Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul McNeely

Your truck mounted infantry isn't that much more mobile once battle is joined as they fight on foot anyway. But yes this is true they should be able to withdraw rather than get over run by the oncoming infantry horde. If you retreated before engaging, otherwise you would have needed to counter attack to get your infantry breathing space to mount up and leave. You have only 7 combat battalions even faced with a purely infantry attack you might not be able to bugger off when you want to, as you want to, if you hang around to do major damage to the enemy. Operationally these battles would play out a lot differently then the game does them. But if you did this, the losses on the russian side would have been minimal mainly long range artillery fire and some tank shots. You got your infantry fire power in the battle so they got engaged.

The 10% bit isn't a rule, its observation. The manual makes it look like the battle plays out and then the odds get calculated. That happens but it is not as often as I would think and seem to be only when an attack fails or the defender holds in the face of the full brunt of the attackers fire power. Most of the time the units stay until about 10% of its men show up as losses then pikes, at that point the game calculates the odds and gives a result is what seems to occur. This is, as I said repeatedly, is what I have seen watching the fight, there seems to be a morale failure situation. In the worst case attacking the 369 Rgt (the number is probably wrong but it seems an independant Rgt in the German OOB) only one shot with a rifle was fired then the battle was over. On many occasions I have not seen anywhere near as much fire as should be before the battle is over, for example: I attacked the 1st Rumanian Armour after I forced it to retreat, got my tank bdes clobbered by a mixed flak battalion then had some infantry fire then the battle was over, my surving 60 tanks never shot at all. There is something else shortening the amount of fire the defender is subjected to before a retreat occurs. From observation it is rare for a unit to stand in place after it takes 10% of its "men" value in losses...with, as I said before, variance in the plus a lot more than in the minus.

Also 10% casaulties to a units total strength in men is a lot higher fraction of their front line infantry losses. A unit with 300 Rifle and 300 Support squads had 9000 men, 900 men losses is 90 rifle squads destroyed (and in reality more like 60 destroyed and another 60 damaged)...that is either 90/300 or 30% front line infantry casaulties or 120/300 or 40% front line infantry casaulties. Nothing to sneaze at.

Modified CV is determined by what you have left over at the end of the battle that isn't disrupted, damaged or destroyed. It is calculated based on the results of the firepower applied. That CV is then compared to render odds, but so far as I can by that point it is more about determining the effect of the retreat then about if there will be a retreat in a large number of cases. Frankly since the fire seems truncated there looks to be something else going on in a lot of the cases I've watched. Again as I said before this is something I can't pin down exactly and the only people who know for sure are the people who wrote the code. I freely admit this could be a misunderstanding of mine, but if it is I quite honestly don't know how to explain a lot of the retreat results I saw. In the case of my attacks I did not see anywhere near enough fire to account for all my units shooting.

2000 losses against a german division in non-blizzard weather seem excessive. I am dubious I see that much routinely. But again it depends on the exact situation so I can't comment blindly. The units may be standing their ground which can push up losses in combat, but even when the 18th Motorized with a CV of 3 blundered into a stack of 3 strong rifle divisions in a good entrenchment it suffered only 1800 men losses on a failed attack while it inflicted about 1000 on the divisons in question. I can only agree it seems a lot more than I would expect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: notenome

abulbian, though I understand your frustration I would urge you to reign in on the discourse so as to not start a flame war. Let's keep it civil or all hell breaks loose and nonsense starts to get posted.

bwheatly, you have to remember that the majority of Axis casualties in 41 were NCL (non combat losses) of which over 90% returned to their units within a month. Personally I think that non combat losses are not well enough modelled in game. I would like to see atrition doubled, but the trickleback rate raised to 7% (for the Axis, I have no clue about Soviet NCL losses or the Red Army's medical system).

ComradeP, Indeed the majority of my counterattacks would have suceeded (sp?) without the 1:1 odds bonus. However the sheer necesity of mainting a line in depth means that only a small minority of soviet units will have the luxury of training up in the rear, regardless of circumstance.

Smirfy, though the Wehrmachts performance review of SS units in France and Poland was shocked at the high casualties these units took (relative to their assignments) on the Eastern Front the SS units were more often then not given the harshest assignments, so it is very hard to say they took more casualties then regular Army units precisely because one has to compare casualties relative to the situtation. If not one will reach the same conclusion about the Guards units as well. For example: The 5th Guards Tank Army was horribly maimed at Kursk, though it ultimately suceeded in stopping an Axis breakthrough. Had it been a 'regular' Soviet Tank Army, would the losses have been any lighter?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

He had to have inflicted at least 10% losses for you to retreat, and if you are talking panzer divisions it is worth keeping in mind that you have only 4 battalions of infantry in that unit. It is not very strong on the defense for that reason alone.

The attackers had minimal mobility. Historically, it was a rarity for a Panzer division to just hang around and get clobbered by a mob of infantry. Mobility means that mob of infantry won't be able to do much, as when things don't look good, you move out at a speed that the attackers can't match. It also means that retreat losses should be far less severe, but that's not the case.

Considering that the Soviet infantry could never have caught up to my mobile losses as they started to withdraw, what would cause the significant retreat losses?

There is currently hardly any bonus for a mobile unit being mobile, aside from it having higher MP's. It doesn't really seem to matter much at all in battle. Most units seem to fight like it's WWI, and sit in place until they decide to retreat, rout or hold the attack.

I'm not seeing any tactical or operational flexibility effects at all. What I am seeing is the best mobile units the Germans being clobbered by a force primarily composed of untrained conscripts.

quote:

He had to have inflicted at least 10% losses for you to retreat

Where did you see that rule? A defender retreats if the CV result is 2:1, the manual doesn't specify any required casualty percentage.

quote:

You are correct that CV determines the end result of the battle...but you are also wrong about that.

Now I'm not. Modified CV determines the final odds and thus the result (the odds modifier increases the Soviet result if above 1:1).

quote:

Also it is possible your leader failed his retreat check as I rarely see German units suffer significantly in retreats, even when I forced a Panzer division backwards over a river I don't think it took that much in the way of losses.

I believe every good counterattack notenome made against a division or more than one division caused over 2000 losses. It seems statistically highly unlikely that all of my leaders failed their checks, if it influences things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

As Comrade has already mention in his game, I've seen the same thing with my stacks of mobile units in spring 42. I had a stack of 2 Pz Div and an SS Mot Div with a display CV def of 56. Here's some details of the defenders and attackers:


Defender (averages across 3 units)
Moral : 85
Exp (lower cause TOE bug): 75
fatigue: 35
fort level: 0
about 60k men and 350 afv?

Attacker:
4 sov rifle corps w/some art su and sappers
about 120,00 men

*air was about even

My German defenders we're displaced with about 7k loses and the attack had 9k loses. I'm just not buying that would have been realistic. Part of my issues is that large scale operations carried out by the sov in early 42 were always a disaster. The C&C issue with these sov large scale operations were very real and still existed even later in the war.

I think any intrinsic advantages that the German units (especially mobile units) with exp and training and operations planning/execution are negated already in 42. So then if it comes down to just the troop #'s game. Sov will always have the edge in 42. Also, with all the fort levels 3-4 and deep lines are created through the spring mud turns, the axis player is faced with an impossible task to do much of anything as far as a breakthrough.

Only few games (current release) of PBEM human vs human go this far into 42 have shown exactly this fact. So somebody tell me of a HUMAN vs HUMAN game were the axis have had any sort limited success in 42? I think ComradeP and notename's game is getting closer to spring 42. It sounds like he'll be facing the same problems. Does anybody have a game (after release to public) that can show something different? waiting...

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Just a note on "elite" units.

Guards are guards units because they actually proved something on the battlefield. IE, they have excellent experience and moral.

Early SS units were long on moral and short on experience/training. Both the SS and Luftwaffe ground formations took a lot of casualties because they had little or no experience/training when it came to fighting since both were outside of the German Army. SS casualties were nasty due to their high moral and poor training/experience (too gungho to not stop attacking or give up a position and too stupid to know when to stop the attack or when to retreat). Over time the SS got better at their craft, but they generally got outfought by Heer units in most cases (Kursk and Battle of the Bulge are two big examples I have seen quoted). Most of the Luftwaffe field formations (not the paratroopers or parachute infantry formations) had no clue and pretty much didn't last real long when fighting despite having good manpower material and equipment.

You are wrong and have to realize that early for axis was in Polish campaign. A lot of you are forgetting that the units or cadres of units gained a lot of experience from the Polish, French, and Balkan campaigns. The SS units as they grew later in the war were probably less experienced.. sure. But the SS units that were used in 41 and 42 on the eastern front were more that just high moral. Most, if not all, had experience from other campaigns. So once agian somebody is posting nonsense or something out of context. My unit in that battle was the 5th SS Wiking. For those that don't know, this unit fought with distinction in Aug 41 holding off several determined Sov attacks along Dniepr river.

So if you want to make vague statements about SS units not distinguishing themselves with more than just moral in 41-42, you'll just be support my view that you know nothing about the battles which were fought in that time period. I'm not any type of Nazi sympathizer, I just care about the facts and how the combat for these units should be considered and modeled in WitE.

quote:

Comrade going into the blizzard how many casualties did you have?

quote:

German players will find something new to obsess over. (You can bet this will become an object of contention in due course.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

quote:

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Just a note on "elite" units.

Guards are guards units because they actually proved something on the battlefield. IE, they have excellent experience and moral.

Early SS units were long on moral and short on experience/training. Both the SS and Luftwaffe ground formations took a lot of casualties because they had little or no experience/training when it came to fighting since both were outside of the German Army. SS casualties were nasty due to their high moral and poor training/experience (too gungho to not stop attacking or give up a position and too stupid to know when to stop the attack or when to retreat). Over time the SS got better at their craft, but they generally got outfought by Heer units in most cases (Kursk and Battle of the Bulge are two big examples I have seen quoted). Most of the Luftwaffe field formations (not the paratroopers or parachute infantry formations) had no clue and pretty much didn't last real long when fighting despite having good manpower material and equipment.

You are wrong and have to realize that early for axis was in Polish campaign. A lot of you are forgetting that the units or cadres of units gained a lot of experience from the Polish, French, and Balkan campaigns. The SS units as they grew later in the war were probably less experienced.. sure. But the SS units that were used in 41 and 42 on the eastern front were more that just high moral. Most, if not all, had experience from other campaigns. So once agian somebody is posting nonsense or something out of context. My unit in that battle was the 5th SS Wiking. For those that don't know, this unit fought with distinction in Aug 41 holding off several determined Sov attacks along Dniepr river.

So if you want to make vague statements about SS units not distinguishing themselves with more than just moral in 41-42, you'll just be support my view that you know nothing about the battles which were fought in that time period. I'm not any type of Nazi sympathizer, I just care about the facts and how the combat for these units should be considered and modeled in WitE.

Listen up idiot. I am tired of you calling people out on the boards for anything and everything if they don't agree with you. This isn't me saying this just for the heck of it. So I guess I should ignore Von Manstein's observations and just take your word for it, eh? Right.. Von Mellenthin pretty much said the same thing. They both went into the reasons why and that is the SS units at first did not have the NCO's and junior officers that had the training and experience of what to do in combat and in some cases were not that well trained. In their opinion, this led to unnecessary and heavy casualties.

A lot of the SS units were volunteer units from certain areas or had certain restrictions placed upon them. (Wiking with membership from the Nordic countries and the Hitler Youth based on age are two examples). Some were elite (the two I mentioned) and some were crap (30th SS that "fought" in France).

Thanks for your apology in advance and don't be so quick to jack someone up. They just might be right and heaven forbid, you could be wrong once in a while. It happens to all of us.

*Edit* One other thing: it was more of an observation, not something I think should change with the game, etc in regards with the SS units. The SS units are not the only units to have the issue of high moral + low experience = heavy casualties because they don't know what they are doing and are too brave to know when to stop attacks, retreat, etc. This not only applies to WW2, but instances can be pointed to throughout history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Yeah, he was specifically talking about 1942. As I told him: the Axis are supposed to be attacking then. They should not be turtling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: raizer

SS in backhand blow were in near top form.  In 41 they were average trained troops, esp in their junior leaders and ncos.  Dont forget toten got it ass waxed in france by the brits and the french dlms.  They were raw at this time.  High morale, but poorly led.  It took a long time for their sub par junior leaders to get killed off in France and Russia.  Then a steady stream of junior combat leaders  gradually filtered up the ranks.  40, 41 was a sub par period of SS units when measured against their high water mark around Khar 43 and Kursk 43.  There was a lot of costly growing pains inflicted upon the SS both by the russians and themselves.  In 41 Id take GD or any of the panzer over any SS unit.  In 43, Id still take GD...

omg and I see tillus has the popcorn lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley
I still disagree that there was anything wrong with either of those combats. :) A little more clarity on the combat resolution display of disabled/damaged units would help quell a lot of that. Sometimes things don't work out as planned. I've sure suffered through that playing as both axis and soviets. That's what makes it fun for me. I mean i dislike how the surrender isolation system works. It's silly how you can have 750k guys just surrender without germany expending one life. So why don't those 2 things even themselves out? :)

Thankfully once they fix winter, fix disabled units coming back as green instead of as close to their xp, and hopefully isolation we'll have a little bit of a better flow during the initial offensive.

quote:

Notenome, oddly enough, this entire issue of the +1 becomes irrelevant later on the war. The Soviet simply doesn't rely on marginal attacks at this stage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Bob thinks the Sovs need it during the transitional 42-3 period, Notenome. I'm agnostic on this point.

I will say this. Am presently testing a Stalingrad scenario and it would be pretty difficult to do it without this extra little bump as the Sovs. Some of the testers are having problems recreating the pocket. I managed to do it, but it took some work. This mid war Red Army isn't amazing, lacking as it does the sheer mass of artillery that comes along later. The mobile troops are largely green. Rifle corps are fairly rare. So Bob's point isn't without some basis. On the other hand, a player doing a GC can probably contrive to optimize the Red Army and get a better showing from it even during this stage. Then again, you still aren't going to get those big guns until December 1942 (and effectively until virtually 1943, since it takes several turns for freshly raised arty divisions to become combat capable.)

On the whole I tend to agree with Pieter on this issue, but it's not quite the slam dunk he believes when taking the larger view.

quote:

On the whole I tend to agree with Pieter on this issue, but it's not quite the slam dunk he believes when taking the larger view.