almost worthless.

Might not be too bad except, for every limited losses bombardment, you lose 20% supply, and with the supply situation besieging Port Arthur being what it is, you are lucky to get 10% back each turn. So, that means you get one bombardment attack every two turns and, that is not gonna cut it.

So, what you are obliged to do, is direct infantry attack with as much artillery as you can muster at range 1. If you fail to knock them outta a hex, then time to try the next wave. Ultimately you should be able to wear their readiness and supply down and force them outta there.

Historically, there was a long siege and I don't see this working and nothing Eric can do about it, something where the game systems need tweeking, IMO.

DiT

To repeat history in a game is to be predictable.
If you wish to learn more about EA, feel free to pop over to the EA forums Europe Aflame Forums.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shermanny

Dense urban terrain in TOAW is better defensive terrain than any other. Even so, it's not good enough. Take some historical examples. Stalingrad, 1942: Russians hold out for months against forces that would have whipped them in the open field in a week. Berlin, 1945: Germans hold out for two weeks against forces that were mopping the floor with them everywhere else. Fallujah: insurgents try their luck against the U.S. Army and marines. The fight takes weeks, when if it had been fought out in the open, it would have taken less than 24 hours. In TOAW scenarios, nothing of the sort is possible when dense urban terrain is represented by clusters of 1, 2, ...7 hexes. Events unfold at a pace more representative of what can happen in combat through forests or marshes.

The very best prepared fortifications, as at Metz or Iwo Jima, could be represented the same way.

Across time and independent of who is fighting, the defensive advantages of dense urban are far greater than the game design allows for.

Fairly simple changes might go a long way toward greater realism. Allow defenders in dense urban to "retreat" without having to give ground. Only when they'd "retreated" some number of times would they finally have to vacate the hex or evaporate if there was nowhere to go. This number could be 1, 2, or for "capital city dense urban", more. Also, greatly reduce the effectiveness of indirect-fire artillery. Divide it by 10, or for capital city dense urban, more. Zero out the direct-fire effectiveness of artillery that requires transport. Allow SP artillery to participate at its usual strength; history records that SP guns firing at point-blank range have been quite effective in urban warfare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeadInThrench

Nonetheless, did almost negligible damage when I bombarded at a range of 2 the last time I got to Port Arthur,

quote:

the supply situation, will only allow like one bombardment every other turn